In a comment on a posting in the small hours of this morning (how time does the opposite of fly (it’s the blogging that flies) when you are blogging) about the fall of the Roman Empire, Terence Kealy, etc., Guessedworker said this:
If one is looking at parallels with the present day they exist a-plenty. The starkest and most fundamental is the destruction we allow of our own traditions and mores, by and large in the pursuit of self-gratification. Close behind that is the weakness of understanding, the blind altruism that permits a river of foreign humanity to flow into our midst.
These are great moral failings then and now, against which any failing in the promotion of science and technology is decidedly minor.
To which I replied thus:
Guessedworker
I couldn’t agree with you less.
One of the very best things about the best bits of the West (USA and the UK definitely tagging along behind) is the way that rivers of humanity flood in and join in, and absolutely central to this is the radically progressive tradition of technological activity that is now thoroughly bedded down in our civilisation, unlike in Ancient Rome. There’s nothing altruistic about the USA’s immigration policies. They’re one of the big reasons the USA is racing ahead of (e.g.) Japan now.It’s the stagnant social and economic systems which don’t attract foreigners, like (again) late Imperial Rome, whose population fell, as Kealey explains.
And for from the pursuit of fun being an attack on our great traditions, that’s one of them, for goodness sakes.
And nor do immigrants “flooding” into the USA challenge USA tradition. THEY ARE USA TRADITION!!!! And they damn well know it. They quickly become state of the art Americans, and raise state of the art American families.
I’m less optimistic about similar processes working their magic in the UK, and even less so about the same thing in continental Europe, but somewhat optimistic about that even so.
And the always quotable T. Hartin then offered this distinction:
Not to highjack this thread into an immigration flamewar (which, come to think of it, we haven’t had for awhile), but this is primarily true with respect to legal immigration only, and even in that arena is less true as the ideal of assimilation into American culture is diluted by multi-culti diversity crackpottery.
Illegal immigration and unassimilated immigrants (illegals tend not to assimilate) are a potentially major problem for any nation, especially one built primarily on a shared culture rather than a shared ancestry.
At which point I did another comment saying, we’ll have this argument around a new posting, please. (Although my exact words were not “please” but: Sieg Heil!)
Personally I am fairly optimistic that multi-culti diversity crackpottery is not nearly as strong as the cultural DNA of the USA, but the legal/illegal thing I am less sure about.
But one thought: it’s surely true that the children of illegals, born in the USA, then become fully legal legals themselves, do they not? And won’t they want to join the cultural mainstream, learn English, shave the corners off their religious complaints about the USA, etc. etc.?
Joanne Jacobs has some good stuff over at her blog about the desire of USA Hispanics to be educated in English, rather than bilingually. If that’s so, that’s the kind of thing that makes me an optimist about this stuff.
Pluls, at the risk of hijacking this posting, I wonder, is there a tendency for citizens of the USA not to quite see how strong and distinct their own culture is, because they live right inside it and can’t see it from outside, and in particular they can’t see the enormous contrast between it and other cultures, most especially non-Western ones?
And am I, being British and having hardly done any serious travelling, similarly blind to the distinctiveness and strength of British culture, and hence am I liable to miss just how much, e.g. Brit Muslims, are already rapidly becoming British? It’s a thought.
This is just the kind of thing that Samizdata commenters, who never cease to impress me, could illuminate really well.
Its interesting really. Comparing where I lived in the Bay Area (San Francisco) with other places I’ve lived in the UK – London, North West, my gut feeling was the assimilation was happening better in the UK.
There weren’t many non-white “European” faces living in the area I had my appartment and likewise the same was true in other areas of the town where you’d find other groups gathering together. That’s not to say there wasn’t integration just that there seemed to be a lot more unofficial segregation than you’d get in the UK. OTOH where I lived in the North West the streets were far more mixed up, likewise London, while you tend to get areas, you also get a lot of migration in and out.
My mum, for example, is originally from Stepney and the Brick Lane area she knew of mostly pre-war jewish migrants is unrecognisable from the current set of inhabitants. She goes back quite frequently to her old school reunions and sees that a lot of the Asian immigrants are now moving out to the home counties and being replaced by new Eastern European groups.
That’s not to say there aren’t problems, but that assimilation happens slowly and some groups are better at it than others.
I recently red a historical novel by Edward Rutherfurd’s called London that follows the story of the city from a small trading post to the modern metropolis (highly recommended). One of the things that became very clear after reading this book is that London has always been a mongrel city and that its strengths has always been its diversity. Anyone who thinks immigration is weakening London/the UK fundamentally misunderstand the sources of the strengths of the place. This place has always cheerfully overcome challenges and ended up on top, because its has always been diverse, in terms of skills, culture, origin etc and relatively free in terms of personal freedom and the freedom to settle in the UK.
Illegal immigrants would not be going to the US if there was no demand for their work and/or if they’d be worse off there. People do not illegally emigrate to the same country for decades by mistake. Also note that remittances to their home countries by US illegals is simply massive. It is an uncounted form of foreign aid. As for traditions, they are not anymore destroyed by foreigners anymore than McDonald’s destroys gastronomy in France. And after all, what we call tradition today was a novelty at some point, often replacing another tradition. All loss or alteration of tradition is not a bad thing. See those in France who worry about the loss of the local social welfare tradition due to the growing inflow of immigrants. I wish.
