We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day Why then are tens of thousands of Latin Americans willingly flooding into a supposedly racist country where cutthroat capitalism ignores the poor and the oppressed such as themselves? In most past polls of Mexican citizens, two general themes often show up: the majority of Mexican nationals believe that the American Southwest still should belong to Mexico, and a sizable minority would like to leave Mexico for the U.S. You figure out the mentality.
– Victor Davis Hanson (H/T, Instapundit.)
Travelling to a country, then despising it, does not strike me as a way to win friends and influence people. I don’t know how widespread this issue is in the US – I’d be interested in comments from US-based readers about the situation on the southern border of the US.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The current situation on the “southern border” is not one of “Mexican” illegal penetration and immigration, except to the extent of official Mexican government facilitation of transit of indigenous Central American people.
The present flow of Central American juveniles, through Mexico and into immigration points as “quasi-refugees,” is in response (apparently correct) to understanding in Central America of an executively determined policy of non-enforcement of the laws with respect to juveniles.
For those who read VDH regularly and more carefully, they will note that he makes reference to a five-year period in which Mexican residents in the US become acculturated to the “anti-Americanism” will fostered by intellectual progressivism.
That problem is not a border problem. It is an urban issue in many areas of the US, but particularly acute in California where the Mexican influx has now “matured.”
I’m not qualified to speak about the border, living about as far away from it as one can get and still be in Texas. I can, however, offer one contemporary datum.
Of all the US citizens of Mexican ancestry that I have spoken with about the current World Cup, every single one was supporting Mexico as their primary team, rather than the USA. I’m not asserting that no USA supporting Americans of Mexican ancestry exist, but my inability to find one speaks powerfully to the issue that Hansen raises.
It’s also one reason that I was rooting for The Netherlands, the other day, along with the blast from the past that is the wonderfully named Ruud van Nistelrooy.
I don’t want to be accused of racial stereotypes, so let me say up front that all people are individuals, and anyone can decide to be what they want to be. However, cultures definitely affect the way people think and behave.
What I have noticed is that Latinos who come to the US come here to work hard, bust their butts and make money, often to send it home to their family. However, the longer they are in the US the less hard they work.
Apparently our lazy ass culture eventually inculcates its way into their brains and they become accustomed to the memetics of entitlement.
Really, the whole thing reminds me a lot of the next post here, where large companies have used their heft to enact capital control laws that prevent investment in smaller upstart rivals. We lazy Americans want to put barriers in the way of upstart rivals who want to come over the border and take “our” jobs.
The idea that Mexicans do the jobs Americans don’t want to do is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Plainly if you advertised a hotel maid job or gardener job at $100 per hour, their would be a line out the door of people wanting to take up the job, and that line would be multicolored.
The truth is Mexicans do the jobs Americans would do, but for a price lower than Americans are willing to do.
Consequently, Americans have failed to leverage their competitive advantage, namely the benefits of being a rich nation with excellent infrastructure, education and healthcare, and instead used ugly legal barriers to stymie their competitors.
The solution to cheap foreign labor is to enjoy its benefits and have domestic people leverage their advantages to add higher levels of value that the foreign labor can’t necessarily provide.
P.J. O’Rourke pointed out there were two distinguishing features of a US embassy in the developing world:
1. Huge protests outside.
2. An enormous line for visas.
As much as I admire VDH, it takes 3 generations to Americanize. You can see it in past emigrations during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and, more recently, in the Cuban and Southeast Asian migrations.
The first wave is very attached to the culture they left behind, from language to customs. The second generation begins to move away, often as a result of their educational experiences, and speaks the “home country’s” language as a second language.
The 3rd and successive generations are Americans, with the added flavoring of their particular cultural heritage and traditions.
My family history follows this pattern also, on both sides, one from Belgium, and one from Bohemia in Central Europe. By the time I came along, 3rd generation in the Belgian case, and 4th in the Bohemian, all that was left were some terms in the old languages, some cooking tricks or special dishes, and a nostalgic attitude toward farming and small towns.
I have no problem with legal immigration. But a nation without any form of border control isn’t a nation anymore, it’s just a collection of people passing through.
(For all the purists who are offended by that idea, tough. I don’t live in your fantasy world.)
