Tag: immigration

The map is still not the territory

Notice how the New York Times is always afraid for Muslims in non-Muslim countries, while remaining mostly indifferent to the plight of non-Muslims in Muslim countries:

After decades of peaceful coexistence with the Buddhist majority in the
country, Muslims say they now constantly fear the next attack. Over the
past year, they say several violent episodes across the country led by
rampaging Buddhist mobs have taught them that if violence comes to their
neighborhood, they are on their own. “I don’t think the police will protect us,” Mr. Nyi Nyi said.

The neighborhood watch program, a motley corps of men who check for any
suspicious outsiders and keep wooden clubs and metal rods stashed
nearby, is a symbol of how much relations have deteriorated between
Buddhists and Muslims in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

About 90 percent of the country’s population of 55 million is Buddhist, with Muslims making up 4 to 8 percent… The root of the violence, which has left around 200 Muslims dead over
the past year, appears partly a legacy of colonial years when Indians,
many of them Muslims, arrived in the country as civil servants and
soldiers, stirring resentment among Burmese Buddhists. In recent months
radical monks have since built on those historic grievances, fanning
fears that Muslims are having more children than Buddhists and could
dilute the country’s Buddhist character….

Some Muslims with means have fled to Malaysia or Singapore. Muslim-owned
businesses are losing Buddhist customers. A growing Buddhist movement
known as 969 that has the blessing of some of the country’s leaders is
campaigning for a boycott of Muslim products and businesses and a ban on
interfaith marriages.

I imagine the Burmese people have remembered what Americans and Europeans have forgotten. They have observed the examples of Nigeria, Paris, and Londonistan. They have learned the lesson: the Paynim always comes to conquer, however humbly he may enter.

“The suggestion that Muslims leave the country has been a common refrain
during the violence, which bewilders many Muslims who have always
considered themselves Burmese. Mr. Khin Maung Htay, his father and his
grandfather were all born in Myanmar.”

What of it? This merely shows the intrinsic falsehood of the multicultural mantra, which is that nationality is determined by government bureaucracy and geographic location.  After three generations Mr. Khin Maung Htay is not considered to be Burmese by the Burmese people because the map is not the territory and there is far more to cultural integration than filling out the necessary paperwork.

What could go wrong

Germany suddenly realizes its new arrivals are not going home anytime soon and are threatening its cherished social order:

Schools filled with children who do not speak our language. A surge in crime. Social benefits abused’: Now GERMANY admits mass immigration threatens ‘social peace’

Seriously, who thought trying to push multiculturalism on GERMANS was a good idea? They’ve solidly established that once an unwanted minority reaches a sufficiently irritating level, they’re capable of performing ethnic cleansing with the expected Teutonic efficiency.

Conservatives are still stupid

John Hawkins took a poll of right-wing bloggers concerning the immigration bill. They mostly had enough sense to oppose it, but this was the pair of questions that revealed the irrational position of conservatives on immigration:

6) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about illegal aliens?
B) They make America a worse place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
A) They make America a better place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

7) On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about legal immigrants?
A) They make America a better place to live? 88.6% (31 votes)
B) They make America a worse place to live? 11.4% (4 votes)

Most conservatives genuinely believe that the legality of an action determines the qualitative nature of it.  This is why they so often blithely support whatever evils that the previous generation of progressives have managed to slip past previous conservatives.

It doesn’t matter if 100 million Nigerians and 300 million Chinese enter the country legally or illegally next year, they will substantially change what America is by virtue of their entry.  The legality or illegality of that entry will have no effect whatsoever on the impact they will have over time on American society.

For all their supposed reverence for the Founding Fathers, conservatives have forgotten their wisdom on these matters:

“The opinion advanced in the
Notes on Virginia [by Thomas Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will
generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have
left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular
customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government
congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be
led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that
they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential
to real republicanism?”

Diversity is the death of the republic

This isn’t a thought that is new to me; HongKongCharlie reminds us that the Founding Fathers knew it very well:

“The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common
national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the
exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that
love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely
connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in the
Notes on Virginia [by Thomas Jefferson] is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will
generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have
left behind; to the country of their nativity; and to its particular
customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government
congenial with those under which they have lived; or if they should be
led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that
they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential
to real republicanism?”
-Alexander Hamilton, From the New York Evening Post: an Examination of the President’s Message, Continued, No. VIII, 1802″

Those
who advocate diversity and immigration are not merely foolish, or
ignorant, they are as actively and effectively anti-American as the most
antipathetic individuals who are consciously attempting to destroy what
is left of traditional, constitutional, civilized, European America.

So,
do keep this in mind:  The rabbits and pinkshirts loudly proclaim that
my opinion is outrageous, offensive, and intrinsically unworthy of
debate… despite that opinion being, in the words of Alexander
Hamilton, “undoubtedly correct”.

