Operation Catapult at Mers El Kebir (World War II)

Operation Catapult at Mers El Kebir (World War II) The attack on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir took place on July 3, 1940, during World War II (1939-1945). Events Leading up to the Attack During the closing days of the Battle of France in 1940, and with the German victory all but assured, the British became increasingly worried about the disposition of the French fleet. The fourth largest navy in the world, the ships of the Marine Nationale possessed the potential to alter the naval war and threaten Britains supply lines across the Atlantic. Voicing these concerns to the French government, Prime Minister Winston Churchill was assured by Navy Minister Admiral Franà §ois Darlan that even in defeat, the fleet would be kept from the Germans. Unknown to either side was that Hitler had little interest in taking over the Marine Nationale, only ensuring that its ships were neutralized or interned â€Å"under German or Italian supervision.† This latter phrase was included in Article 8 of the Franco-German armistice. Misinterpreting the language of the document, the British believed that the Germans intended to take control of the French fleet. Based on this and a distrust of Hitler, the British War Cabinet decided on June 24 that any assurances provided under Article 8 should be disregarded. Fleets and Commanders During the Attack British Admiral Sir James Somerville2 battleships, 1 battlecruiser, 2 light cruisers, 1 aircraft carrier, 11 destroyers French Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 6 destroyers, 1 seaplane tender Operation Catapult At this point in time, the ships of the Marine Nationale were scattered in various ports. Two battleships, four cruisers, eight destroyers, and numerous smaller vessels were in Britain, while one battleship, four cruisers, and three destroyers were in port at Alexandria, Egypt. The largest concentration was anchored at Mers el Kebir and Oran, Algeria. This force, led by Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul, consisted of the older battleships Bretagne and Provence, the new battlecruisers Dunkerque and Strasbourg, the seaplane tender Commandant Teste, as well as six destroyers. Moving forward with plans to neutralize the French fleet, the Royal Navy began Operation Catapult. This saw the boarding and capture of French ships in British ports on the night of July 3. While the French crews generally did not resist, three were killed on the submarine Surcouf. The bulk of the ships went on to serve with Free French forces later in the war. Of the French crews, the men were given the option to join the Free French or be repatriated across the Channel. With these ships seized, ultimatums were issued to the squadrons at Mers el Kebir and Alexandria. Ultimatum at Mers el Kebir To deal with Gensouls squadron, Churchill dispatched Force H from Gibraltar under the command of Admiral Sir James Somerville. He was instructed issue an ultimatum to Gensoul requesting that the French squadron do one of the following: Join the Royal Navy in continuing the war with GermanySail to a British port with reduced crews to be interned for the durationSail to the West Indies or the United States and remain there for the rest of the warScuttle their ships within six hoursIf Gensoul refused all four options, Somerville was instructed to destroy the French ships to prevent their capture by the Germans. A reluctant participant who did not wish to attack an ally, Somerville approached Mers el Kebir with a force consisting of the battlecruiser HMS Hood, the battleships HMS Valiant and HMS Resolution, the carrier HMS Ark Royal, two light cruisers, and 11 destroyers. On July 3, Somerville sent Captain Cedric Holland of Ark Royal, who spoke fluent French, into Mers el Kebir aboard the destroyer HMS Foxhound to present the terms to Gensoul. Holland was coldly received as Gensoul expected negotiations to be conducted by an officer of equal rank. As result, he sent his flag lieutenant, Bernard Dufay, to meet with Holland. Under orders to present the ultimatum directly to Gensoul, Holland was refused access and ordered to leave the harbor. Boarding a whaleboat for Foxhound, he made a successful dash to the French flagship, Dunkerque, and after additional delays were finally able to meet with the French admiral. Negotiations continued for two hours during which Gensoul ordered his ships to prepare for action. Tensions were further heightened as Ark Royals aircraft began dropping magnetic mines across the harbor channel as talks progressed. A Failure of Communication During the course of the talks, Gensoul shared his orders from Darlan which permitted him to scuttle the fleet or sail for America if a foreign power attempted to claim his ships. In a massive failure of communication, the full text of Somervilles ultimatum was not relayed to Darlan, including the option of sailing for the United States. As talks began to stalemate, Churchill was becoming increasingly impatient in London. Concerned that the French were stalling to allow reinforcements to arrive, he ordered Somerville to settle the matter at once. An Unfortunate Attack Responding to Churchills orders, Somerville radioed Gensoul at 5:26 PM that if one of the British proposals was not accepted within fifteen minutes he would attack. With this message Holland departed. Unwilling to negotiate under threat of enemy fire, Gensoul did not respond. Approaching the harbor, the ships of Force H opened fire at an extreme range approximately thirty minutes later. Despite the approximate similarity between the two forces, the French were not fully prepared for battle and anchored in a narrow harbor. The heavy British guns quickly found their targets with Dunkerque put out of action within four minutes. Bretagne was struck in a magazine and exploded, killing 977 of its crew. When the firing stopped, Bretagne had sunk, while Dunkerque, Provence, and the destroyer Mogador  were damaged and run aground. Only Strasbourg and a few destroyers succeeded in escaping the harbor. Fleeing at flank speed, they were ineffectively attacked by Ark Royals aircraft and briefly pursued by Force H. The French ships were able to reach Toulon the next day. Concerned that the damage to Dunkerque and Provence was minor, British aircraft attacked Mers el Kebir on July 6. In the raid, the patrol boat Terre-Neuve exploded near Dunkerque causing additional damage. Aftermath of Mers el Kebir To the east, Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham was able to avoid a similar situation with the French ships at Alexandria. In hours of tense talks with Admiral Renà ©-Emile Godfroy, he was able to convince the French to allow their ships to be interned. In the fighting at Mers el Kebir, the French lost 1,297 killed and around 250 wounded, while the British incurred two killed. The attack badly strained Franco-British relations as did an attack on the battleship Richelieu at Dakar later that month. Though Somerville stated we all feel thoroughly ashamed, the attack was a signal to the international community that Britain intended to fight on alone. This was reinforced by its stand during the Battle of Britain later that summer. Dunkerque, Provence, and Mogador received temporary repairs and later sailed for Toulon. The threat of the French fleet ceased to be an issue when its officers scuttled its ships in 1942 to prevent their use by the Germans. Selected Sources HistoryNet: Operation CatapultHMS Hood.org: Operation Catapult

