Just looking for some general discussion and, more importantly, ideas.  How does Cleveland increase its population?.  Cleveland has many "world class" features;  Food scene, arts (museums, Playhouse Square, orchestra), healthcare (Cleveland Clinic, UH, Medical Mart), transportation (Rapid, airport that is still a hub, Amtrak stop on two routes, new container shipping route via St. Lawrence Seaway, turnpike and multiple interstates), and many other attributes.  But how does Cleveland seriously turn all this into a "world class" city with a population to match?  Revamping the tax code? Corporate welfare to attract any business willing to listen?  Immigration?  Some of these are already being discussed or organization are working towards, but elected officials and leaders need "outside the box" ideas to seriously consider.  You could say it would be a gamble, but with all the features this city has, the likelihood to suceed is in the favor of Cleveland.  Any thoughts?

 

 

I would argue that the city needs to now "stay in the box".  With the convention center and casino now open, we will have the stream of visitors to provide customers to downtown restaurants and cultural amenities.  Those things are drawing peoples interest in living downtown.  The growth of downtown and inner neighborhoods population I suspect has stopped the bleeding, and we are a growing town again.

 

In order to keep people here, we need the basics, good schools, good jobs, safe neighborhoods.  Just as important as projects are that enhance quality of life (which we get exited about), so are projects that enable job creation (which we sometimes get less exited about).  I don't think there is a magic bullet, just hard work and patience. 

 

 

Stop swinging for the fences and try to just hit some singles.... let the homers come when a modest swing makes exceptional contact. 

 

Focus on quality over quantity (in terms of both jobs and people).

 

Regionalize.

 

Invest in the core.

I agree with most of the two previous posts. However, if we aren't swinging for the fences we will be left behind. "If you aren't growing, you're dead." Looking at Census data, cities like Austin, Ft. Worth (not Dallas), Charlotte, and Nashville added 25k, 16k, 18k, and 12k people in one year (2011-2012) respectively.  I would consider these comprable cities.  We have the core in place, and the necessary foundation to sustain an influx of people.  In the end it comes down to jobs, and how does the NE Ohio region make itself more attractive to jobs?  Three of the four cities listed above are in income tax-free states. Is that a major factor?  Does our lovely weather affect corporate decisions? Is it the labor force education and experience, or lack thereof?

Those are not comparable cities

 

And, keep in mind, if you don't want to create a massive deficit in the State budget, elimination of the income tax has to be accompanied by massive increases in other forms of taxes.  Many states with no state income tax and which can't make up the difference via extraction/sale of natural resources, have high property taxes and very high consumption taxes for things like gas, milk, liquor, etc.

I think they are bunting but think they are hitting home runs. In reality what the city views as singles are actually home runs. Avoid major fix all projects such as the medical mart/convention center/hotel, stadiums etc. and instead invest that money in developments that actually promote population/job growth. If all of that money was used to help fund projects to fill in the warehouse district parking lots, convert buildings, and increase residential and Class A office space development downtown and in the neighborhoods we would see a much healthier city IMO.

Given that the schools are a long way off from being "fixed," I see the most effective strategy is job growth amongst recent college graduates.  They are more likely to settle down in the city, for at least their 20's, and contribute to the tax base and housing growth.    Health care and biotech would be at the front of that list. 

Baseball analogy? You need a team/city capable of hitting singles and home runs!

 

I don't care how it's done, keep improving the schools. We won't attract "normal" folks until the schools reach a certain level of credibility.

 

Now to swing for the fences. To regain population asap I'd love to see Cleveland become a world amnesty center.

 

We have a city built for millions, with huge tracts to be reclaimed and reused. We have a significant number of political refugees all over the world who need a safe place to start over. It's an uphill proposition, politically and logistically. Yet there are certainly public and private resources that can make this happen. And this is the USA - it's not like there isn't precedent for this. It's a successful model!

Besides systemically reclaiming the city block-by-block (ideally through CDC's), the "waving a magic wand" solution is fixing the school.  By fix, I mean giving the ability of a new relocating family the choice to send their kids to a Cleveland public school and not immediately have to look to a suburb.