Mailvox: illegal immigration isn’t the problem

It’s not the illegals, as this younger restrictionist has good cause to recognize.  It is the legal immigrants, and the fact that there have been far too many of them from too different cultures:

Most people are stunned when I say I’m for lower legal immigration. I know with most it would paint me as a bigot and I don’t give a damn. It’s not that I fear what I don’t know. It’s that I speak several foreign languages, have been extensively south of the border in different countries, and see what is going to happen to us.

Just as actual proximity to diversity and vibrancy tends to reduce positive social contact, actual familiarity with other societies tends to reduce enthusiasm for immigration from them.  In general, the more enthusiastic about diversity and immigration a white American is these days, the more parochial they are.  If they so much as mention food with regards to the issue, you can be certain that their experience of other cultures is essentially limited to restaurants.

It’s not the culinary spices that are the issue here.  I speak three languages and have a basic smattering of two others.  I’m not recognizably American anymore; on our recent trip to Rome, I discovered that “American” isn’t even the second guess of people I meet these days.  And it is my experience of transitioning from one society to another, and of witnessing others do so and fail to do so, that informs my opinion.  It is that experience that makes me certain that the large scale immigration of the last fifty years from the Third World is going to have dreadful consequences in Europe and America alike.

Rubio fails to follow the logic train

The Republican Senator doesn’t think through the logical implications of the accusations he is directing against the Obama administration:

“So in the span of four days, [there were] three major revelations about the use of government power to intimidate those who are doing things that the government doesn’t like. These are the tactics of the third world. These are the tactics of places that don’t have the freedoms and the independence that we have here in this country.”

They are the tactics of the third world.  They are, unsurprisingly enough, the tactics of a president who is himself an immigrant and a third worlder.  They are the tactics of a place that no longer has the freedom and independence and population that it once had. And yet, even as he laments this, Rubio is actively campaigning to legalize millions of third worlders who illegally settled in the country and add tens of millions more to their ranks.

Welcome to Third World America.  This is merely the smallest taste of what it is going to look like.

GOP contemplates electoral suicide

Any Republican supporting the proposed immigration amnesty must be considered a RINO by definition:

The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

Beneath the philosophical debates about amnesty and border security, there are brass-tacks partisan calculations driving the thinking of lawmakers in both parties over comprehensive immigration reform, which in its current form offers a pathway to citizenship — and full voting rights — for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.

It’s telling, is it not, how if the majority responding to a poll favor the legality of homosexuals playing marriage, this is indicative of an urgent moral imperative, but when there is an even stronger shift against LEGAL immigration, it is simply ignored.  Such is the power of the media narrative.

“A just-released Fox News poll finds 55 percent of voters think fewer
legal immigrants should be accepted into the U.S.  That’s up from 43
percent in 2010.
Majorities of Republicans (67 percent) and independents (53 percent)
as well as a plurality of Democrats (47 percent) want to decrease legal
immigration.“

But the latest push for amnesty demonstrates the intrinsic bankruptcy of the longtime conservative and Republican position that the immigration problem was rooted in its illegality.  The legality or illegality has never been the issue.  The issue has always been what it has been since the Israelites first immigrated to Canaan; the quantity.  Mass immigration transforms the invaded nation in keeping with the culture of the newcomers and leads to the dissolution of the old structures and their replacement with new and different ones.

Both liberals and conservatives can say goodbye to American ideals, traditions, and even modes of thought.  There is no picking and choosing about what will be saved and what will be thrown out.  This is not a controlled process. For those progressives who supported immigration because they hated their traditional society, this was the equivalent of trying to hold up a liquor store by setting off an atomic bomb.

There are certain things upon which no society can compromise and hope to survive. One of them is the quantity of permitted immigration. Since Americans foolishly abandoned their pre-1965 laws against immigration, they have assured themselves one of two outcomes: partition or mass ethnic cleansing.  Or, as history suggests is more likely the case, some combination of both.

And don’t blame the separatists and ruthless nationalists for their inevitable actions. They are the consequence, they are the symptoms. The responsible parties are all of those individuals, on both the political left and right, who bought into the myth of Ellis Island and welcomed tens of millions of alien invaders into the USA.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps this time it will be different and unlike every other reasonable historical analog I can recall. If you live there, you had certainly better hope so. What happened in Boston last week isn’t even the smallest taste of what is likely on the way.

UPDATE: It took her long enough, but Ann Coulter has finally figured out that the problem isn’t ILLEGAL immigration, but excessive legal IMMIGRATION.