Learn About the Crimean War

Learn About the Crimean War The Crimean War is perhaps remembered mostly for the â€Å"Charge of the Light Brigade,† a poem written about a disastrous episode when British cavalry valiantly attacked the wrong objective in a battle. The war was also significant for the pioneering nursing of Florence Nightingale, the reporting of a man considered the first war correspondent, and the first use of photography in a war. The war itself, however, arose from muddled circumstances. The conflict between superpowers of the day was fought between allies Britain and France against Russia and its Turkish ally. The result of the war did not make enormous changes in Europe. Although rooted in longstanding rivalries, the Crimean War erupted over what was obviously a pretext involving religion of populations in the Holy Land. It was almost as if the large powers in Europe wanted a war at that time to keep each other in check, and they found an excuse to have it. Causes of the Crimean War In the early decades of the 19th century, Russia had grown into a mighty military power. By 1850 Russia appeared to be intent on spreading its influence southward. Britain was concerned that Russia would expand to the point where it held power over the Mediterranean. The French emperor Napoleon III, in the early 1850s, had forced the Ottoman Empire to recognize France as a sovereign authority in the Holy Land. The Russian tsar objected and began his own diplomatic maneuvering. The Russians claimed to be protecting the religious freedom of Christians in Holy Land. War Declared By Britain and France Somehow the obscure diplomatic wrangling led to open hostilities, and Britain and France declared war against Russia on March 28, 1854. The Russians appeared willing, at first, to avoid war. But demands put forth by Britain and France were not met, and a larger conflict seemed unavoidable. The Invasion of the Crimea In September 1854 the allies struck the the Crimea, a peninsula in the present day Ukraine. The Russians had a large naval base at Sevastopol, on the Black Sea, which was the ultimate target of the invasion force. The British and French troops, after landing at Calamita Bay, began marching southward toward Sevastopol, which was approximately 30 miles away. The allied armies, with about 60,000 troops, encountered a Russian force at the River Alma and a battle ensued. The British commander, Lord Raglan, who had not been in combat since losing an arm at Waterloo nearly 30 years earlier, had considerable trouble coordinating his attacks with his French allies. Despite these problems, which would become common throughout the war, the British and French routed the Russian army, which fled. The Russians regrouped at Sevastopol. The British, bypassing that major base, attacked the town of Balaclava, which had a harbor that could be used as a supply base. Ammunition and siege weapons began to be unloaded, and the allies prepared for an eventual attack on Sevastopol. The British and French began an artillery bombardment of Sevastopol on October 17, 1854. The time-honored tactic did not seem to have much effect. On October 25, 1854, the Russian commander, Prince Aleksandr Menshikov, ordered an attack on the allied lines. The Russians attacked a weak position and stood a good chance of reaching the town of Balaclava until they were repulsed heroically by Scottish Highlanders. Charge of the Light Brigade As the Russians were fighting the Highlanders, another Russian unit began removing British guns from an abandoned position. Lord Raglan ordered his light cavalry to prevent that action, but his orders got confused and the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade was launched against the wrong Russian position. The 650 men of the regiment raced into certain death, and at least 100 men were killed in the first minutes of the charge. The battle ended with the British having lost a lot of ground, but with the standoff still in place. Ten days later the Russians attacked again. In what was known as the Battle of the Inkermann, the armies fought in very wet and foggy weather. That day ended with high casualties on the Russian side, but again the fighting was indecisive. The Siege Continued As the winter weather approached and conditions deteriorated, the fighting came to a virtual halt with the siege of Sevastopol still in place. During the winter of 1854-55 the war became an ordeal of disease and malnutrition. Thousands of troops died of exposure and contagious illnesses spread through the camps. Four times as many troops died of illness than combat wounds. In late 1854 Florence Nightingale arrived in Constantinople and began treating British troops in hospitals. She was shocked by the appalling conditions she encountered. The armies stayed in trenches throughout the spring of 1855, and assaults on Sevastopol were finally planned for June 1855. Attacks on fortresses protecting the city were launched and repulsed on June 15, 1855, thanks largely to incompetence by the British and French attackers. The British commander, Lord Raglan, had taken ill and died on June 28, 1855. Another attack on Sevastopol was launched in September 1855, and the city finally fell to the British and French. At that point the Crimean War was essentially over, though some scattered fighting went on until February 1856. Peace was finally declared in late March 1856. Consequences of the Crimean War While the British and French did eventually capture their objective, the war itself could not be considered a great success. It was marked by incompetence and what was widely perceived as needless loss of life. The Crimean War did check the Russian expansionist tendencies. But Russia itself was not really defeated, as the Russian homeland was not attacked.