I don’t think the Mexicans are pissed off that the United States took over Mexico’s northern provinces; they’re just pissed off that the United States took over the parts with all the good roads, hospitals, universities and industries.
In a more serious vein: I think the “ownership” of the southwestern U.S. is a post facto excuse for Mexicans’ flight from a crappy, terrible country to one which offers a chance for financial and social improvement. Other countries (Europe, Asia etc) don’t have that figleaf, but then again their oceanic barriers to illegal immigration are more daunting than the mis-named Rio Grande.
I’m a white, native-born American and I live about 8 miles (as the crow flies) from the US-Mexico border (I’m in a small town just west of Yuma, AZ).
Having grown up in Tucson, AZ (and retired to Yuma after a 20 year stint in the US Navy) I have tons of experience with Mexican-Americans in the southwest.
And there is a vanishingly tiny percentage who hate this country. Mostly its the few who get to college and get caught up in the Mexican nationalist student organizations like MeChA. The vast majority retain (and will retain for several generations) strong *cultural* ties with Mexico – but they consider themselves to be Americans (*Mexican*-Americans, but still Americans) and they are not going back to the interior of Mexico to live. Most are just regular people working hard to make some money to improve their lives and the prospects of their children. These guys tend to keep their heads down and avoid attention from the authorities – even those who are here legally.
When not being forced to face the *realities* of liv=fe in Mexico these guys tend to have a romanticized view of it. Sure, some think (not really seriously) that the southwest should still be part of Mexico – but they’re not going to lift a finger to make that happen and if it *did* they’d be picking up stakes and moving further north.
“As much as I admire VDH, it takes 3 generations to Americanize. You can see it in past emigrations during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and, more recently, in the Cuban and Southeast Asian migrations.”
That is very much not true. 2nd generation immigrants (ie the children of immigrants) from Mexico tend to become very Americanized. Fluent in both English and Spanish and just as hard-working as the average American (ie not very much).
‘I have no problem with legal immigration. But a nation without any form of border control isn’t a nation anymore, it’s just a collection of people passing through.’
The US didn’t have any form of border control (outside of military patrols looking for raiders and invasion for damn near a century after it came into existence. And as British colonies there was none whatsoever – both at the border to the colonial are and inbetween colonies themselves.
Do you say that a state doesn’t exist because there is no border control there? How about a city? What makes a *national* border so important that you must restrict travel and trade across it but a city border can be crossed with impunity?
And a final question. Why do we *have* to have a static nation in the first place? What is a nation but a collection of people who have banded together for mutual protection? And why can’t who I decide to band together with change?
But compare like with like, and the welfare state back then was neither draw nor drain.
asked a former Bavarian Army Corporal and amateur artist… 🙂
“Why do we *have* to have a static nation in the first place?”
For the same reason we have individual property rights: to prevent others from taking what you have worked hard to build.
Why only American writers J.P.?
The facts are plain – as the quote you cite shows.
Most (although not all – remember there are Hispanic names among the DEFENDERS of the Alamo) Mexicans(and other Latin Americans) believe that parts of the United States are not really American.
And how far would they go? After all the majority of children in Providence Rhode Island are now of Latin American ancestry, will this bit of New England (on the Atlantic ocean) be redefied as “South West”. These children should be as American as anyone else – but whose flag do they feel is their flag (in a British context – would they pass the “cricket test”?) I do not know. Does anyone know?
What do they think of the Bill of Rights? Are the Founding Fathers their Founding Fathers? What are their BELIEFS?
Mexican War Aims in the war of 1848 are never discussed – yet they existed, and they were just as expansionist as American war aims.
So the line that the Mexican-American war was all the fault of the Untied States (taught that way in AMERICAN schools not just Mexican one) is false.
Should an unlimited number of Argentines be allowed to emigrate to the Falkland Islands?
Well should they people?
Yes or no?
If the answer is “yes” – then the Falklands are lost (and Europe is also lost – absorbed into Africa and the Middle East).
But if the answer is “no” (no an unlimited number of Argentines should not be allowed to enter the Falkland Islands) then what has happened to the “principle of free migration”?
Under this principle an unlimited number of followers of Islam can enter Israel.
An unlimited number of Argentines can enter the Falklands.
And an unlimited number of people who do not believe the United States should even exist, can enter the United States.