 

The return of middle class families would be the turning point of population gain.

Besides systemically reclaiming the city block-by-block (ideally through CDC's), the "waving a magic wand" solution is fixing the school.  By fix, I mean giving the ability of a new relocating family the choice to send their kids to a Cleveland public school and not immediately have to look to a suburb.

 

Even today, nobody "has" to look to a suburb, particularly at the elementary level.  There are a number of good options in the city, but conventional wisdom either ignores them or hasn't caught up yet.  Surfohio put it much better, IMO- increase the number of those good school options, and the district will gain credibility

Singles are the key.  Make contact.  Doubles and home runs will happen.

 

Build on areas which are doing well.  Block by block if necessary.  Successes will grow together and build critical mass.

 

Maintain, expand, and evolve the transportation infrastructure.  Both transit and private (cars and trucks).  Build the OC to allow better access to the Clinic and UC.

 

Regionalize smartly.  Don't reward cumbersome or inefficient governments just because they have high populations.  Indeed, embrace the sprawl and recognize that people prefer to be around those who share their values.  We're actually one part of the nation that can "afford" to sprawl, due to our water and energy resources.

 

Identify developmental roadblocks on a sensible basis.  Work towards alleviating the effects of crime and CERCLA on the inner city.  Make industrial sprawl more expensive, facilitate infill.

 

Focus on jobs, not population.  The former will lead to the latter.

I don't care how it's done, keep improving the schools. We won't attract "normal" folks until the schools reach a certain level of credibility.

 

What's "normal"? A normal person doesn't exist. Nobody falls into the median/average on all metrics.

 

If you mean households with children, two-thirds of households in the USA are without school-age children. On that score, Cleveland can attract them if it can offer housing, jobs, education, services, amenities that other metros offer, and it needs to do it with its own brand by celebrating what it is and not trying to be something it is not. Cleveland isn't competing with its suburbs. It's competing with other cities nationwide (and even globally) in its peer group.

I see 45% of HH with children, a little more than your 33%. I would expect that any region that wishes to grow, and thrive, would want to offer amenities that appeal to that percentage of the population.

 

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0064.pdf

 

Otherwise, why are we even worried about Cleveland Schools? Families can go elsewhere, and the void will be filled with college grads and empty nesters.

 

Facetiousness notwithstanding, I agree with Surf that improving the educational opportunities for residents of the city is priority #1, and that starts with children, but continues into adulthood. No one is moving their company here if there isn't an engaged and skilled workforce to fill its employement needs.

chase immigration in trouble spots of the world and step up to lobby uncle sam to help with it. a little syria neighborhood would be nice to have.

 

I see 45% of HH with children, a little more than your 33%. I would expect that any region that wishes to grow, and thrive, would want to offer amenities that appeal to that percentage of the population.

 

This analysis shows 33.5%

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

 

And this is just children, not school-age children which is an even smaller number. Plus, that number is more relevant to the discussion here.

I don't care how it's done, keep improving the schools. We won't attract "normal" folks until the schools reach a certain level of credibility.

 

What's "normal"? A normal person doesn't exist. Nobody falls into the median/average on all metrics.

 

If you mean households with children, two-thirds of households in the USA are without school-age children. On that score, Cleveland can attract them if it can offer housing, jobs, education, services, amenities that other metros offer, and it needs to do it with its own brand by celebrating what it is and not trying to be something it is not. Cleveland isn't competing with its suburbs. It's competing with other cities nationwide (and even globally) in its peer group.

 

What percent will never have kids?  Do you want people who are just going to leave when they have them?

IMO, people follow jobs. If you bring jobs, people will follow. Some of them will end up in the City and others in the suburbs. But people won't come to the area at all if jobs don't come first. Job training alone won't bring people here, in fact it may just give people the tools to be able to move away to where the jobs are. The schools may make those with kids choose the suburbs over the city, but schools won't improve until there are significant numbers of middle class families moving to the city, which won't happen till there are significant numbers of middle class families moving to the region, which won't happen till there are significant numbers of jobs hiring. Refugees? They may be brought here, but if they don't have jobs when they arrive, they'll move on to other parts of the country. It's all about the jobs.