Learn About the Crimean War

Learn About the Crimean War The Crimean War is perhaps remembered mostly for the â€Å"Charge of the Light Brigade,† a poem written about a disastrous episode when British cavalry valiantly attacked the wrong objective in a battle. The war was also significant for the pioneering nursing of Florence Nightingale, the reporting of a man considered the first war correspondent, and the first use of photography in a war. The war itself, however, arose from muddled circumstances. The conflict between superpowers of the day was fought between allies Britain and France against Russia and its Turkish ally. The result of the war did not make enormous changes in Europe. Although rooted in longstanding rivalries, the Crimean War erupted over what was obviously a pretext involving religion of populations in the Holy Land. It was almost as if the large powers in Europe wanted a war at that time to keep each other in check, and they found an excuse to have it. Causes of the Crimean War In the early decades of the 19th century, Russia had grown into a mighty military power. By 1850 Russia appeared to be intent on spreading its influence southward. Britain was concerned that Russia would expand to the point where it held power over the Mediterranean. The French emperor Napoleon III, in the early 1850s, had forced the Ottoman Empire to recognize France as a sovereign authority in the Holy Land. The Russian tsar objected and began his own diplomatic maneuvering. The Russians claimed to be protecting the religious freedom of Christians in Holy Land. War Declared By Britain and France Somehow the obscure diplomatic wrangling led to open hostilities, and Britain and France declared war against Russia on March 28, 1854. The Russians appeared willing, at first, to avoid war. But demands put forth by Britain and France were not met, and a larger conflict seemed unavoidable. The Invasion of the Crimea In September 1854 the allies struck the the Crimea, a peninsula in the present day Ukraine. The Russians had a large naval base at Sevastopol, on the Black Sea, which was the ultimate target of the invasion force. The British and French troops, after landing at Calamita Bay, began marching southward toward Sevastopol, which was approximately 30 miles away. The allied armies, with about 60,000 troops, encountered a Russian force at the River Alma and a battle ensued. The British commander, Lord Raglan, who had not been in combat since losing an arm at Waterloo nearly 30 years earlier, had considerable trouble coordinating his attacks with his French allies. Despite these problems, which would become common throughout the war, the British and French routed the Russian army, which fled. The Russians regrouped at Sevastopol. The British, bypassing that major base, attacked the town of Balaclava, which had a harbor that could be used as a supply base. Ammunition and siege weapons began to be unloaded, and the allies prepared for an eventual attack on Sevastopol. The British and French began an artillery bombardment of Sevastopol on October 17, 1854. The time-honored tactic did not seem to have much effect. On October 25, 1854, the Russian commander, Prince Aleksandr Menshikov, ordered an attack on the allied lines. The Russians attacked a weak position and stood a good chance of reaching the town of Balaclava until they were repulsed heroically by Scottish Highlanders. Charge of the Light Brigade As the Russians were fighting the Highlanders, another Russian unit began removing British guns from an abandoned position. Lord Raglan ordered his light cavalry to prevent that action, but his orders got confused and the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade was launched against the wrong Russian position. The 650 men of the regiment raced into certain death, and at least 100 men were killed in the first minutes of the charge. The battle ended with the British having lost a lot of ground, but with the standoff still in place. Ten days later the Russians attacked again. In what was known as the Battle of the Inkermann, the armies fought in very wet and foggy weather. That day ended with high casualties on the Russian side, but again the fighting was indecisive. The Siege Continued As the winter weather approached and conditions deteriorated, the fighting came to a virtual halt with the siege of Sevastopol still in place. During the winter of 1854-55 the war became an ordeal of disease and malnutrition. Thousands of troops died of exposure and contagious illnesses spread through the camps. Four times as many troops died of illness than combat wounds. In late 1854 Florence Nightingale arrived in Constantinople and began treating British troops in hospitals. She was shocked by the appalling conditions she encountered. The armies stayed in trenches throughout the spring of 1855, and assaults on Sevastopol were finally planned for June 1855. Attacks on fortresses protecting the city were launched and repulsed on June 15, 1855, thanks largely to incompetence by the British and French attackers. The British commander, Lord Raglan, had taken ill and died on June 28, 1855. Another attack on Sevastopol was launched in September 1855, and the city finally fell to the British and French. At that point the Crimean War was essentially over, though some scattered fighting went on until February 1856. Peace was finally declared in late March 1856. Consequences of the Crimean War While the British and French did eventually capture their objective, the war itself could not be considered a great success. It was marked by incompetence and what was widely perceived as needless loss of life. The Crimean War did check the Russian expansionist tendencies. But Russia itself was not really defeated, as the Russian homeland was not attacked.

