Tag: immigration

Norway is already showing signs of following Switzerland’s lead to shut down the economic and societal castastrophe of mass immigration.

Mazyar Keshvari, immigration policy spokesman for the
anti-immigration Progress Party, told the VG newspaper that he believed
Norway should follow Switzerland’s example. “Norway should also have a referendum on immigration,” he said. “I am
quite sure that there is majority support for tightening immigration
across Norway’s political parties. The polls show that.”

No doubt this is one reason why. It simply IS NOT TRUE that mass immigration is good for the economy. It is an absolute lie.

The report, Sustainable Immigration, was put together by some of the party’s most vehemently anti-Islamic and anti-immigration figures, such as deputy leader Per Sandberg, and Oslo politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde. It cites figures that show that each non-Western immigrant costs the equivalent of 42 years of an average Norwegian’s tax payments, and calls for immigration from non-Western countries to be sharply reduced from from close to 20,000 a year to about 1,500 a year.

Meanwhile, the most retarded “economist” on the planet, an evil little man who makes Paul Krugman look like a paragon of coherency and decency, managed to further embarrass himself in response to the Swiss vote:

The Swiss just passed a referendum to restrict immigration from the EU.  Tyler thinks this shows that open borders is a hopeless cause.  When immigration gets too high, public opinion naturally turns against immigration.

“In my view immigration has gone well for Switzerland, both economically and culturally, and I am sorry to see this happen, even apart from the fact that it may cause a crisis in their relations with the European Union.  That said, you can take 27% as a kind of benchmark for the limits of immigration in most or all of today’s wealthy countries.  I believe that as you approach a number in that range, you get a backlash.”

But there’s a major problem with Tyler’s story: Swiss anti-immigration voting was highest in the places with the least immigrants!  This is no fluke.  In the U.S., anti-immigration sentiment is highest in the states with the least immigration – even if you assume that 100% of immigrants are pro-immigration.

The natural inference to draw, then, is the opposite of Tyler’s: The main hurdle to further immigration is insufficient immigration.  If countries could just get over the hump of status quo bias, anti-immigration attitudes would become as socially unacceptable as domestic racism.  Instead of coddling nativism with gradualism, we can, should, and must peacefully destroy nativism with abolitionism.

This is Hitlerian logic and it makes clear the evil objectives of the pro-immigrationists like Caplan. Switzerland already has a non-native born population pushing 30 percent, most of which lives around Zurich or in the French-speaking cantons. It is those previously naturalized immigrants, combined with the international business class, that supported open immigration, just as a pair of Jewish and Irish third-generation immigrants were primarily responsible for pushing the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act that demolished the USA’s demographics and made the dissolution of the union inevitable.

It’s the Denny Green syndrome writ large. Just as women always want to hire more women and blacks always want to bring in more blacks, immigrants always want to bring in more immigrants to make themselves feel more at home. I see this all the time, in fact, I’m one of the very few expats who doesn’t primarily socialize with people from my home country.

The voting phenomenon Caplan is observing is simply the national equivalent of “white flight”, and what he is advocating is nothing less than the invasion and demographic destruction of European nations.

George Jonas castigates the new type of Canadian immigrant: the cultural invader:

Canada, along with some other great immigrant societies, such as America or Australia, evolved into a coherent whole by welcoming new arrivals from the four corners of the Earth, offering them a chance to become a Canadian, American or Australian as they desired or managed to be, and then rewarding them according to how close they’ve come. In the process immigrants suffered casualties, but generally enriched the societies that enriched them, often within a single generation.

The assumption, unspoken but taken for granted until the 1960s, was that immigration was beneficial as long as it was designed to serve the interests of the host society first. The immigrant’s own interests would be served by the opportunity to eventually join the host society. For this to have any meaning, of course, the existence and desirability of a host nationality had to be taken for granted. If there had been no “Americans” or “Canadians,” there would have been nothing to join. Inherent in the American model of a “melting pot” as well as the fussier Canadian model of a “cultural mosaic” was the pre-existence of a nation to which the immigrant was applying to belong.