 

So the question then becomes how to create jobs. There is no home run in this department. Tax changes might be a single. Small business loans might be another. Improving the port and the rail roads is a potential single (or double). The medical mart and convention center could be a single too.

What percent will never have kids?  Do you want people who are just going to leave when they have them?

 

Of course not, although many do. It's unfortunate because there are many good schools in the city -- a few are public, some are charter, some are parochial and some are hybrids. Fact is, if you want a good education in the city of Cleveland, you can find it. Far too many parents don't even try to find them for reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread.

You need families. Trying to build a cycle of young people living in the city, moving away when they have children, and moving back when they are 50 wont work. Obviously they are not the majority, but they are a crucial group. What are families attracted to? Good housing, strong schools, safety, youth sport leagues, and community amenities (pools, playgrounds, parks, etc.)

 

Now what do we lack and what do we strive in?

 

Housing - poor. Most(Clearly not all!) of the housing in the city is old, run down, outdated, and filled with lead paint, etc. New for sale housing IS needed and we have seen some on a small scale in very few neighborhoods.

Schools - poor. Although there are a few options, at a city wide level the schools are in terrible shape.

Safety - poor.

Youth Sports - ? ? ? ? Im not familiar with? Are there a lot of programs in the city?  Can you easily sign your kid up to an active soccer, basketball, baseball, softball, football, etc. league like you can in the suburbs?

Amenities - ? ? ? Im not too familiar with this category either. Downtown obviously lacks, but do the neighborhoods have good parks? I know Tremont and Little Italy do, but what about the rest of the city. And yes, Cleveland has more that 4 neighborhoods which some seem to forget.

 

Right now there is not a lot to attract families to the city, and that is why we are struggling.

 

What we are good at (IN A FEW NEIGHBORHOODS) are restaurants and bars. This mostly attracts a younger crowd and arent on the top of many families lists.

I see 45% of HH with children, a little more than your 33%. I would expect that any region that wishes to grow, and thrive, would want to offer amenities that appeal to that percentage of the population.

 

This analysis shows 33.5%

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm

 

And this is just children, not school-age children which is an even smaller number. Plus, that number is more relevant to the discussion here.

 

I don't want to derail the thread, but you're quoting a number that's based on the author's analysis of the census. I quoted a direct link to the census from 2010. I don't know how the author came up with the 33% figure. Maybe it's relevant, but without any backup discussing his analysis protocol, I have to wonder about its verifiability.

 

With the exception of those under the age of 3, all children are school age children (including pre-school). I would posit (my own opinion) that anyone with a kid 3 or under is still thinking about schools, parks, daycare, activities, and other 'family amenities' when they make their choice for living arrangements.

 

I don't want this to come off saying we should plan the city primarily for the benefit of families with children, but you can't just dismiss this group either. Well, I suppose you can, but likely to the city's detriment.

Immigrants. Make endless, concentrated efforts to bring in enormous communities of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, African, Arab, Spanish, Eastern European, Slav, Mexican, South/Latin American, Irish....yadda yadda. Fascilitate entire immigration process - make it easy for them to get here and rebuild their lives so our neighborhoods can better mirror or surpass what we had pre-1970s. Cleveland should be the epicenter for all immigrants worldwide: come to us, we want you.

 

Give them homes, access to entire neighborhoods, conditioned on their staying in the city or region.

 

They'll provide functional, two-parent households (as did their predecessors in better years), which leads to functional neighborhoods, which leads to thriving cities.

 

Frankly, and barring World War III, another Industrial Revolution, or a massive water drought, there are no other feasible home runs. Immigrants - that's it.

Hate to be a downer, but "better schools" is an ambition, not a strategy. And most people don't directly care about school quality, they just proxy for it by looking at the student body, so the goal kind of begs the question. If the challenge is to attract middle class families, the best we can realistically shoot for in our current situation is finding a fair-ish way to allow middle class/high achieving families to cluster in a subset of schools.  I think the district already does this to some extent through choice and charters, but note that these cut against the possibility of strong neighborhood schools, which is a tool other cities use to retain families.