Learn About the Crimean War

Learn About the Crimean War The Crimean War is perhaps remembered mostly for the â€Å"Charge of the Light Brigade,† a poem written about a disastrous episode when British cavalry valiantly attacked the wrong objective in a battle. The war was also significant for the pioneering nursing of Florence Nightingale, the reporting of a man considered the first war correspondent, and the first use of photography in a war. The war itself, however, arose from muddled circumstances. The conflict between superpowers of the day was fought between allies Britain and France against Russia and its Turkish ally. The result of the war did not make enormous changes in Europe. Although rooted in longstanding rivalries, the Crimean War erupted over what was obviously a pretext involving religion of populations in the Holy Land. It was almost as if the large powers in Europe wanted a war at that time to keep each other in check, and they found an excuse to have it. Causes of the Crimean War In the early decades of the 19th century, Russia had grown into a mighty military power. By 1850 Russia appeared to be intent on spreading its influence southward. Britain was concerned that Russia would expand to the point where it held power over the Mediterranean. The French emperor Napoleon III, in the early 1850s, had forced the Ottoman Empire to recognize France as a sovereign authority in the Holy Land. The Russian tsar objected and began his own diplomatic maneuvering. The Russians claimed to be protecting the religious freedom of Christians in Holy Land. War Declared By Britain and France Somehow the obscure diplomatic wrangling led to open hostilities, and Britain and France declared war against Russia on March 28, 1854. The Russians appeared willing, at first, to avoid war. But demands put forth by Britain and France were not met, and a larger conflict seemed unavoidable. The Invasion of the Crimea In September 1854 the allies struck the the Crimea, a peninsula in the present day Ukraine. The Russians had a large naval base at Sevastopol, on the Black Sea, which was the ultimate target of the invasion force. The British and French troops, after landing at Calamita Bay, began marching southward toward Sevastopol, which was approximately 30 miles away. The allied armies, with about 60,000 troops, encountered a Russian force at the River Alma and a battle ensued. The British commander, Lord Raglan, who had not been in combat since losing an arm at Waterloo nearly 30 years earlier, had considerable trouble coordinating his attacks with his French allies. Despite these problems, which would become common throughout the war, the British and French routed the Russian army, which fled. The Russians regrouped at Sevastopol. The British, bypassing that major base, attacked the town of Balaclava, which had a harbor that could be used as a supply base. Ammunition and siege weapons began to be unloaded, and the allies prepared for an eventual attack on Sevastopol. The British and French began an artillery bombardment of Sevastopol on October 17, 1854. The time-honored tactic did not seem to have much effect. On October 25, 1854, the Russian commander, Prince Aleksandr Menshikov, ordered an attack on the allied lines. The Russians attacked a weak position and stood a good chance of reaching the town of Balaclava until they were repulsed heroically by Scottish Highlanders. Charge of the Light Brigade As the Russians were fighting the Highlanders, another Russian unit began removing British guns from an abandoned position. Lord Raglan ordered his light cavalry to prevent that action, but his orders got confused and the legendary Charge of the Light Brigade was launched against the wrong Russian position. The 650 men of the regiment raced into certain death, and at least 100 men were killed in the first minutes of the charge. The battle ended with the British having lost a lot of ground, but with the standoff still in place. Ten days later the Russians attacked again. In what was known as the Battle of the Inkermann, the armies fought in very wet and foggy weather. That day ended with high casualties on the Russian side, but again the fighting was indecisive. The Siege Continued As the winter weather approached and conditions deteriorated, the fighting came to a virtual halt with the siege of Sevastopol still in place. During the winter of 1854-55 the war became an ordeal of disease and malnutrition. Thousands of troops died of exposure and contagious illnesses spread through the camps. Four times as many troops died of illness than combat wounds. In late 1854 Florence Nightingale arrived in