Don’t be afraid of killer immigrants

Relax, most immigrants aren’t going to kill you.  They’re only going to lower wage rates, pollute the environment, live off your social benefits, transform your culture and your legal system, and make the USA considerably more like the third world hellholes from which they have escaped. The real problem, according to the Washington Post, isn’t a few murderous immigrants, but lawmakers stoking fear in the native populace:

CYNICS IN CONGRESS, eager to derail landmark legislation to overhaul the nation’s broken immigration system, have seized on last week’s events in Boston as a pretext to slow momentumon the issue. In the process, they may unwittingly provide a push for the very bill they hope to derail.

With scant regard for the actual immigration status of the bombing suspects, who came to this country legally as minors, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) nonetheless framed the attacks in Boston in the context of the debate over immigration. With a suspect still at large Friday, he asked, “How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

His fellow Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, then sent a letter
to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), arguing that the Senate “should not proceed [with immigration reform] until we understand the specific failures in our immigration system.”

Just
what flaws in the immigration system are the senators talking about?
The failure to divine the future and predict that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who
was a teenager when his family immigrated, and his surviving brother,
Dzhokhar, who was 9, might become radicalized years after arriving?

Well, yes.  After all, we have been repeatedly ensured that the younger they are, the better immigrants will integrate and become Real White Americans who evere the Constitution, value American liberties, and vote in exactly equal numbers for Republicans and Democrats.

I know the Washington Post likes to blame everything on Republicans in Congress, but honestly, I would think that even the most propaganda-oriented progressive would admit that immigrants planting bombs and killing Americans is a perfectly rational reason to be less than wildly enthusiastic about immigration.

More minorities, more unemployment

It has always seemed more than a little strange to me that so many Americans blithely assume that browns, blacks, and yellows who relocate to the United States are going to take on all the characteristics of white Americans by the sole virtue of their geographic relocation:

Black Entertainment Television (BET) founder Bob Johnson said Tuesday
that the nation would “never tolerate white unemployment at 14 or 15
percent” and yet unemployment for the black community has been double
that of white Americans for over 50 years….

Johnson said the challenge was to figure out why the unemployment
rate for blacks has been so high, “and if that doesn’t change,
somebody’s going to have to pay— 34 million African-Americans are not
going to leave this country, millions of African-Americans who don’t
have jobs.”

“Somebody’s going to have to pay for them. Somebody’s going to have
to take care of them, and if somebody’s going to have to take care of
them, that money’s got to come from somebody. And whoever’s paying for
it is going to be upset about it, and they’re going to start looking for
somebody to blame,” Johnson said.

It has been understood for decades that the lesser cultural differences between white Protestants and white Catholics have been sufficient to create very different outcomes in various European countries. Hence the phrase “Protestant work ethic”.

In light of this, is it not worth considering the possibility that the “new normal” of higher unemployment rates and lower labor force participation rates is at least in part the inevitable result of the 1965 and 1986 immigration acts, which have resulted in the massive influx of people with different cultures, and observably different work ethics, than white Protestant Americans?

In 1991, the Employment-Population Ratio in the USA was four points higher than in Mexico, 61-57.  It was 53 in Nigeria, 50 in France, and 45 in Italy.  This is usually blamed on lack of economic development and capital, but it seems to me that since economic development and capital are consequences of human action, not causes, it is more likely that one reason for the previously advantaged state of the US economy was the result of the unique composition of its predominantly Protestant European labor force.

Now, there are obviously a wide variety of other factors involved, but all things being equal, does it really make sense to imagine that importing workers from countries that are less productive and less inclined to work is going to increase productivity and decrease unemployment in the long run?  We already know that women are less inclined to work, and work fewer hours when they do, than men.  So, ogic suggests that the more the labor force moves away from being male, white, and Protestant, the more unemployment there will be and the lower the employment-population ratio is likely to fall.

The “New Normal” of eight percent unemployment and sub-60 percent EPR isn’t necessarily the result of the financial shenanigans or even free trade, it is also partly the result of immigration from countries where the population is less inclined to work hard. Johnson’s comments also lead to the obvious conundrum: if there are fewer people working less hard, how are they going to be able to pay for the increasing number of people not working at all?

Immigrants are good for the economy

So much for that tremendously sophisticated theory:

In Stockton, Calif., which has just entered into Chapter 9 bankruptcy,
41 percent of the people do not speak English at home and 21 percent
cannot speak it very well, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The problem facing immigration advocates is that once they admit that the quality and quantity of the immigrant population has an effect on the economy, their entire rational for replacing the native population goes out the window.  They were able to successfully deceive the public in 1965 and 1986, but not any longer.  The effects of the foreign pigeons invading to roost and crap all over the US economy can no longer be denied.

How many more cities have to go bankrupt before it becomes obvious to everyone that immigration is not an intrinsic element of economic growth.  It is more than a little ironic that in the name of free trade, Americans have somehow managed to accept a system that involves the free movement of labor as well as restrictions on the movement of capital.