My concerns about immigration in the US are really two-fold.
First, there is a kind of free-floating concern that is very hard to quantify that we may be on the way to incubating non-assimilated, and thus marginalized, unhappy, and socially disruptive, groups of immigrants. We have done a pretty good job of creating this already with many inner-city black communities. It may be that the folks who emigrate to the US are pretty well self-selected against the multi-culti crap that infests our universities and elite opinion enclaves. Really, my concerns in this area have mostly to do with radicalized unrest along the border with Mexico, where groups like called La Raza is actively pushing a toxic brand of racialism, Marxism, and grievance that claims, in effect, that a Mexican immigrant who tries to assimilate is a race traitor, that the US has no claim to lands formerly belonging to Mexico, and so forth. To date, I am not aware of much in the way of violence by the La Raza types, but it seems a hairbreadth away given their rhetoric. It would be all too easy for the US to develop the kind of unassimilated immigrant enclaves (for Mexicans) that the French have (for Muslims), and I have no desire to import that particular can of worms.
The second concern is more of a policy concern. On the one hand, I think it is pretty clear that Mexico is actively fomenting illegal immigration to the US as a safety valve for their unemployable lumpens. Recent data (if I can come up with a link I will) shows that the illegals coming in from Mexico are uneducated underachievers, even by Mexican standards. On the other hand, constant calls for immigration amnesty and pandering to the Mexican-American grievance lobby create an environment where immigration laws are viewed as a sucker’s game, undermining any attempt to channel immigration into legal processes. Finally, of course, there is obviously an economic demand for these people that our policy makers have failed to create a system to handle. I think the way to go is guest worker privileges that make it easier for Mexican workers to come to this country legally to work, combined with strict enforcement of immigration laws to get and keep the illegals out. With a relatively open channel for guest workers, hopefully much of the pressure to immigrate through illegal channels will abate.
I’ve always loved the way that the rest of the world (insert hatred of France here) makes laws to reign in the “cultural imperialism” of American influence, while we panic that immigrants, who are here and surrounded by American culture, won’t assimilate.
Brian, I think you are right about “multi-culti diversity crackpottery.” That is something for fuzzy liberal college administrators, Democratic politicians, and professional do-gooder types.
I grew up in a very Italian neighborhood in a small city in upstate New York — my friends’ grandparents spoke heavily-accented broken English, some spoke only Italian; my friends’ parents spoke English, some with accents, some without, seasoned with a few Italian words or phrases; my friends all spoke standard unaccented English (well, yes, the accent of an upstate New York blue collar neighborhood, but no Italian accent), and only used Italian for cursing.
That is the exact pattern followed by every immigrant group in the U.S. Sometimes it takes a bit longer, sometimes a bit shorter.
America has been called a “melting pot” for the way a multitude of foreign cultures merged together. Oh, we keep our unique cultural heritages, but we share them with everyone. When they paint a green stripe down the middle of the street for a St. Patrick’s Day parade in a U.S. town, it’s not just the Irish who are celebrating — the saying is that everyone is Irish on St. Patrick’s Day. And a Greek Orthodox church may have a huge Greek festival weekend, attended by thousands of non-Greeks to enjoy the music and the dancing and the food (and the church may be able to cover its mortgage payments for the year with the income from that weekend festival).
I now live in Rhode Island where it seems as if every week there is some ethnic group having a festival — last week I think there was a big festival celebrating the Cape Verde Islands independence day — but we’re all Americans.
And we all inter-marry and end up as members of many ethnic groups. I’m part English, part Irish, part Scot, part French, part Dutch, and maybe a couple of other things… my wife is half Irish and half German. One of the current debates is over census statistics — people had always been asked to select a racial category, which upset many people of mixed racial background — but allowing people to identify themselves as “mixed” upset the professional politicians who wanted to be able to proclaim themeslves as leaders of large communities of whatever racial minority. What is TIger Woods’ ethnicity? More and more Americans are of mixed racial backgrounds and don’t want to have to pick one kind of “diversity” label.
We’re all Americans.
Sometimes we’ve had strife to end injustices. We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery. In my youth we went through civil unrest to end segregation and then to secure civil rights for all Americans. I knew that battle would be won the day I walked into our living room and saw my father cursing at the television news program that was showing the voting rights march in Selma, Alabama. My father (a man nobody would ever call a left-winger) was saying “They’re Americans demanding their right to vote and that’s their goddamned right to do that!”
I mentioned that I live in Rhode Island. Providence is by far the largest city in the state and it has a population from an amazing variety of ethnic and national backgrounds. The current mayor of Providence is half Italian, half-Jewish, fluent in Spanish, and openly gay. He was elected by a landslide vote.
[What about on your side of the ocean? When I’m in London and people of various racial backgrounds speak to me with British accents, I always think of them as being British. Don’t they think of themselves as being British? Don’t you think of them as being British?]
I once met an Iranian who lived in Oslo. He was an educated computer professional who spoke excellent English (I couldn’t say if his Norwegian was accented or not) and had a good job with a good company — but he didn’t feel at home in Norway and said his wife was really unhappy living there. Go back to Iran? No, that was out of the question; what he wanted to do was to emigrate to America.
I’ve lived most of my life in Phoenix, AZ. The warehouse I work in employs a mostly Latino crew, and my experience is that the recent immigrants (legal or not), are far more interested in bettering themselves than the second generation.