 

Also, I'd love to hear from some city resident with kids.  My hunch is that these amenities folks are calling for already exist in a lot of city neighborhoods in one form or another.

Youth Sports - ? ? ? ? Im not familiar with? Are there a lot of programs in the city?  Can you easily sign your kid up to an active soccer, basketball, baseball, softball, football, etc. league like you can in the suburbs?

Amenities - ? ? ? Im not too familiar with this category either. Downtown obviously lacks, but do the neighborhoods have good parks? I know Tremont and Little Italy do, but what about the rest of the city. And yes, Cleveland has more that 4 neighborhoods which some seem to forget.

 

(Sorry mods!) This is likely a derail but I don't know where else to answer you, but here's my recent perspectives.

 

From the early 80s until the early/mid 2000s, Cleveland had a large, summer youth Tennis program (10 weeks) for kids 8-18 (called Cleveland NJTL) completely free of charge. I don't know how it was funded, but for several summers, my siblings and I would go to the tennis court down the street, practice 4 days a week for an hour or so in the morning, and we'd spend Friday mornings at Gordon Park playing other kids from all over the city - Humphrey [collinwood], luke easter [MLK and kinsman], Lonnie Burton, Rockefeller, Archmere and Plymouth [Old Brooklyn], Impett and Jefferson [West park] all fielded teams. The instructors were college-aged kids (it was paid) home from the summer, nearly all had played in NJTL growing up.Looking back, it was really interesting and was quite diverse, kids from nearly every city neighborhood and was a damn good summer activity for 10 weeks. There were likely several hundred participants each summer.

 

In the 90s as an adolescent I remember the city had rec leagues for basketball, baseball, indoor soccer, football, based out of the recreational centers. I don't know how many kids still participate in them or how active they are...

 

Some neighborhoods also have their own separate recreational leagues for kids as well: Old Brooklyn has a softball one (played at Lowe Park) and Ohio City started one just in the past 3-4 years to attract and maintain families in the neighborhood.

 

Just my impression and understanding from my nephew who lives in Barberton, but some of these rec leagues (even in the burbs) have had decreased participation as kids' sports have been more selective and competitive and field private 'club' teams (a la AAU) based on talent. 

 

For the parks: most neighborhoods have parks and green space! Just look at Luke Easter and Lowe Park, likely the two largest ones (based on area) in the City of Cleveland. As a young professional, I hate having to drive to University Heights, Northridgeville or Strongsville for a damn rec game (working on getting my frisbee league hold games in the city, we finally started having pickup games on the mall :)) - but there's no available places with 4 adjacent football fields to have concurrent games :(

 

Gordon Park and Clark Park are also quite large as well although Clark's fields are occupied by adults at night time for rec leagues.  A few parks that I went to growing up - Plymouth and Lowe had their basketball courts removed in the 90s (likely because of real or perceived safety issues) and other parks likely have as well.

As far as schools, most of us that live in the suburbs know that there are workarounds to getting your kids a decent education in the city, but if I'm looking for a neighborhood in the area one of the first places I'm going to look is at the district as a whole. If the district as a whole is highly rated, then I don't have to worry as much about going out of my way to make sure my kids end up in the right school/class/program.

IMO, people follow jobs. If you bring jobs, people will follow. Some of them will end up in the City and others in the suburbs. But people won't come to the area at all if jobs don't come first. Job training alone won't bring people here, in fact it may just give people the tools to be able to move away to where the jobs are. The schools may make those with kids choose the suburbs over the city, but schools won't improve until there are significant numbers of middle class families moving to the city, which won't happen till there are significant numbers of middle class families moving to the region, which won't happen till there are significant numbers of jobs hiring. Refugees? They may be brought here, but if they don't have jobs when they arrive, they'll move on to other parts of the country. It's all about the jobs.

 

So the question then becomes how to create jobs. There is no home run in this department. Tax changes might be a single. Small business loans might be another. Improving the port and the rail roads is a potential single (or double). The medical mart and convention center could be a single too.