Constantinople and began treating British troops in hospitals. She was shocked by the appalling conditions she encountered. The armies stayed in trenches throughout the spring of 1855, and assaults on Sevastopol were finally planned for June 1855. Attacks on fortresses protecting the city were launched and repulsed on June 15, 1855, thanks largely to incompetence by the British and French attackers. The British commander, Lord Raglan, had taken ill and died on June 28, 1855. Another attack on Sevastopol was launched in September 1855, and the city finally fell to the British and French. At that point the Crimean War was essentially over, though some scattered fighting went on until February 1856. Peace was finally declared in late March 1856. Consequences of the Crimean War While the British and French did eventually capture their objective, the war itself could not be considered a great success. It was marked by incompetence and what was widely perceived as needless loss of life. The Crimean War did check the Russian expansionist tendencies. But Russia itself was not really defeated, as the Russian homeland was not attacked.

Popular Culture Race and Ethnicity in the Movie King Kong Review

Popular Culture Race and Ethnicity in the King Kong - Movie Review Example Accordingly, the representation of blacks and minorities, or indigenous populations in film, has become an issue of social concern. The objection which several critics expressed towards King Kong (2005) and their denouncement of it as a racist film needs to be understood within the context of the larger social issues at stake and should not be dismissed as exaggerated reactions to innocent entertainment, as some have done. Indeed, King Kong is founded upon racial stereotypes and cements racial prejudices in its portrayal of indigenous populations as savages, its suggestion that blacks are wild beasts, such as is King Kong, who can only be tamed by the civilised Caucasian. Critical reactions to King Kong (2005) have tended towards its denouncement as a racist film, on the one hand, to its defence as innocent entertainment, on the other. Espousing the former view, McCarthy (2006) maintains that the storyline and plot revolve around three of the oldest and most persistent of the known anti-black stereotypes. These are that all non-Caucasians are savages and that members of the black race are hardly distinguishable from wild beasts (McCarthy, 2006). In this film, the non-Caucasians are represented in the hardly human, unmistakably savage and completely unwashed figure of the Skull island natives and blacks in the form of the gigantic and uncontrollable savage figure of the ape. The third stereotype upon which this film is founded and which its storyline propagates and legitimizes is that of the civilized Caucasians who, by the very nature of their appearance and the culture and civility which they symbolize, are able to tame, control and potentially even civilize the savage and the wild. King Kong (2005) promotes these stereotypes and should, accordingly, be classified as a racist film. For multicultural societies which are struggling to create a culture of racial tolerance and acceptance to replace the culture of racism, films such as this can have a potentially detrimental effect. Pon (2000) highlights this potential consequence by arguing that racist messages legitimize an audience's possibly racist sentiments and justifies their perception of minority races and groups as inferior. When these messages are conveyed in a multicultural society, they immediately conflict with multiculturalism's message and, accordingly, can contribute to racial tensions (Pon, 2000). In direct reference to Canadian society, popularly regarded as a successful experiment in multiculturalism, the message conveyed by King Kong (2005) does not simply conflict with official messages regarding racial tolerance and understanding but it touches upon the underlying racial tensions which exist beyond the surface. Studies have indicated that increasing numbers of racial minority groups and indigenous populations feel marginalized and discriminated against. The number of blacks and natives feeling out of place in society is on the rise. In 2002, 35% of blacks and 20% of natives in Canada reported unfair discriminatory treatment 'sometimes' or 'often' (Statcan, 2002). Therefore, films which wrongfully portray the true nature of blacks and native/indigenous populations, have the potential to enhance the mentioned feelings of marginalization and to deepen the racism which many Canadian minority groups feel they are subjected to. The fact that King Kong