I don’t think most folks who floated their way to this country on some ricketty half-assed boat constructed from used tampon strings and lobster tails did it because they were seduced by some vision of a glorious life in project housing, growing fat on government cheese.
Every wave of immigration that has made it to these shores has been greeted with fear, hate, legal discrimination, and violence. And within 3 generations they have all become part of the weave of our culture. How is it possible to believe that the Mexicans and Pakistanis are just too damn lazy by nature to make it in a first world culture, but that Italians and the Irish do it just fine.
The sort of cut and paste arguments, where one takes the rhetoric of yesteryear and simply removes one ethnicity and substitutes whatever the hated wog de jure is, infuriate me. (Run-on sentences on the other hand do not infuriate me. They are my meat and drink.)
I was involved in an argument on this very issue, last year in a world politics course. The woman with whom I was arguing maintained that Mexican immigrants today simply will not assimilate into American society. A fairly standard refrain, but for the fact the she was herself the daughter of illegal immigrants from Mexico. She clung steadfastly to the position that no Mexicans who come to the United States post 1975 were worth a damn.
Living here, I have heard every argument that exists in opposition to immigration. I have yet to hear one that holds up to logical analysis. I think the problems are in the US already. A bloated welfare system, wage controls, monopoly schools, and the aforementioned “multi-culti” fallacies.
Even if it were true that immigrants won’t work, or learn the language, or think of themselves as Americans, that isn’t a failure to assimilate. Because those things are what modern culture is: Don’t take responsibility for your own actions, play the victim, take any benefit you can get, and hyphenate, hyphenate, hyphenate. You can’t blame the race blame game unless you have that hyphen.
Most of these issues are failures in the way we have ordered our own culture, not some tragic flaw brought to our shore by hordes of untermenschen.
By the way, if this wasn’t rambling or hysterical enough, let me know, because I’ve been tamping the rage down into a little tiny box for a good long time.
RK Jones
I am in favor of immigration, especially to my country, the United States, so long as people come here for the “right” reason – that is buying into our political belief system. The folks who come here because they want to spread “social justice”, sharia, or loot the welfare system of taxpayer dollars are leeches or worse, and oughtn’t be allowed in.
That said, we’re a big country and can take a lot. But I have three concerns about the massive level of immigration (the highest level, percentage wise, ever, at least since the first Brit ex-pat stepped off the boat).
1. Hijacking. Small western European countries are having grave difficulties with insular minorities that don’t wish to be assimilated. I won’t name the name of the problem children, but it rhymes with Isalmofascist. Small 10% increase in the population of the Netherlands, or France, comprised largely of insular radicalized moslems has destabilized both countries politically. As Pym Fortuyn framed it, why should we, in the name of tolerance, allow a group of intolerant people to come to power in our country, in order to wipe out tolerance? This indicates to me that the level of immigration ought to be controlled, in light of how quickly any particular immigrant group is being assimilated into the culture. This may fly in the face of pure libertarian dogma, but I don’t remember anything in Hayek about how we ought to let some barbarically behaving people co-opt our country. Which raises another problem.
2. Multi-culturalism. Or as I would call it, Racialist Sap-istry. The Marcusian insistence upon stigmatizing anyone who would throw stones at any group of people (save White males) for noting adverse characteristics that tend to occur within an insular group is… well, it’s what I’d expect from a pack of Marcusians or Gramscians. In English, it’s the multi-culti insistence that all cultures are just as good as all other cultures, and that it’s a hate crime to say otherwise. This has given rise to the term “political correctness” and concrete lunacy, like the fact you can be put on trial in Canada for criticizing homosexuality. (Or thrown out of colleges in the U.S. for being “racially insensitive”, e.g. White & conservative at Cal Tech). Recently, a Danish court (mmmmm…. danishes…) dismissed a rape case against a middle eastern recent immigrant, finding the rape was probably culturally justified — I don’t remember the exact words the judge used, but I believe the translation was “perhaps we need to understand his culture better.” (I’m sure some of you Northeastern Anglospherians remember the case I’m referring to). My point being, multi-cultural stupidity has gone beyond not criticizing others’ culture; it’s gotten to the stage where we can’t even acknowledge an atrocity. And no offense to the Congolese rebels, but they are inferior, in every way, to a Father Damien or Mother Theresa, and maybe even to Bob Geldof. Sorry, you can’t have your pygmy cake and eat it too. (Nod to Bastille Day there, BTW). This multi-culturalist pap encourages people who have very un-American ways of living and modes of thought to come to the U.S…. and to not change at all. As we’ve proven with the welfare system, if you incentivize bad behavior with state protection and state pay, people will behave badly. It’s the same thing with acculturation and assimilation. If the state encourages the formation of discrete, insular minority communities, then tells the “hegemonic” vast majority of society that we cannot judge, it’s more likely that those insular minorities will stay insular over the generations.