I have a problem with a principle that leads (if it is applied) to genocide – to the wiping out of whole nations (in the case of Europe the wiping out of a civilisation).
It is nothing to do with “race” (I repeat there are Hispanic names among the DEFENDERS of the Alamo) and everything to do with BELIEFS.
As Justice Pierce Butler of the Supreme Court argued in the 1920s – if a man enters the United States to do it harm (if he is not loyal to the United States – indeed wishes it ill) then he should not be there.
There is also the “Social Justice” factor.
Like Argentines, Mexicans are political people – they believe in “Social Justice”.
Or at least three quarters of them do.
They actually understand (as Californians do) that something is fundamentally wrong with their society – but what that fundamental problem is they do not know.
Indeed they most likely think “the rich” are to blame – if only Carlos Slim was robbed all would be well……….
It never occurs to them that repeated efforts (Revolution, endless banditry, riots and theft) to achieve “social justice” are at the root of what is wrong with Mexico (indeed with all of Latin America).
Why do people think Nancy Pelosi was down at the border cheering on the illegal immigrants.
It is an “opportunity” for her.
And so it is.
Promise them government spending in return for their votes (oh yes – voting is the end game).
Class politics – votes for government spending (supposedly at the expense of “the rich”).
That is the “opportunity”.
Years ago I took a sensitivity seminar for my work involving immigrants and new cultures. It was interesting in a predictable sense, i.e., full of PC nonsense but with a few worthwhile nuggets to be mined.
After listening to the very earnest and sincere advocates for the new immigrants complain about our terrible, restrictive immigration policies, I asked them for some examples of truly good countries who accepted immigrants more openly and which we could emulate to expiate our sins.
After a moment of looking at each other, one answered that there weren’t any other countries that accepted immigrants in either the numbers the US did, nor with a more simplified and basic process to become full citizens.
If we wanted to be truly restrictive, we could adopt the same policies that Mexico enforces on its southern border, but then these rules, which no one cares about in the least now, at least publically, would suddenly become the most terrible, draconian obscenities anywhere because the US was using them.
I’m not going to bother with some argument about how all borders should disappear, because that’s a pie-in-the-sky world that will never exist, even if it should, which I doubt.
A poll taken several years ago asked people all over the world where they would truly like to live if they could just go there, and some very substantial percentage said they would come to the US. It simply isn’t possible to accommodate that kind of movement, especially with a modern welfare state.
I read an article today about some huge demonstrations in Hong Kong protesting controls placed on them from Beijing. I wish them well, as I do anyone who is active in acquiring and protecting human rights.
But the oppressed masses of Asia cannot just pack up and come here by their millions, nor can those in Central and South America.
The very dissatisfied people who come here are the ones who might be able to generate the energy necessary to reform their own societies.
There’s certainly plenty of room for reform and improvement, both there and here.
Fuck. Shit. Wank. Cunt. Bastard. Turd. Bugger!
Now that I have vented my spleen over my country’s elimination from the World Cup, I shall attempt some rational discourse.
veryretired and Incunabulum are both correct that immigrants bring culture with them. I’m a first generation immigrant to the USA and the fact that I chose football (or soccer, for my new brethren) as a vehicle for my point is not a coincidence.
However, nobody in this discussion has yet addressed contracts – which we, as libertarians, might be expected to be partial towards. I’m still Church of England – the US constitution forbids the US government from entering into any agreement which requires me to repudiate that. On the other hand, the contract that I freely entered into when I became a US citizen involved me agreeing to renounce prior allegiances and cleave to the USA.
In other words, I signed a contract that, implicitly, said “Next time there’s a World Cup, your side is the USA”. So did every single Mexican born Natuaralised citizen of the USA. I had a whole paragraph of details that one might include on charge sheets, but wasting space here with it seems unnecessary.
If you guys in the US, with its large tracts of land and resources, can feel ‘threatened’ by significant influxes of immigrants, legal or illegal, how does it feel for my fellow citizens in tiny Singapore with its land area of 600 sq km, in which 3 million citizens are jam packed shoulder to shoulder with 2 million non-citizens?
There is no easy solution to the promise of cheap labour and the perogative it demands on firms to take advantage of it. Of course they would – if they didn’t, their competitors would.