 

All true.  Negotiating some sort of CERCLA exemption for more distressed parts of town would be big as well.

 

Jobs are the key.  Don't worry about more population per se and please stay away from immigrants who will not assimilate at least to the degree the Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and Palestinians did.  We need tax producers, not tax consumers, and that's business and industrious immigrants.

i thought the coveted demographic was DINKs (dual income, no kids) since paying for a kid's education for 13 years is a liability to taxpayers

 

 

So the consensus is more jobs and better schools?  Quick.... somebody email a link to this thread over to City Hall pronto!  I kid... but seriously, I like the immigrant ideas.  Arguably, that is what made us a mega-city back in our prime.

 

To comment on the schools, however, I think schools fall firmly into the "egg" category.  Good schools follow good communities and bad schools follow bad communities.

I had dinner recently with a transit-oriented development planner from Toronto. When I asked where all their jobs are coming from, he replied "Immigrants." I was expecting him to say that the immigrants were coming to fill all the new jobs Toronto was producing. But no, the immigrants are welcomed, supported (general education on laws/regulations, how to get business loans, find housing, etc) and they are the ones creating the jobs. Thus, immigrants are their own reward.

 

Similarly, if you want better schools, get better parents. Too many parents are not involved in their children's education. When they are involved, kids learn. I'll never forget the story I wrote for Sun about a young, impoverished mother in Cleveland's Old Brooklyn neighborhood whose daughter went to Lincoln West High School. After her janitorial job, she took her daughter to the library to help her with her homework (it was also better heated/air-conditioned than their apartment). She earned top grades, was encouraged to apply to Harvard University and was accepted! Despite a partial scholarship, she couldn't afford to attend. So the neighborhood set up a fund and the donations poured in. So she went to Harvard. The reason why is because of her mother. She didn't view a public school as cheap day care or pseudo parent. I'll bet if you ask every Cleveland parent with a student in school "who is the most important person in their child's education?" the most common answers will be "the teacher" or "the principal" -- not "a parent." Until that culture changes, I don't care how much you spend on the school system.

 

Better parents make schools better. Period.

Better parents make schools better. Period.

 

Can I get an AMEN?

 

Seriously.  If you've never spent any time in a Cleveland Public high school, I encourage you to find a way for a visit.  Its a wonder any kids make it out with an education.  Non-stop distractions.  Truly sad.

Communities, more specifically CDCs, can also attract quality schools.

 

 

north collinwood residents launch effort to attract quality intergenerational school

 

UPDATE: The boards of The Intergenerational School and Near West Intergenerational School endorsed the Collinwood Intergenerational School project this week and voted to form a new board.

 

http://www.freshwatercleveland.com/devnews/tiscollinwood121913.aspx

All this talk made my realize I knew almost nothing about immigration and its economic impact  So...I found this debate on IntelligenceSquared, a debate program featured on NPR and sponsored by Vanity Fair, about the economic and social effects of immigration.

 

It's pretty long but if you have time and are interested - I highly recommend watching it.

 

The motion is "Don't Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses" on which opponents argue for or against.

 

Debate:

Is there a real debate? Polish and Slavs in Slavic Village and Newburgh Hts, Hungarians in Buckeye, Italians in Big and then Little Italy, Irish in the near west side and Flats, Germans and Ukranians in Tremont, Slovenians in Collinwood, Asians in multiple Chinatowns, plus Vietnamese and Croations and other ethnic groups.

 

Thank god for them. Thank god we wanted the poor and masses; it worked out for us and them. What a glorious past and city it must have been.

 

Another mass migration here is the only realistic home run, since all those other home runs discussed - we need more jobs, better schools - will never happen with the current population here. Bandaids sure but not much more than that. Gotta start over.

Cleveland's West Side to have a high-performing high school: an early college high school run by Bard College

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – The Cleveland school district will start a West Side counterpart in the fall to the East Side’s Early College High School, the region’s highest-scoring school on state tests.