3. Looting. Simply put, a lot of folks come to the U.S. to live off our welfare system. Ever wonder why New York has such a high long term unemployment rate? It’s because there are few other places where not working pays so well. California has similar problems, with vast communities of unemployed Mexicans, and increasingly central Americans. This is in no way meant to denigrate the vast majority of folks who come here to work hard, buy into the dream and get ahead. I’m just saying that it doesn’t take too many parasites to ruin the whole bag of apples. With a welfare payment of $500 – $1000 per month, rent of $400 – $800, food stamps of up to around $500 — it’s not hard to see how being a leech is incentivized. Moreover, while a slim majority of the takers move back into the workforce at some point, a fat minority of welfare recipients are long term, incorrigible non-workers. We are simply too generous with the handouts, to be able to infinitely expand the pool of folks with… well, with their hands out. And most recently, Vincente Fox is scheming to get the U.S. to pay the full social security benefits of workers (legal and illegal) who work for a time in the U.S., then move back to Mexico. The problem being that the U.S. pension is an order of magnitude more generous than Mexico’s, making the whole thing a sort of scam to siphon greenbacks into Mexico’s pension scheme…
Nope, I’ll be all in favor of higher immigration rates when we start stressing citizenship and assimilation, the adoption by new immigrants of cultural norms, and stricter enforcement of our “no work, no stay here” policy. Until then, as a taxpaying citizen in a city already torn by racial and cultural conflicts, I can’t think about advocating even more liberalized immigration standards.
RK – I pretty much agree with you.
My concern with current Mexican immigration patterns has to do with a couple of factors. First, the Mexican government seems to have adopted a policy of encouraging illegal immigration. Their self-interest in doing so is pretty clear, but as they push illegals over the border they are not exporting their doctors and lawyers.
The kind of self-selection that occurs when someone has to move halfway around the world does not come into play when all you have to do is hop in the back of a pickup in Tijuana or take advantage of your contacts in the underworld so you can get to where the cash is. The Mexican government aids and abets this kind of immigration, and it needs to stop.
Second, our American legal and social policies are doing nothing to discourage this kind of bottom-fishing and turn the labor market in a healthier and more productive direction. Of course, the labor market for illegals is about what you would expect of a black market; that is why I do not advocate a net reduction in the number of Mexican immigrants, but rather a change in who comes by changing how they come. We need to drive out the illegal immigrants by substituting legal guest workers for them. In many cases the individual doing the job won’t change, but maybe we can filter out the bad apples.
I agree that the problems we are experiencing are mostly of our own making. I have worked with a number of crews of illegals in Texas and the Chicago area, and you will not find a harder-working bunch of guys than a well-run crew of illegal Mexicans. However, we are also creating systemic problems for ourselves down the line with amnesties for illegals and what amounts to protectionist policies and a black market for manual labor.
>>Really, my concerns in this area have mostly to do with radicalized unrest along the border with Mexico, where groups like called La Raza is actively pushing a toxic brand of racialism, Marxism, and grievance that claims, in effect, that a Mexican immigrant who tries to assimilate is a race traitor, that the US has no claim to lands formerly belonging to Mexico, and so forth. To date, I am not aware of much in the way of violence by the La Raza types, but it seems a hairbreadth away given their rhetoric. It would be all too easy for the US to develop the kind of unassimilated immigrant enclaves (for Mexicans) that the French have (for Muslims), and I have no desire to import that particular can of worms.<< Movements like this really are nothing new; read, for instance, Hunter S. Thompson's "Strange rumblings in Azatlan" from 1971. They were and are pretty marginal, and if they were going to go anywhere, they would have already. Crypto-Marxist "brown power" was a non-starter in 1971; I don't think anyone believes American soil is more fertile for this sort of nonsense now than it was back then. >>On the one hand, I think it is pretty clear that Mexico is actively fomenting illegal immigration to the US as a safety valve for their unemployable lumpens. Recent data (if I can come up with a link I will) shows that the illegals coming in from Mexico are uneducated underachievers, even by Mexican standards.<< How is this really any different than most other groups that have immigrated to America? One normally doesn't emigrate if he is of the manor born.... And governments hoping to get rid of their undesirables isn't new either: you've perhaps heard of the Enclosure movement or the battle of Culloden or the revocation of the Edict of Nantes? Unless you have a Victorian idea that poverty is genetic -- and I'm sure you don't -- I'm not sure what bearing this observation should have on policy one way or another.
As a Mayflower descendent, an “American Mutt,” (and damn proud of both), I know that it is our diversity, that makes America so great. Take 100 Americans (any 2 from each state) and 1 problem, and your going to get many, many different ways to approach and/or solve said problem. Our different backgrounds guarantee that we bring to the table a variety of points of view, ideas and strengths. I think that is what makes us (dare I say) better than any other country.
As far as immigration goes “Bring It!” All this talk about one or another group being lazy, or uneducated, or being leechs on the system is really nonsense – like what, you’re full blooded Native American??? Everyone else came from somewhere else, and probably faced those same tired old prejudice concepts that today’s immigrants do. And besides, with each new group, comes a whole new flavor, and they are all just so delicious!!!!
Mexican anyone? Maybe German, or Greek . . . Italian . . . Tai . . . Indian . . . Cuban . . .What’s on YOUR PLATE tonight???
Pretty limp flame war!
Maybe we should invite one of the Paleos from lewrockwell.com to contribute?
🙂
Cydonia
Yes, we seem to be having an urbane and intelligent discussion rather than insulting one another. It’s kind of disappointing really.
Cydonia and Michael
You’re right. I was thinking this. Where’s the flaming?
I blame the malign influence of Germans on the American character.
Much is made by Americans of their descent from us British, and no wonder. Who wouldn’t want to be descended from such people as us?