How to achieve this? It’s really very much easier said than done. In my country’s context, we have high levels of training, but any population follows the bell curve of attributes, and in that sense, the amount of talent and intelligence in any given population is limited. How are our low intelligence and low aptitude workers (e.g. IQ 80-90 – those who are only suited for janitorial work, maids etc) going to compete against slightly more capable (or even average) foreign workers offering lower pay and improved capabilities (IQ 90-100), of which there are literally billions?
We don’t have a welfare state, yet they are still willing to come, in percentages even higher than the US. http://www.gallup.com/poll/166796/potential-net-migration-index-declines-countries.aspx
So the issue of welfare with respect to immigration has always been a strawman argument to me – it merely increases the incentive to immigrate for work, but does not remove it entirely if abolished.
I’m not really advocating against or for immigration. Heck, my wife is an immigrant herself. But we need to be very aware of the social, economic, and political consequences of these policies and not handwave them away as ‘inconsequential’.
Finally, is it me, or are the open borders advocates AWOL at the moment? I fully expect some of them to jump in anytime now.
So the facts are not as plain as they may seem from this or that quote, Paul 🙂 Who knows? My guess is, people who actually live there and interact with immigrants on a regular basis – hence, I presume, the question having been addressed to such people.
And yet, the empirical evidence, as you probably know, shows that the rich get even richer with high levels of immigration, the middle class gets hollowed out, and inequality increases rather than decreases.
One would think these people are dupes or something…
I’ve spent considerable time living in neighborhoods where hispanics were a big part of the community. In upper east Manhattan around the GW bridge, spanish is what you commonly hear on the street. I never found those people to be anything but welcoming and friendly. And here in Mojave where I am currently at work, I have yet to meet any Hispanics who were not family centered, hard working, good people. Now it may be different in the welfare pens of Los Angeles, but I have never seen it.
I don’t live near the border, I live in Chicago – which is one of the largest “Mexican” cities in the world. There are many hispanics living in my building complex, nearly all of them Mexican. They seem (pretty much) to be decent people.
But I read the papers, and there are lots of reports of vicious crimes by recent hispanic immigrants. There is solid numeric evidence that hispanic immigrants are much more crime-prone than “native” American. There are three major “alignments” among the street gangsters – Crips (black), Bloods (black), and Latin Kings. Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13; founded by Salvadorans) is widely considered the most vicious and dangerous gang. Hispanics are disproportionately found driving unlicensed and uninsured, frequently with catastrophic results for others.
I read other things. One thing I’ve read is that a very substantial proportion of hispanic immigrants assimilate to the norms of the American underclass. Second and third generation descendants of hispanic immigrants have worse outcomes than the first generation in areas such as education, employment, crime, drug usage, welfare dependency, and bastardy. This is unprecedented – no previous immigrant group has failed to converge toward American middle-class norms; many have surpassed those norms.
The “leadership” of American hispanics consists almost exclusively of professional left-wing activists, funded by government and foundations or ensconced in academia. Hispanophone media is also allied with the left, and for practical reasons opposed to linguistic assimilation.
Thus, while hispanic mass immigration is proving a huge problem for most Americans outside the ranks of the very wealthy, it is a boon for the Democrats and the left.
As to the political issue (the status of the U.S. Southwest): even at the time, a very large portion of Americans disapproved of the war. Then-Representative Abraham Lincoln submitted several “Spot Resolutions” asking President Polk to specify the “spot” where “American blood was shed on American soil”. (That was Polk’s professed casus belli, though in fact the bloodshed took place in disputed territory.) Former President Grant, who had served in the war, wrote that it was “one of the most unjust ever waged”.
Not that it matters now, except among the usual suspects. The apparent conflict between Mexican nationalist views and Mexican immigrant aspirations are not significant. Few of the immigrants have any real feeling on the issue. There is no campaigning for it.
Also, of course, the majority of Mexican citizez who might want such “redress” and the minority who want to migrate don’t necessarily overlap much.
And there is often a disjuncture between sentiment and real action. For instance, it’s been noted that the proportion of Northern Irish who want union with the Republic is much lower than the vote for the parties advocating it (Sinn Fein and SDLP).
Rich — You’re actually IN Chicago? North side? Or Southwest? Albany Park, Old Town, New Town, Rogers Park, ??? Hyde Park? UC? (Forget this “The U of C” nonsense. It’s properly UC and that’s that!)