Until recent times, the West has been spoiled by the loyalty of immigrants, even from hostile regions or cultures…. It was in the past 40 years that the immigrant of dubious loyalty
emerged, followed by the disloyal native-born, sometimes of immigrant
ancestry, sometimes of Islamic conversion. The new immigrant seemed
ready to share the West’s wealth but not its values.

In many ways he
resembled an invader more than a settler or an asylum-seeker. Instead of
making efforts to assimilate, the invader demanded changes in the host
country’s culture. He called on society to accommodate his linguistic or
religious requirements. In 1985, a Sikh CNR railway worker refused to
exchange his turban for a regulation hard hat. This was innocuous
enough, but in 1991, less innocuously, a newly appointed Toronto police
board commissioner of Asian extraction declined to take the traditional
oath to the Queen.

Those who uphold the values of the traditional West should not despair. The Ummayids who immigrated to Spain and imported their cultural values there were eventually expelled after 781 years of Reconquista. The West will win here too, but not until a sufficient number of Westerners realize that there will be no peace and their way of life cannot survive until the immigrants are returned home to their native lands.

Consider how small, in comparison to the present number of invaders, the earlier immigration was. And notice that the people invaded at the time also did not realize it was an invasion that was taking place around them:


In 711 a raiding force from North Africa approximately 1,700-strong led by Tariq Ibn Ziyad landed south of present-day Spain. Ibn Abd-el-Hakem reports, one and a half centuries later, that “the people of Andalus did not observe them, thinking that the vessels crossing and recrossing were similar to the trading vessels which for their benefit plied backwards and forwards.”  Tariq’s forces were thence reinforced by those of his superior, the wali Musa ibn Nusair, and both went on to take control of most of Iberia with an army estimated at approximately 10,000–15,000 combatants.

The professional Republican politicians are still absolutely determined to betray the remnants of the American people:

House Republicans are preparing to unveil their own broad template for overhauling the nation’s immigration system this week, potentially offering a small opening for President Obama and congressional Democrats to pass bipartisan legislation before the end of the year.

Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders are expected to release a one-page statement of immigration principles this week at their annual retreat in Cambridge, Md., according to aides with knowledge of the plan. The document is expected to call for border security and enforcement measures, as well as providing a path to legal status — but not citizenship — for many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, the aides said.

The Republican effort comes as Mr. Obama is expected to push once again for an overhaul of the immigration system in his State of the Union address Tuesday, and as lawmakers from both parties describe immigration as one of the few potential areas for bipartisan compromise before the end of the current Congress.

It should be abundantly clear, at this point, that Republicans have no interest whatsoever in American survival. From banks to new electorates, literally everything they do is to the detriment of the American people. Not that the Democrats are any better, but it is absurd to think that electing more Republicans is going to solve anything. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

Enjoy the decline.

Paul Collier has an excellent article in the New Statesman summarizing what should be the beginning point for any rational discussion on immigration. And you will note that NONE of the points of evidence are in harmony with the assumptions that are taken for granted by most pro-immigrationists, whereas many of them are in-line with anti-immigration policies.

Block 1 Around 40 per cent of the population of
poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. There is
evidence that suggests this figure is not a wild exaggeration of how
people would behave. If migration happened on anything approaching this
scale, the host societies would suffer substantial reductions in living
standards. Hence, in attractive countries, immigration controls are
essential.

Block 2 Diasporas accelerate migration. By
“diasporas”, I mean those immigrants and their descendants who have
retained strong links with their home societies, rather than cutting
loose and integrating into their host societies. These links cut the
costs of migration and so fuel it. As a result, while diasporas are
growing, migration is accelerating. Diasporas continue to increase until
immigration is matched by the rate at which immigrants and their
offspring are absorbed into the general population. A crucial
implication of this interconnection is that the policies for migration
and diasporas must be compatible.

Block 3 Most immigrants prefer to retain their own
culture and hence to cluster together. This reduces the speed at which
diasporas are absorbed into the general population. The slower the rate
at which they are absorbed, the lower the rate of immigration that is
compatible with stable diasporas and migration. By design, absorption is
slower with multicultural policies than with assimilative policies.