The German aspect of their personalities, which they are understandably eager not to talk about, makes them all totally conformist and terrified of ever disagreeing with each other. Hence their inability to engage in a decent flame war.
What we need is some American Spaniards to join in saying they don’t want to integrate into scumbag mainstream Gringo culture, thank you very much. But all this talk about Melting Pots must have frightened them away.
Declining cultures do seem to have more problems accepting immigrants and cultural diversity than ascending cultures.
For example, I’m sure French would be much more of an international language still if the French of France weren’t so consistently snobbish about Belgian French, Swiss French, & Quebecois French.
An Australian friend’s remark about his time living in Japan (“they believe there’s one best way to do everything, and that they know what that one best way is”) leaps to mind to describe a number of cultures worldwide.
How is uncontrolled immigration compatible with libertarianism, though? Almost invariably immigrants are the ones most likely to vote for the big government welfare policies that libertarians hate. To me it seems libertarian agreement with Marxists about the folly of immigration control is like turkeys agreeing with people on the wonders of Christmas.
Thinking much more long term, if libertarians could know that their country would have sharia law within half a dozen generations if immigration is not controlled, would THAT change their stance?
My Grandfather’s family came here from Belgium shortly after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 to escape the constant warfare in Europe. They settled in the Midwest and became successful farmers, owning several farms around the state and land in other states out West. My Gf often talked about the fact that his father marvelled at the land available here. Farms in Europe were so small, and the chance to buy more was almost non-existent.
My GM’s family came to Chicago from Bohemia, then a repressed part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire, in the middle 1800’s. Her father started a butcher shop, and her mother was a baker. My GM was a master baker, and I try to explain what it was like to my wife and my own children, growing up in a house where meals were almost sacred, and the food was so good it is still a powerful memory 50 years later.
My GP’s spoke Bohemian and Flemish to their relatives, but by my generation, there were only a few words left, little catch phrases we still laugh about.
The town where I live has a large Southeast Asian community, and fairly large Somali and Hispanic contingents. Of course there is some friction, but I must believe it is easier now to settle in than a hundred years ago when the anti-(non European white Protestant) ideology was in full flower, and the KKK could march in full regalia down the streets of Wahington DC.
I find the immigrant population contrubutes a couple of very powerful elements to the cultural mix in this country. The courage and determination of people who literally threw themselves into the sea to escape the monstrosity their life had become injects a resiliancy and drive into the community that other cultures who reject immigration seem to be missing.
While the original generation might have difficulty, the second and third are fully American, but still motivated by the desire to “make it” in honor of their parents vision. There are several areas in the metro community which have been literally reborn by the businesses and offices of the SE Asian and Somali entrepeneurs, dentists, lawyers, etc.
I firmly believe that the reason the culture of the US has become a world culture, for better or worse, is that it is a world culture within itself. Instead of having to be born Japanese or French or whatever, an immigrant to the US can become an American, and his children will simply BE Americans. It’s like getting repeated infusions of some kind of energy, with each new group putting something into the mix, and getting something more than they were back out. It is often said that American culture is dynamic in a way other settled cultures are not. This phenomenon is surely one of the major reasons.
I am generally pro-immigration but I firmly believe in the following:
1. Assimilation and the melting pot should be encouraged, not DISCOURAGED (as we are seeing with the “diversity” and “multiculturalism” programs and attitudes showing up in the West today.) “Multiculturalism” as defined by the Left is really just tribalism — and we know where that leads.
2. Immigration should be controlled to give societies a better chance to assimilate new communities.
3. The West should give preference to immigrants from cultures that have shown themselves able to adjust to and adopt Western values. This is not a plea for a return to the old Eurocentric immigrations preferences. In the US, Indians and Far East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) have shown themselves to be generally compatible with Western values. Immigrants from cultures that are hostile to Western values should not be encouraged. The exception I would make to this general rule would be for religous apostates from Islamic countries, who are really political refugees, since apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment in many Islamic nations.
Just something mark said ”
An Australian friend’s remark about his time living in Japan (“they believe there’s one best way to do everything, and that they know what that one best way is”) leaps to mind to describe a number of cultures worldwide”
What exactly is the point here? monocultures dont cut it? Just because Japan doesnt fit the diversity is a strength model it’s people are thinking “wrong”.
Unity of opinion is certainly better for social cohesiveness then diversity and it doesnt seem to be much addition to GDP wheather a country has a few foreign restaurants or not. I assert that the lack of solidarity with the french on Iraq was largely due to attempts to appease the muslim minority in france. Diversity is a strength is a lie. Those who expose it should live in brixton for a while. Dreaming about a curry from thier suburben homes is the closest many people are willing to get to it.
Also Very reTired is amusing saying that the children of immigrants will simply be americans! why do people identify themselves as african americans then or asian americans and only the europeans call themselves unreservadly american unless describing the greater proportion of thier ancestry to a fellow european(ie italian americans etc).
Also his notions on the resillinace of the foriegn poor are just annoying, is he suggestion a constant stream of third world immigration to keep the economies of the west vibrant??
Brian Micklethwait wrote:
I blame the malign influence of Germans on the American character.
Much is made by Americans of their descent from us British, and no wonder. Who wouldn’t want to be descended from such people as us?
The German aspect of their personalities, which they are understandably eager not to talk about, makes them all totally conformist and terrified of ever disagreeing with each other. Hence their inability to engage in a decent flame war.