My husband was from Albany Park. Have you been to Lutz’s on Montrose yet? Best “German” bakery not in Austria or Bavaria. You a Chicago native?
“Travelling to a country, then despising it, does not strike me as a way to win friends and influence people.”
I would toss the question back at you, per Muslim immigration into Europe and the UK. They do not assimilate. They hate you. They rape your young women. They’re outbreeding you. We hear on this side of the pond that Europe will be Muslim in 50 years; what they couldn’t take by force of arms is being given to them on a silver platter. What say you?
Alisa – I think I can predict what (say) five thousand Argentines would do if allowed to settle in the Falklands. Be very friendly and polite – and then take over (and that would be the end of the Falklands).
As for the people going into the United States – at least 75% of them (according to the Pew Research Centre – hardly a conservative outfit) are Social Justice believers who want the American government to intervene even MORE in health and welfare (they want more money from the taxpayers – and they are honest enough to say so).
Dale I am not interested if people are “friendly” and “polite” (I am sure the Islamic population of Judea are very friendly and polite – till the moment they are not) – I want to know how they vote. For example, New York City now has a Mayor with a pro Communist background – not just in some university, but actively in Nicaragua and Cuba. How did this man become Mayor? Who voted for him in the Democratic Primary (unlike the general election, the Primary was quite close)?
If this is all about “free migration” how do you explain the such things as Supreme Court judgement in 1982 forcing Texas to give “free” (tax payer funded) education to illegals – why (if this just about free migration) was this case ever brought? And what about California when the people voted to not pay for various forms of welfare for people they never even asked to come. This was struck down by the Californian courts – that was a death sentence for California.
But why was this case ever brought? If this matter is just about “free migration” this case would not have been brought.
Indeed the people concerned would have said – “do not INSULT us – of course we do not want “public services” that is not why we are” – but that is NOT what they said. Instead off to the courts (to loot the taxpaying citizens) they went. But, no doubt, they were very polite and friendly about it.
Which independence day do these people celebrate? And which flag?
The American one the Mexican one?
And do not say “both” – if someone goes to a new country (not on a visit but for life) then one has to be loyal to that new country (not claim that the new country is “really” part of the country one has just left).
The French Protestants who came to Britain fleeing from Louis XIV did not fly French flags in Britain.
And what about the American children FORBIDDEN from taking American flags (even small ones on their shirts) into school – especially on Mexican Independence Day.
Who gives a bleep if all this is “polite and friendly”?
Hopefully, the Mohamedans will all leave France, now that some court has refused a Mohamedan woman’s request to be allowed to keep wearing her veil. I wonder if they’ll move to Britain? (That will be the United Kingdom of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland, if the Scottish seceders succeed. Or South Britain without the scottish North Britain.)
Darrell – we are limited in what we can say in reply to you.
One of the casualties (inevitable casualty) of THIS FORM of mass immigration and demographic change is freedom-of-speech.
This is not a recent thing – even back in 1965 (the year I was born) an Act of Parliament was passed to restrict freedom of speech (and freedom of association – by forcing people to trade with and employ people they did not wish to trade with or employ). This was directly as a result of the immigration policy – it was what it was about.
So any claim that someone makes that “they do not know” that freedom of speech and freedom of association are casualties of this policy, is impossible to believe.
After all this has been obvious for almost 50 years.
Will RACIST organisations such as “The Race” (which teaches that the United States “really” belongs to Latin America) allow freedom of speech in the United States?
Of course they will NOT.
And the Democratic Party (and RINOs)will back them – as will the judges they appoint.
Freedom of speech will be ended (as “Hate Speech” – speech that violates Social Justice).
This is obvious already – the university crowd (where the judges come from) make no secret of it. And the politicians (the politicians who inevitably win elections in California and so on now) will back them.
So anyone who says “I want an open door on the Southern border – but I want freedom of speech as well” might as well say …….
“I want a cat – as long as it barks”.
For a nation to have a policy (such as freedom of speech) a nation must first EXIST.
Five thousand Argentines allowed into the Falklands – and the Falklands no longer exists.
Allow 1% of the Islamic population of the world into Israel – and Israel is no more.
Britain, Europe, the United States are no different.