Block 4 Migration from poor countries to rich ones
is driven by the wide gap in income between them. This gap is the moral
horror story of our times. The difference in incomes is ultimately due
to differences in political and social structures: poor countries have
political and social systems that are less functional than those in rich
ones. Their dysfunctional systems persist in part because they are
embedded in the identities and narratives of local cultures. Migrants
are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their
culture with them.

Block 5 In economic terms, migrants are the
principal beneficiaries of migration but many suffer a wrenching
psychological shock. As far as can be judged from the net effect on
happiness, the economic gains and psychological costs broadly offset
each other, although the evidence on this is currently sketchy.

Block 6 Because migration is costly, migrants are
not among the poorest people in their home countries. The effect on
those left behind depends ultimately on whether emigrants speed
political and social change back home or slow it down. A modest rate of
emigration, as experienced by China and India, helps, especially if many
migrants return home. However, an exodus of the young and skilled – as
suffered by Haiti, for example – causes a haemorrhage that traps the
society in poverty.

Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of
immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is
trivial. Economies are not damaged by immigration; nor do they need it.
The distributional effects can be more substantial but they depend on
the composition of immigration. In Australia, which permits only the immigration of the skilled, the
working classes probably gain from having more skilled people to work
with. In Europe, which attracts many low-skilled migrants, the
indigenous poor probably lose out through competition for social
housing, welfare, training and work. The clearest effect on the jobs
market is that new migrants compete with existing migrants, who would
consequently be substantial beneficiaries of tighter controls.

Block 8 The social effects of immigration outweigh
the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy. These
effects come from diversity. Diversity increases variety and this
widening of choices and horizons is a social gain. Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and
generosity. Co-operation rests on co-ordination games that support both
the provision of public goods and myriad socially enforced conventions.
Generosity rests on a widespread sense of mutual regard that supports
welfare systems. Both public goods and welfare systems benefit the
indigenous poor, which means they are the group most at risk of loss. As
diversity increases, the additional benefits of variety get smaller,
whereas the risks to co-operation and generosity get greater. Each host
society has an ideal level of diversity and hence an ideal size of
diasporas.

Block 9 The control of immigration is a human
right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the
animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the
individual right to property. The right to control immigration is
asserted by all societies. You do not have the automatic right to move
to Kuwait; nor do the Chinese have the automatic right to move to
Angola, although millions would if they could. Nor do Bangladeshis have
the automatic right to move to Britain and claim a share of its social
and economic capital. It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a
reciprocal basis. Thousands of French people want to live in Britain,
while thousands of Britons want to live in France. Yet if flows become
too unbalanced, rights derived from mutual advantage can be withdrawn:
Australia, for instance, withdrew them from Britain. The expansion of
the EU has created these unbalanced situations and the original
reciprocal right may therefore need modification.

Block 10 Migration is not an inevitable consequence
of globalisation. The vast expansion in trade and capital flows among
developed countries has coincided with a decline in migration between
them.

Block 8 is partially incorrect, and even that quasi-error is mitigated by the fact that Collier points out that while the “widening of choices and horizons is a social gain”, diversity itself is not. Block 7, of course, is completely wrong, as evidenced by American post-1973 wage stagnation.

The biggest falsehood concerning immigration is that it is good for the economy. I’ll address this in a future post, but the TL;DR version can be understood by simply comparing GDP and immigration rates from 1900 to 2010.

An English UKIP politician is attacked for saying what most English people now fervently believe:

A high-profile UKIP politician is facing a racism storm after being caught on camera saying all immigrants to Britain should be sent back home. Victoria Ayling, who made headlines when she defected from the Tories in March, made the inflammatory comments in a 20-minute video seen by The Mail on Sunday. On the subject of immigration she talks about restricting the numbers of foreigners entering the UK, but then adds: ‘I just want to send the lot back, but I can’t say that.’