My grandparent were born in Bavaria (and my father was conceived there), so as an American of German descent I must take offense at your comments. We Bavarians have a sense of humor, although I don’t think this can be said of the other parts of Germany. 🙂
Interestingly, Bavaria is subjected to stereotyping by the rest of Germany, and Edmund Stoiber’s being Bavarian was actually an issue in last year’s German elections.
Heh, I’ll contribute my own wierd take on illegal immigration: there is no such thing. States do not exist. They are an illusion formed by the meme-synchronized collaboraton of a horde of individuals. Therefore national borders do not exist. Therefore illegal immigration does not exist.
There is only one form of real “illegal immigration”, but there’s already better words for it: “trespass” and “squatting”.
The pro-“immigration” comments above are all well and good, and we can all join hands and sing the Star Spangled Banner while thanking the Melting Pot. Unfortunately, these pro-“immigration” comments fall down as currently practised. There are several huge differences between yesterday’s immigration to the U.S. and today’s. And, not just because most of today’s immigrants aren’t coming from Europe.
Today we have a huge Multicultural cottage industry formed by traitorous U.S. politicians, barely concealed Marxists, guilty, naive, and stupid white liberals, racist demagogues, and foreign governments.
Many of T. Hardin’s comments are right on the money:
“Really, my concerns in this area have mostly to do with radicalized unrest along the border with Mexico, where groups like called La Raza is actively pushing a toxic brand of racialism, Marxism, and grievance that claims, in effect, that a Mexican immigrant who tries to assimilate is a race traitor, that the US has no claim to lands formerly belonging to Mexico, and so forth.. I think it is pretty clear that Mexico is actively fomenting illegal immigration to the US as a safety valve for their unemployable lumpens… constant calls for immigration amnesty and pandering to the Mexican-American grievance lobby create an environment where immigration laws are viewed as a sucker’s game, undermining any attempt to channel immigration into legal processes.”
I cover these issue in a fair amount of depth on my blog, and I’d strongly encourage anyone who’s still wearing their rose-colored glasses to visit my “Immigration” category. While I’d love the hits, I’m more interested in getting the word out. I guarantee that if you spend several minutes reading the posts, it will open your eyes to what’s really going on.
For instance, a California State Senator recently had this to say:
“Since we stole [the southwestern U.S.] from [Mexico], why do you say it’s unfair to steal it back from us?”
That last link contains several other highly questionable quotes from CA politicians.
Richard J. Daley and his machine in Chicago, and ethnic machines elsewhere certainly used immigrants as part of their attempts to gain power. However, none of them ever suggested that Chicago or New York should be “returned” to Ireland or Italy.
Just one more comment. According to a poll conducted of Mexicans in Mexico, 58% AGREED with this statement: “the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.”
That’s not too very surprising, considering that we fought at least one war with them. And, considering that that’s what Mexican schoolbooks teach them. And, bear in mind that those same schoolbooks are kindly provided the U.S. schools and libraries by our friends in the Mexican government. All a teacher, parent, or librarian has to do is pay shipping.
For more background on this issue, see “MULTICULTURALISM, IMMIGRATION AND AZTLAN”
And, consider this quote from a Stanford history professor: “The possibility looms that in the next generation or so we will see a kind of Chicano Quebec take shape in the American Southwest…”
Lest we forget, “La comunidad hispana tiene un aliado en Presidente Bush”.
I haven’t read it yet, but I’d also suggest reading “Mexifornia” by Victor Hanson, a respected contributor to National Review and other mags.
Finally, consider this quote from a Mexican official: “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”
The more you know about this, the worse it gets.
I’m pretty divided on the whole immigration thing, and as I’m in Tucson (just over an hour from Mexico) it’s fairly relevant to me on a day to day basis.
I can easily see a future where there is a Schengen-like area composed of Mexico and the Southwestern US, with citizenship in either good for residency and work in both, but not in the rest of the US. State citizenship and residency is already a seperate matter from US citizenship and residency. It would of course take an act of Congress, presumably implementing some treaty.
Not sure how I feel about that possiblility completely, but it isn’t strictly a one way street, there are parts of Mexico that I’ve considered living in (NO, not the coastal resorts! Mexico City or Toluca :-), but the paperwork to work there legally isn’t fun going the other way, either.
Based on my experience around the North West, the chances of X generations of immigration leading to Sharia law are low.
The first generation is pretty religious. The second and third which we are on, are, with some exceptions, still religious.
The fourth generation which we are on in some towns now, spend a lot of time in pubs drinking beer and playing pool.
Most immigrants try to better themselves. Its the nature of arriving with nothing. The biggest problem is the insane nature of our asylum policy. Rather than telling people they have to work until their claim is sorted we force them into the blakc market or crime. Very silly.
Peter Cuthbertson wrote:
How is uncontrolled immigration compatible with libertarianism, though? Almost invariably immigrants are the ones most likely to vote for the big government welfare policies that libertarians hate.
I find it hard to reconcile libertarianism with controlled immigration. I don’t wish anybody to tell me where I may travel or live; and I don’t have good grounds for attempting to to control the movements of others.
Is Peter’s assertion about the likely voting habits of immigrants true? It depends why they moved, surely, and who they are? People’s individual motives, their cultures, and the effect on them of the polities they join are likely to have pretty varied effects.