If you allow in vast numbers of people who do not believe your nation should exist – then your nation will not exist (and it will not have a freedom of speech, or any other policy – because it will no longer exist).
None of the above has anything to do with RACE.
Nothing (YET) stops (for example) immigrants to New York City (legal or illegal) denouncing “Social Justice”, refusing to have anything to do with the flags of Latin American nations and lining up to vote for Rudy G’s old deputy to be Mayor.
They (especially in places such as California) CHOOSE not to behave this way.
It is a matter of BELIEFS.
By the way – there is a right to keep and bear arms in the MEXICAN Constitution (look it up it is there).
This “right” is not worth the paper it is written on – because of the judges.
It will be no different in California – or the United States.
Ask the “wise Latina woman” (why is that self description not RACIST and SEXIST?) on the Supreme Court what she thinks.
This is why ex Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes down to the Southern border – cheering on the end of the United States.
It is was a good thing Nancy Pelosi would not be supporting it.
And the left in Europe would not have cheered on the policy they have been cheering on the policy in Europe.
“But the Islamic population will destroy things the left care about”.
They do not care.
Not as long as the West is destroyed.
Destroying the West is what is important to them.
Everything else (“Gay rights”, “the rights of women” whatever)is a side issue – a tactic.
What is IMPORTANT is destroying the West – and (for many years now) the left have seen the influx from the Third World as a way of doing that.
But I am sure that the university academics (and so on) are very polite and friendly about it.
One should open the gates to those who are loyal to the city – not to those who are not.
Opening the gates to those who are not loyal to the city (or having no gates at all) is suicidal.
That is what Justice P. Butler (correctly) argued in the 1920s – when writing the majority decision.
And he was quite prepared to dissent when the court was being unjust – for example he was the lone dissenter in “Buck V Bell”.
Paul, you’re absolutely, irrefutably, correct. In every regard.
Open borders do not work in a welfare state. It’s a negative incentive.
Hispanics – even in second gen – underperform in school and employment. Half of Hispanic households receive benefits.
Hispanic overwhelmingly favor statist policies. If they didn’t, the Dems would have shut the border years ago.
Everyone has rosy anecdotes but the stats don’t lie. Immigration from Central America has ruinous implications for budgets and politics.
Kim du Toit – the world would be a much nicer place if I was WRONG.
If the Falklands could be opened to the Argentines – and remain the Falklands.
If Israel could be opened to the Islamic world – and remain Israel.
If Australia could be opened to the Indonesians – and remain Australia.
And so on.
Sadly (as we both know) reality is often horrible.
But one must face it.
By the way all the above COULD happen.
IF.
If the Argentines wanting to go to the Falklands did not want to be Argentines any more.
If the Muslims who wanted to go to Israel sincerely wanted to become Jews.
If the Indonesians (and others) who wanted to go to Australia sincerely wanted to no longer be part of the Islamic world.
And so on.
But this is just NOT TRUE.
Wobbly Guy
I think Singapore’s situation is completely different. Immigration into the city-state is highly correlated with income and not so much with family links.
Whereas the problem in the US is the high cost of unskilled immigrants to the treasury, in Singapore foreigners contribute 70% of all income tax while mostly paying for private schooling and healthcare.
Further, employment passes and permanent residency is certainly not permanent. EPs and PRs can be canceled at any time – and they increasingly are – and once the govt decides they want to slow down the pace of development, they can almost immediately send 30% of the population home.
In the US and elsewhere, they are there to stay, along with the extended family members they go on to sponsor.
And as I always tell the Singapore taxi drivers who say such a small city can’t take so many immigrants, well, immigrants to Canada or Australia don’t move to the wilderness. They live in vancouver, Toronto, Sydney etc, and the property prices and crowding are no different from what is experienced here.
True.
70%? Really? This link says otherwise.
Indeed. A most unwise move.
That was a disingenuous reply. The natives of Vancouver, Toronto, and Sydney can still move around out of the city into the rest of their own countries of Canada or Australia. Where can Singaporeans move to?
Oh wait, they do move out. Out of Singapore and into other countries like Canada and Australia, not incidentally. But then, they give up their Singaporean citizenship and become citizens of another state, whose values they probably sneer at and take advantage of at every possible opportunity.
Oops.