Health system REPORT Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Health system REPORT - Assignment Example By decreasing the financial support of the public, the health care providers were also allowed and forced to obtain profits on particular types of treatments and the sale of drugs, therefore bringing numerous moral hazard problems, which like in the United States caused a substantial cost inflammation and promoted inequality in accessing the health care services (Giuliano & Droms, 2012). The present health care system is a product of numerous local experiments and health care reforms can be described by a complete structure as shown in the flowchart. Essentially, the system plan builds on a separation of the public into three collections referred to as A, B, and C in line with the job functions. The A-collection consists of employees in all levels of research institutions, public health sector, education system, government, the army, public organizations, and Non-governmental like institutions. The Public Health Service Administration Act from the year 1988 governs this A-collection of individuals. The B-collection is comprised of all types of enterprises in the urban regions, and they are governed by the judgments of the state council concerning the structure of an all-inclusive medical care improvement among workers in the urban areas. The C-collection is made up of the rural area population, and any regulation does not cover them. However, a small portion of those individuals in the C-collection is governed by the new rural cooperative health care strategy. These individuals are typically the farmers situated nearby the south eastern part of the seaside area (Hougaard, Østerdal, & Yu, 2011). Furthermore, there lack certified statistics that display the comparative sizes of the three collections. However, according to Hougaard et al., (2011), a rough estimate exists which shows that collection A comprises of 5%, B comprises of 11%, and C comprises of 64% of the entire population. Moreover, we give emphasis to

Immigration :: essays research papers

Should immigration into the United States be limited? Immigrants are a large and growing factor in the stubborn level of poverty seen in the United States over the past two decades because newcomers to the country are more likely to be poor and to remain so longer than in the past, according to a new study. The report, to be released today by the Center for Immigration Studies, says the number of impoverished people in the nation's immigrant-headed households nearly tripled from 2.7 million in 1979 to 7.7 million in 1997. During that same period, the number of poor households headed by immigrants increased by 123 percent while the number of immigrant households increased by 68 percent, according to the study. The share of immigrants living in poverty rose from 15.5 percent to 21.8 percent, the report notes, a change that some analysts say holds troubling implications for the nation's future. About 12 percent of the nation's native-born population lives in poverty, a figure that has hardly changed in 20 years. "Each successive wave of immigrants is doing worse and worse," said Steven A. Camarota, the report's author. "Each wave of immigrants has a higher poverty rate, and a much larger share of their children will grow up in poverty." The report by the center, a Washington-based research group that advocates reduced immigration, uses information compiled in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, as well as information contained in the March 1998 Current Population Survey, to make its case that poverty in the United States is increasingly being driven by the nation's immigration policy. The report says immigrants are more likely to be poor because they have higher levels of unemployment, have lower education levels and have larger families than native-born families. And much of their economic slide has come despite the fact that the nation's economy has been in good shape for much of the past 20 years, the report notes. The report is rekindling the sharp-edged debate over whether high levels of immigration benefit the nation. The number of immigrants living in the United States has almost tripled since 1970, dramatically altering the nation's demographic and social mix because the vast majority of current immigrants are either Hispanic or Asian. Overall, immigrants now account for nearly 10 percent of the nation's residents, the highest level since the 1920s. About one in four Californians and one in three residents of New York are foreign-born.