If you go to a country because it offers business opportunities and freedom, then you aren’t about to spoil that for yourself and your children. If you are in search of a free lunch, then that’s what you’ll support. If you are recruited to prop-up the bottom of the public-sector and live in that atmosphere, you’ll likely (but not certainly) be different in your attitude than if you were a business-person or professional expelled from your former home on grounds of ethnicity.
I’d suggest that to some extent (allowing for a lot of subjectivity as well as the practical constraints) people already choose to move based on what they want out of life. With more voluntary movement will there not be more of an immigration market, leading to competition–and attempts to avoid competition–between states for people? Since physical travel has become easier, this may already have come about. (Note the OECD’s formation of a cartel against tax-havens.)
Julian Morrison:
“Heh, I’ll contribute my own wierd take on illegal immigration: there is no such thing. States do not exist. They are an illusion formed by the meme-synchronized collaboraton of a horde of individuals. Therefore national borders do not exist. Therefore illegal immigration does not exist.
There is only one form of real “illegal immigration”, but there’s already better words for it: “trespass” and “squatting””
Ok, but until the State is finally abolished, what do you think is the correct anarcho-libertarian take on the problem?
Consider for example an immigrant who comes to the U.K. and lives in a council house. The “council house” has been purchased on the market but using tax proceeds. Is the immigrant trespassing? Obviously they are not doing so in a de jure sense, but from a hardcore libertarian perspective, how do you see this situation?
Ditto the immigrant who lives on State benefits. Are they to be regarded as living on the benefits of theft? If yes, does that not suggest that from a libertarian perspective, they are violating the rights of others? If yes, should we support restrictions on their entry, even if State-imposed?
My own take, for what it is worth, is that hard-core libertarians should be in favour of free immigration if (but only if) the immigrants are subject to a bar on claiming any form of State hand-out. This may be difficult in practice and in law (what counts as s State hand-out? how long should the restriction apply? what about their children? what if they become destitute etc?), but at least it points to a way forward which is both consistent with libertarian thinking and has some application to the real world.
It is not ideal because it leaves the apparatus of the Welfare State intact for “citizens” but at least it avoids expanding the welfare roll whilst affording freedom of movement to those who are willing and able to work and pay their way in their new country.
Cydonia
[Comment reposted with correct HTML – sorry!]
Julian Morrison:
“Heh, I’ll contribute my own wierd take on illegal immigration: there is no such thing. States do not exist. They are an illusion formed by the meme-synchronized collaboraton of a horde of individuals. Therefore national borders do not exist. Therefore illegal immigration does not exist.
There is only one form of real “illegal immigration”, but there’s already better words for it: “trespass” and “squatting””
Ok, but until the State is finally abolished, what do you think is the correct anarcho-libertarian take on the problem?
Consider for example an immigrant who comes to the U.K. and lives in a council house. The “council house” has been purchased on the market but using tax proceeds. Is the immigrant trespassing? Obviously they are not doing so in a de jure sense, but from a hardcore libertarian perspective, how do you see this situation?
Ditto the immigrant who lives on State benefits. Are they to be regarded as living on the benefits of theft? If yes, does that not suggest that from a libertarian perspective, they are violating the rights of others? If yes, should we support restrictions on their entry, even if State-imposed?
My own take, for what it is worth, is that hard-core libertarians should be in favour of free immigration if (but only if) the immigrants are subject to a bar on claiming any form of State hand-out. This may be difficult in practice and in law (what counts as s State hand-out? how long should the restriction apply? what about their children? what if they become destitute etc?), but at least it points to a way forward which is both consistent with libertarian thinking and has some application to the real world.
It is not ideal because it leaves the apparatus of the Welfare State intact for “citizens” but at least it avoids expanding the welfare roll whilst affording freedom of movement to those who are willing and able to work and pay their way in their new country.
Cydonia
I give up with this damned html. The italics should stop after the second paragraph. It looked fine in preview but not when posted. grrrrr
Lonewacko mentions Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” which is well worth reading. I think there is a “tipping point” with immigration; the point where assimilation stops and balkanization begins.
There is no conceptual linkage between immigration and welfare programmes. It is an error in libertarian strategic thinking to articulate as a goal anything less than the fully realised anarch-libertarian society. Everything else we say as anarcho-libertarians should be to recommend movements toward the goal and condemn movements away from the goal. Thus the removal of _all_ state immigrations restrictions should be advocated for all societies and similarly the ending of _all_ welfare programmes should be advocated for everyone. Whats the point of sketching out some halfway house ? we do not need to compromise with anyone in our advocacy. Advocate only the society of Total Freedom all else is error.
BTW, It is good to learn from Julian Morrison that ‘States do not exist’, they are merely an illusion he tells us. Great I’ll stop hallucinating and the problem will be solved.
While I share Julian’s sentiments, however ineptly expressed, I feel that I should point out to him the sad truth that states are real, they really do exist. The anarcho-libertarian point is that they ought not.
Diversity is a strength is a lie. Those who expose it should live in brixton for a while. Dreaming about a curry from thier suburben homes is the closest many people are willing to get to it.
Indeed. The drug / booze / gambling / recreational shootouts behind my old apartment, between unassimilated Mexicans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, and Africans of unknown origin wasn’t a romantic, libertarian melting pot. It was something very much like a little bit of hell. Sure, their kids — if they live to have kids — might be “American” within a generation or two or three. Meanwhile, I’m in this huge neighborhood filled with unassimilated folks, with bullets smacking the outside of the apartment building. I’m not being racist here, generalizing based on some popular stereotype; this is what the people in my community did.