 

The new school, which will specialize in college preparation and having students earn early credits for college, will be created in partnership with New York's Bard College. Students will be able to graduate from high school with an associates degree from Bard and ideally have 60 credit hours from Bard that will transfer to other schools.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/clevelands_west_side_to_have_a.html#incart_river_default

Is there a real debate? Polish and Slavs in Slavic Village and Newburgh Hts, Hungarians in Buckeye, Italians in Big and then Little Italy, Irish in the near west side and Flats, Germans and Ukranians in Tremont, Slovenians in Collinwood, Asians in multiple Chinatowns, plus Vietnamese and Croations and other ethnic groups.

 

Thank god for them. Thank god we wanted the poor and masses; it worked out for us and them. What a glorious past and city it must have been.

 

Another mass migration here is the only realistic home run, since all those other home runs discussed - we need more jobs, better schools - will never happen with the current population here. Bandaids sure but not much more than that. Gotta start over.

 

Well stated.  Contrary to the conservative talking head line of thinking, most immigrants are here to work (and work the jobs that Americans refuse to do).  They are not here to collect wellfare or game the system.  They are doing the work for the Americans who are gaming the system.   

^Conservatives don't have a problem with immigrants.  They just don't like Mexicans.

^Conservatives don't have a problem with immigrants.  They just don't like Mexicans.

 

We don't like illegal aliens being here.  It's probable that most of them are Mexicans, but the issue is that when people come here illegally, we lose control of who is here.  Said control is a fundamental right of any nation.

Is there a real debate? Polish and Slavs in Slavic Village and Newburgh Hts, Hungarians in Buckeye, Italians in Big and then Little Italy, Irish in the near west side and Flats, Germans and Ukranians in Tremont, Slovenians in Collinwood, Asians in multiple Chinatowns, plus Vietnamese and Croations and other ethnic groups.

 

Thank god for them. Thank god we wanted the poor and masses; it worked out for us and them. What a glorious past and city it must have been.

 

Another mass migration here is the only realistic home run, since all those other home runs discussed - we need more jobs, better schools - will never happen with the current population here. Bandaids sure but not much more than that. Gotta start over.

 

Right on!  Who needs to analyze real issues?  This worked well 100 years ago during a completely different economic time - therefore everything will go the same today.  Silly me this is so simple!

**THIS IS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE: PLEASE MAKE YOUR POINTS OR COUNTERPOINTS WITHOUT MOCKING OR INSULTING OTHER FORUM MEMBERS****

 

This thread has not crossed the line, but was getting close to it. 

 

 

Back to regularly scheduled postulating

 

 

^ If that was directed at me - I'm sorry.  I was looking forward to discussing the issue on its merits and felt like it got dismissed outright.  Considering its importance, I feel like it should be discussed.

 

So...let me tell you my thoughts on the video I posted.

 

I originally thought immigration might be somewhat of a silver bullet for some of Cleveland's neighborhoods but I was interested in an argument the side for the motion made (against unbridled immigration). 

They brought up the point that the immigration in the late 1800s and early 1900s worked well for the immigrants and America because we were in the throes of the industrial revolution.  American industry was desperate for low skilled workers and low skilled immigrants were desperate for American jobs - this resulted, of course, in a win-win for everyone.  Able bodied immigrants were able to earn living wages and our great American cities (Cleveland) were born.

 

The point was then made that we are now in incredibly different economic times where low skilled jobs neither exist in great abundance nor pay living wages.  With "real" unemployment around 10% nationally and disproportionately affecting lower skilled/educated people, the jobs past immigrant generations were able to take advantage of no longer exist.  So...the mostly low skilled newcomers and the existing labor market are greatly mismatched.

 

The side for the motion (against unbridled immigration) argued that we should prioritize higher skilled immigrants such as graduates of American universities.  One of the debaters said "We can accept the cream of the crop and we should."

 

Of course this is theory and good data could wash it all away.  Unfortunately, both sides could not agree on basic statistical evidence about the impact immigrants have on cities.  The side for the motion said most immigrants consume more public benefits than they produce through tax revenue given their exemption from income tax and other taxes.  The other side said almost the exact opposite and argued that immigrants pay more taxes than they consume and stimulate local economies.  She also cited evidence that immigrants open more businesses than Americans, a statement I've heard many times before.