And hey, looks like I’m still waiting for the strong open borders advocates to argue against Paul and Kim et al.
This is a very complex thing with a lot of that “blind men and the elephant” dynamic to it. It is very easy to lapse into stereotypes in these matters, I guess in part because of the small sample size any one person can have. My tiny fragment of the picture is that the spanish speaking immigrants I’ve met mostly “take the jobs” of native born teenagers. I have been told by at least two small business owners (farm and contracting) that they will be doing better work now that their crews are all “Mexicans and Amish.” I guess that kind of thing is always a function of quality, quantity, and price so who can say what the ratios are.
On the whole, I’m not concerned with the job competition thing but do worry more about the voting side of it. We’ve certainly seen enough trouble of that kind from internal migration between states like California and Arizona, or Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
The big question in the background of all this for me is: A few years back I considered trying life abroad. I looked at several possible destinations, including the UK. The answer was basically: “forget it” How does it work that a university educated American with many years of work experience and native English (well American anyway…) has no chance of getting a work permit, but the news and comments tell us that thousands of unskilled Islamic and other immigrants come in routinely?? Are they all illegals?
Singapore declared independence from Malaya (now Malaysia) because the population of Singapore did not want to be ruled by the Muslim population (who were already demanding special quotas for jobs and so on).
If Singapore had an open borders policy its independence would go the way of the dodo (very quickly). As Thomas Sowell points out – Singapore still stands against “anti discrimination” (Orwellian name for what are actually de facto laws) regulations, that (and everything else) would go if the borders were opened to Malaysia and Indonesia.
John…..
I would like to reply to you. But I suspect that a full and honest reply would be unlawful.
To be fair…….
Singapore has a terrible fertility rate.
Ditto South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Germany, Italy (etc).
The way things are going enemies will not have to invade these countries – just wait and then move in.
The ruins of the great buildings will puzzle the newcomers.
The Germanic tribes who moved into Britain thought that the Roman ruins they viewed must have been built by giants.
“Then the Economist magazine is correct – such countries need immigrants”.
Not culturally hostile ones, no.
Also a society which can not even replace itself has something fundamentally wrong with it (something that even friendly immigration will not fix).
Americans need not smile – social and economic “Progressivism” have done their work, more “Anglos” are dying than are being born.
Even the Southern Baptists appear to be in decline, although the Mormons are still growing.
If someone (of any race) converts to a new religion they are turning their back upon their past loyalties.
By the way….
A classic example of friendly immigration is that of the Eastern Europeans into the United Kingdom.
There is no desire among these people to annex the land (to declare that England is part of Poland or whatever), and no hostile religious or political ideology.
I am baffled as to the English dislike of the East Europeans – who have no hostile intent.
There have been plenty of friendly East Europeans coming to the UK in the last century, especially 1939 onwards, I welcome them all.
I live in Colorado; there are plenty of illegal immigrants here. I know legals and illegals, and I can say that both groups tend to be hard-working, family-oriented, and observe their religion on Saturday or Sunday (when they aren’t working). The difference is that the legal immigrants tend to be fiercely pro-American, and are not at all keen to see other illegals enter the country.
A terrible fertility rate seems to be something all modern societies have in common, one that I think only the Mormons have managed to avoid.
For East Asian societies, virtually non-religious, work-oriented, so utterly pragmatic, economic materialism, creature comforts, and conspicuous overconsumption have become such strong perogatives that they have overruled the need to propagate the next generation. These factors also exist, to a lesser extent, in the West. Why sacrifice your expensive and expansive lifestyles for the tedious chore of changing diapers?
My wife, on our recent honeymoon trip to Europe after our wedding, commented early on that she saw very few babies in the cities we were in, London and Paris, and on how well dressed the women of Europe generally were. I dared not bring up the correlation.
In Ulster people still have babies – both communities.
Still who knows what the future will bring.
Perhaps scientific advance will mean that people are produced in factories.
Many years ago, I watched TV coverage of the US leaving Subic Bay in the Philippines; they wanted us to go, though the then US government wanted to stay. Being too young to care much either way, I was nevertheless amused by one Filipino’s sign among the rote anti-American claptrap: “Yankee go home! And take me with you!”
It took me years of teaching English abroad, with colleagues who were often non-Americans, to realize how widespread that Filipino’s thoughts are.