I have a regular routine. I rise around 5:30am, eat my breakfast, floss and brush my teeth, shave, shower, and dress. I then walk dogs. In between all of those activities I check what’s going on in the world by checking in on a dozen or so blogs and the opinion pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. I write a couple of posts if something piques my interest.
I depart for work at 7:30am—a trip of about 8 miles which takes me anything from 45 minutes to an hour and a half depending on conditions. As I drive I listen to NPR.
This morning as I listened to NPR I was absolutely deluged with pro-immigration propaganda. That’s apparently the party line of what Pat Lang refers to as “the Borg”—we should be accepting a lot more immigrants.
As I think I should have made clear by now, I’m skeptical of that view for a number of reasons. First, immigrants already are as high a percentage of the total population as they’ve been in a century:
Second, real median personal income is about where it was 20 years ago.
Third, U. S. immigration policy favors those who choose to come here rather than those whom we would choose to come. IMO that’s clearly a perverse policy, at least from the standpoint of those already here.
Fourth, personal empowerment. A very small number of people can do more damage than at any time in human history if they’re so inclined.
Finally, I think that the meaning of immigration is different than it was 30 years ago or 50 years ago or a century ago. I personally any number of recent immigrants who call Mama every day and go to visit her once a year. With such a large immigrant population it’s easier to remain within an immigrant community than at any time in American history. So what? (I hear somebody say) It means that opinion among immigrants is more likely to mirror that of people in the Old Country that at any previous time in American history. Again, so what? According to Pew Research:
While a dislike of the U. S. isn’t a mainstream position in Canada, France, or the Philippines, it’s a completely mainstream view in, say, Pakistan. Under the circumstances do you really think we should be accepting a lot more Pakistani immigrants?
First, immigrants already are as high a percentage of the total population as they’ve been in a century:
That can’t possibly be true. I’m told all the time that America is the straightest, whitest, malest it has ever been, and that’s why we need to import the towelheads, to kill all the straight white men as fast as possible before straight white men destroy civilization. (Did you know that Jefferson was black? And Hamilton? I know this, because Broadway says it’s true. And we all know all the really good stuff in human history has come from angry black lesbians and Arab head choppers. Why there’s, uuuuhhhh…. and, uuuummmmm….) That’s just SCIENCE, man, and you can’t argue with SCIENCE.
I found the projected numbers in that graph interesting both because of the many assumptions and what they’re leaving out. The biggest assumption is that the U. S. now has an infinite appetite for new immigrants. What they’re leaving out is that Latin American demographics tells us that all of those immigrants in 2020 and 2030 won’t be Hispanics. They’ll be from Africa, the Middle East, or South Asia.
IMO an equally likely set of predictions is that a reaction will set in here and probably in Europe as well and that war will reduce the likelihood of mass migration.
I certainly have no problem with decreasing the number of immigrants. Selecting the ones we want is also OK. However, big business likes the flow of cheap, especially illegal, immigrants. Will be hard to stop.
Steve
I was listening to NPR yesterday morning about tours of London that emphasize the various immigration groups that settled there over the centuries, such as French Huguenots, German Palatines, the Irish, the Jews, etc. I’m listening to all of their contributions to names and food, thinking didn’t most of these people take a boat to the U.S.A. within a generation or so?
I didn’t buy the underlying premise of history’s permissiveness; I don’t believe Great Britain has experienced anything remotely comparable in its history, at least since the Vikings.
Immigration to UK.
The basic question is whether you believe in the persistence theory or not.
One other example, the BBC has a very good series, The Last Kingdom, which depicts the era of Alfred the Great during the Danish invasions. The author of the book, the show is based upon, Bernard Cornwell, made some comment that BBC interest in the show was due to its topicality on the issue of immigration and nationhood.
His book and show depict Vikings looting, murdering and raping the natives, or more precisely the most recent immigrants who had done the same earlier. Its an example of something related to immigration I guess.
The more I think about it, Cornwell must have pulled one on the BBC and whichever newspaper wrote this up.
Diversity is our strength. I’m still not sure why that propaganda is sacrosanct. I am the feared and despised white male, my wife and children are native American, we are both out. Muslims are in. I have good friends who are Hispanic, I consider then whites with better food. But, they’re out, Transexuals are in. Fuck politics, I’ll vote with my dollars or my feet. OH, And, TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
His book and show depict Vikings looting, murdering and raping the natives….
So, Rotherham, basically….
I love hearing from people who allegedly want to decrease the number of immigrants but who actually HATE HATE HATE the HATEY HATE HATERS who actually propose decreasing the number of immigrants, and who will ONLY vote for candidates who are strictly open borders with immediate citizenship for every wanker drug dealer, human trafficker or terrorist that can get here. They’re just so consistent.
Vikings, eh?
“We come from the land of the ice and snow, / From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow. / The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,… “
I certainly have no problem with decreasing the number of immigrants. Selecting the ones we want is also OK. However, Democrats like the flow of dependent, voting immigrants. Will be hard to stop.
I’ve mentioned before that my maternal lineage (mother’s mother’s etc.) is Irish. My maternal haplogroup is also the maternal haplogroup of 80% of the Norse. Kind of tells you something about the history of Ireland.
Demand will always create supply, with immigration and anything else.
Since half of all foreign-born Hispanics are in the lower class according to that Pew Report about the diminishing middle class, the demand must for something not worth much money.
“However, Democrats like the flow of dependent, voting immigrants. ”
Illegals never get to vote. So, somehow another, we manage to get lots of illegals here, which benefits one group, but they never get to vote, which does not benefit the other group.
Ben–You don’t seem to understand Says Law.
Steve
From Dave’s chart, you can sort of see the generational backgrounds. The Silent Generation has had the smallest percentage of foreign-born Americans, the Baby Boomers next. These might be the most economic prosperous generations in U.S. history when the scores are calculated.
Before them, the Greatest Generation emerged from the 1890 to 1920 immigration era that NPR wants people to think of as the norm. The backlash from this era created the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and then the Immigration Act of 1924, both of which set quotas on immigration based upon the 1890 Census. These remained in place until 1965.
The pre-1890 norms were cultural (British, Irish, German and later Scandinavian) and job-driven, prospective immigrants responded to reports of bank panics and job postings in the newspapers. When the immigrants came due to conditions at home (push factors) and clustered in areas without adequate jobs, like the Irish in the Northeast, they would face legal and informal discrimination.
Never? That’s not my recollection. What I recall is that in 1986 millions of illegals were suddenly made eligible to apply for citizenship (“amnesty”). Only a minority of the eligible did (which tells you something) but some did.
Now there’s mau-mauing for “a path to citizenship” and, among the most radical, automatic citizenship.
And then there’s the apportionment issue. Without illegal immigration California would have a couple fewer representatives than it does now. That’s really what the case before the Supreme Court is about. It’s trying to make illegals less politically useful.
“Never?”
It’s a tautology. You don’t get to vote if you are illegal. One time, they were made legal. Do you really think the chances of that are very good? Certainly not if any Republican wins POTUS, and if Clinton wins, there is about zero chance the Dems retake 60 seats in the Senate and take Congress. Meanwhile, business keeps getting their cheap labor, for decades. Status quo policy is usually benefitting someone.
Steve