 

Of course, I thought the statistics were the most important piece of the debate but alas, the opponents were at an impasse.  Therefore, I am not really able to form an informed opinion.

^Conservatives don't have a problem with immigrants.  They just don't like Mexicans.

 

We don't like illegal aliens being here.  It's probable that most of them are Mexicans, but the issue is that when people come here illegally, we lose control of who is here.  Said control is a fundamental right of any nation.

 

I just had this debate with my mother the other day:

 

When the Irish, Germans, Jews, etc were arriving from Europe, they lied about having family here, changed their names, hid felonies, etc etc etc---all to gain access to this great land.  If they only had to get across a land border or river, they would have hopped a fence or waded through a river just like the Mexicans.  They were seeking opportunity, and risked everything to get here--even if it meant their arrival was subject to "less than truthful" standards.   

 

Do we need immigration laws and standards?    Absolutely.  But it's absurd to think that some poor field worker wouldn't risk life and limb to come pick tomatoes for you.   

Since most of this discussion should be in the Cleveland immigration thread but isn't, I will repost an article I posted over there:

 

 

Interesting idea from Michigan's governor to bring immigrants to Detroit. I would like to see something like this in Cleveland.

http://nation.time.com/2014/01/24/michigan-governor-to-washington-detroit-needs-immigrants/?iid=us-main-lead

 

 

^Conservatives don't have a problem with immigrants.  They just don't like Mexicans.

 

We don't like illegal aliens being here.  It's probable that most of them are Mexicans, but the issue is that when people come here illegally, we lose control of who is here.  Said control is a fundamental right of any nation.

 

I just had this debate with my mother the other day:

 

When the Irish, Germans, Jews, etc were arriving from Europe, they lied about having family here, changed their names, hid felonies, etc etc etc---all to gain access to this great land.  If they only had to get across a land border or river, they would have hopped a fence or waded through a river just like the Mexicans.  They were seeking opportunity, and risked everything to get here--even if it meant their arrival was subject to "less than truthful" standards.   

 

Do we need immigration laws and standards?    Absolutely.  But it's absurd to think that some poor field worker wouldn't risk life and limb to come pick tomatoes for you.   

 

Good points, but there's a couple other things to consider.  One is that we had an actual economic need for masses and the space to put them.  That need, I suspect, will come back into play in the next 20 to 25 years, but it's not here yet. 

 

The other is assimilation:  even when the immigrants of a hundred years ago did not assimilate right away, they firmly intended that their kids and grandkids would.  We need to be able to restrict immigration to the people who feel likewise, and keep out those who simply want to bring their culture here and expect us to be the ones doing all the adapting.

 

They want to leave where they are coming from for a reason.

Good points, but there's a couple other things to consider.  One is that we had an actual economic need for masses and the space to put them.  That need, I suspect, will come back into play in the next 20 to 25 years, but it's not here yet. 

 

Except that Canada in general and Toronto in particular shows that when you draw immigrants to your city, they create their own jobs. It throws on its head the argument that you have to create the jobs first.

The other is assimilation:  even when the immigrants of a hundred years ago did not assimilate right away, they firmly intended that their kids and grandkids would.  We need to be able to restrict immigration to the people who feel likewise, and keep out those who simply want to bring their culture here and expect us to be the ones doing all the adapting.[/color]

 

I know plenty of Irish, Italians, Greeks, etc. who are still maintain the culture and heritage of their homeland, even though their family has been here for generations.  Your argument doesn't hold water in the slightest.  Do you honestly, putting all hatred aside, believe that mexican immigrants want to (a) bring their culture here as all immigrants do; and (b) expect us to be all the ones to do all the adapting?  How do you possibly reach that conclusion?  And you consistently fail to understand the concept of a melting pot.  But, then again, I suppose there has always been a very vocal minority of Americans who don't like the idea of a melting pot.