Of course, she and UKIP are making a huge mistake by backing down and trying to hide behind the “illegal immigrant” fig leaf.  But the problem with mass immigration is not whether the immigrants are legal or not, it is that there are simply far too many of them.

No nation can survive an immigrant population, including second and third generations, of more than five percent without seeing its legal and cultural traditions significantly transformed.  That transformation is precisely why anti-American forces have been pushing mass immigration since 1965. And it is why the EU elite has been forcing it on the European nations as well. But the tide is rapidly turning, as the Labour party leaders have learned:

Mr Morris, a former No 10 adviser to Tony Blair at the time of the ‘open-door’ policy, used the social-networking website Twitter to announce on Monday evening: ‘Recipe for a miserable evening:  off to do focus groups on immigration.’

And afterwards, he wrote, in a line dripping with sarcasm: ‘Tonight’s focus groups as progressive as  I hoped,’ adding: ‘Their plan: end migration and fill jobs with Brits who have to take job.’ He declared that it had left him ‘depressed, as you might imagine’. The liberal views on immigration of many of Labour’s frontbenchers are not shared by most voters.

In a recent opinion poll, 72 per cent of respondents favoured slamming the door on unskilled immigrants, while 59 per cent thought we should allow fewer relatives of people already living in Britain into the country to join them.

Multiculturalism and mass immigration are already mortally wounded, even as the Obama administration tries to figure out how to ram immigration amnesty through Congress. Legal immigrants are now being openly attacked across continental Europe, from Hungary to Greece. Saudi Arabia has announced plans to deport 2 million immigrants, which represents nearly 7 percent of its total population, and has already deported over 100,000.

And on the Daily Mail site, a considerable portion of the 2300+ comments are strongly in favor of Ms Ayling’s opinion. The top-rated comment on the article, with 11,105 upvotes to 3,751 downvotes, was this: “How 95% of the UK feels but are for some Reason shouldn’t say!”

The age of mass immigration is obviously over. Multiculturalism is a failed and societally destructive concept and it is now eminently clear that large-scale immigration devastates advanced economies. Civilized repatriations must begin and they must begin within the next ten years. If they do not, history strongly suggests that the world will enter into another era of vicious ethnic cleansing and mass killings.

Here is the vital point I hope you will at least try to understand: it doesn’t matter what you think. It doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t even matter what Barack Obama or David Cameron think. It doesn’t matter what any of us prefer or believe to be ethically or morally right. The great historical patterns always overwhelm national politics and specific ideologies in the course of time. Just as the various mono-ethnic nations came into being in the first place, they will recreate themselves over and over again, and there is no government or ideology that is capable of standing in the way of the basic human instinct to be surrounded by one’s own kind in periods of uncertainty, economic contraction and international chaos.

If 50 million Mexican immigrants are good for the economy, imagine how much better 100 million Chinese immigrants would be. We’ll all live like kings!

U.S. immigration officials are considering a proposal from Chinese
investors to create a multibillion-dollar development in New York’s
Catskills called “China City” — raising concerns among critics about
the potential cost to U.S. taxpayers and, according to one analyst, the
possibility it could be a “stalking horse” for the Beijing government.

A spokesman from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told
FoxNews.com that the proposal for Thompson, N.Y., has not been approved
but is under consideration.

The mysterious proposed development appears to be a step beyond the
types of ethnic enclaves scattered throughout U.S. cities, like the
Chinatown sections of New York City or San Francisco. The 600-acre
“China City of America” is located far outside New York City in upstate
New York’s wetlands and is a meticulously planned project, calling for
family housing, a college and student residences, among other
structures.

I have a better idea. Let’s just give them New York City along with all of its residents, most of whom are avid supporters of mass immigration. Then move all the post-1965 immigrants into New York state.  All of the promised economic benefits with none of the social costs.

How can those who have repeatedly claimed that the magic of geographical relocation transforms serfs and savages into true blue Constitution-loving Americans possibly object to establishing large Chinese cities in their midst? And how could anyone suspect that the new Chinese-Americans would harbor any loyalties to Beijing? They’re here for the opportunity, after all!  They love America!