Immigrants go where there are jobs.  If we want immigrants we need to be hiring.

Yes and no. Immigrants mainly come because they have no future in their countries, and see more potential opportunity in the US. If I may be so bold, and I shall, I believe many/most/all immigrants' children would fill our currently crappy-with-exceptions inner city schools with a desperate hunger to excel. They would raise the bar for current students, increase neighborhood safety as vacant homes/properties are filled again, develop shops again, etc. The troubled Cleveland kids would be utterly outnumbered and the stable ones/kids skirting the line would have a chance after this massive migration. Now we havehave thousands of immigrant children, so many of whom are thirsty, craving to learn. Taking nothing for granted. That kind of momentum is contagious.

 

And there is your home run. Relax immigration laws, facilitate immediate property ownership, market campaigns in countries throughout the Middle East, China, Africa, East Europe, Ireland, Africa, and wherever else there are huge existing and potential migration patterns.

 

Forget the xenophobes saying "They Took R Jerbs." Forget the race-baiters saying "What, we're not good enough?" That's just empty noise, nonsense drivel. Immigrants are a grand slam

Yes and no. Immigrants mainly come because they have no future in their countries, and see more potential opportunity in the US. If I may be so bold, and I shall, I believe many/most/all immigrants' children would fill our currently crappy-with-exceptions inner city schools with a desperate hunger to excel. They would raise the bar for current students, increase neighborhood safety as vacant homes/properties are filled again, develop shops again, etc. The troubled Cleveland kids would be utterly outnumbered and the stable ones/kids skirting the line would have a chance after this massive migration. Now we havehave thousands of immigrant children, so many of whom are thirsty, craving to learn. Taking nothing for granted. That kind of momentum is contagious.

 

And there is your home run. Relax immigration laws, facilitate immediate property ownership, market campaigns in countries throughout the Middle East, China, Africa, East Europe, Ireland, Africa, and wherever else there are huge existing and potential migration patterns.

 

Forget the xenophobes saying "They Took R Jerbs." Forget the race-baiters saying "What, we're not good enough?" That's just empty noise, nonsense drivel. Immigrants are a grand slam

 

Yep. Dear America & Cleveland: open your doors and arms.

The other is assimilation:  even when the immigrants of a hundred years ago did not assimilate right away, they firmly intended that their kids and grandkids would.  We need to be able to restrict immigration to the people who feel likewise, and keep out those who simply want to bring their culture here and expect us to be the ones doing all the adapting.[/color]

 

I know plenty of Irish, Italians, Greeks, etc. who are still maintain the culture and heritage of their homeland, even though their family has been here for generations.  Your argument doesn't hold water in the slightest.  Do you honestly, putting all hatred aside, believe that mexican immigrants want to (a) bring their culture here as all immigrants do; and (b) expect us to be all the ones to do all the adapting?  How do you possibly reach that conclusion?  And you consistently fail to understand the concept of a melting pot.  But, then again, I suppose there has always been a very vocal minority of Americans who don't like the idea of a melting pot.

 

The melting pot analogy has always been inaccurate, as has the “salad bowl” that multiculturalists advocate.  Everyone contributes to the base of the stew, though in spots the separate ingredients can be found, to a degree.

 

Assimilation of the various ethnic groups took (and takes) time, but there has always been the focus on eventually doing so, at least economically and politically.  I’m not sure it exists with the Mexican community and in particular with the illegal portion of same. 

 

The big stumbling point is English.  The older immigrant groups all recognized the importance of learning English, and this was key to their assimilation.  It sometimes seems like the Mexican immigrants think that if there’s enough of them, they don’t need to learn English.  This is a dangerous mistake, because it forms a separatist community.  Unfortunately, it creates a need for “leaders” in order to deal with the nation as a whole.  It can also spread as other immigrants wonder “why do we have to learn it if they don’t?”.

 

^BS.  You haven't a clue...and the more you post the more evident it is. 

Im not sure it exists with the Mexican community and in particular with the illegal portion of same. 

 

Probably because they are relegated to hiding in the shadows of the more "assimilated" latino communities.