And as for the exaggeration over the Mexicans… the separatists very nearly landed one of their own in the mayor’s office in LA. Say what you will, but a group of 15 million Mexicans and African Americans staging a municipal secession from California will pose some interesting political problems. Again, I don’t think it’s a race or ethnicity based problem, per se; I think it’s a question of people not buying into the American system in any meaningful sense. We cheer them on because we are sappy multiculturalists, then act shocked when they don’t share our cultural norms, respect for an ordered liberty, etc.
And by the way, Ted, I’m shocked, simply shocked, that you consider your Bavarian forebears “German”. Everybody knows, Bavarians aren’t German… they are Bavarian. I suggest you avoid making this philological mistake in the presence of Bavarians…
“Also Very reTired is amusing saying that the children of immigrants will simply be americans! why do people identify themselves as african americans then or asian americans and only the europeans call themselves unreservadly american unless describing the greater proportion of thier ancestry to a fellow european(ie italian americans etc)”
Hmm… admittedly I’m a European, but i got the impression a lot of euro-americans called themselves “scottish” or whatever… certainly i’ve had a fair number of Texans & all tell me they’re “scottish”, which i found pretty hard to believe! They still feel an affinity for, and have some loyalty to, Scotland… many many generations on.
You’ve got to be careful; perceived non-integration may just be people taking their time, keeping some things they love or are used to. There are still areas in cities in the US that are predominantly Italian, Polish, whatever… and people within those communities who associate almost solely with other Italians/Poles, eat ‘their’ food, go to ‘their’ churches, and may hold opinions that are quite contrary to the general sway of the American populace. Now, where’s the difference between that & Somali immigrants who do the same?
Personally, I think Dave O’Neil’s comment above is bang on the money, at least when it comes to the UK; we don’t foster divisions, and as generations of kids grow up, they become more & more integrated into the fabric of society; they change british society by joining it (see music, food, vocabulary, mannerisms, fashion), and also assimilate bits of it, by osmosis rather than any kind of forced “citizenship classes” rubbish; trying to force a particular culture on people seems like the most effective way of making them cling rigidly to what they already have.
I don’t feel in the least bit threatened by immigration, & strongly believe that most of the alarm around the issue arises from pure xenophobia and fear of the other, as well as fear of our culture “dying” whereas the truth is, culture is always in flux. People who wish to pin a culture down, be it to mom’s apple pie, cricket & warm beer, or lack of English influence in the vocabulary, are attempting to condemn that culture to death, for if they succeed in halting change, another more dynamic culture will supplant theirs.
Omnibus Bill: “the separatists very nearly landed one of their own in the mayor’s office in LA”
He’s referring to Antonio Villaraigosa, who was the Democratic Party’s choice in the mayoral race. You can see a microcosm of the multiculti problem in this exchange. AV is asked about his past membership in a separatist group, and whether he still supports their aims. He doesn’t answer the question. Instead, he accuses the site that discusses his membership in that organization of being intolerant (of what? separatism?), assumes the mantle of victimization, and, of course, plays up how much funding he’s caused to be given to his hosts.
As for the comment above: “most of the alarm around the issue arises from pure xenophobia and fear of the other.” If objection to planned ethnic displacement and irredentism or separatism is xenophobia, count me in.
I’m not necessarily against monocultures, Stephen. Cultures can be what they like – they don’t have to consult me!
I was suggesting though that it might presage brittleness and imminent decline. Just as we might doubt if an individual who thought he always knew the single best way to do everything was going to survive long, repeatedly rejecting help from others, cultures might weaken themselves that way too.
Veryretired:
The last time I tried to explain that to my wife, we weren’t on speaking terms for the rest of the day it seems 🙂
-Vic
Dear Vic,
The solution to that problem in my house is that I do most of the real cooking (heating up hot dogs doesn’t count) as my wife never learned while I learned from a master.
To those who are troubled by immigration.
It has become very clear over the past few decades, by the evidence of many scientific disciplines working in concert, that the history of the human race is one of movement. Except for a few people still in their original locales in parts of Africa, everybody else has moved over the past 50,000 years or so, and this very human impulse is not going to stop.
One of the most glaring features that demonstrates the utter failure of totalitarian societies is their attempts to stop people from leaving, or taking their money out, or even talking to “foreigners”. It was highlighted by the Berlin Wall, but happens over and over again in societies like Myanmar, China, Cuba, North Korea. It is the fear of movement, of change, that terrifies these societies, or at least their leaders.
I do not object to reasonable immigration laws meant to rationalize the process and keep the numbers of people who come to this country manageable. Just as the shock of a Western culture was enormous to the East Germans when the wall fell, so the bewildering multi-polar culture in the US is daunting to a person coming from a more restricted environment, where the job, educational, residential and social possibilities were all laid out with little room for variation.
My main point was that the influx of new applicants for citizenhood brings an energy, an enthusiasm for this country that recapitulates the 18th and 19th century experiences of previous immigrations. Can this enthusiasm for individual liberty and a more open society be transmitted back to the “old country”? I hope that this is one aspect of the situation that might lessen the pressure on some peoples to leave where they are and try to get here by any means.
The Chinese call the US the “Golden Mountain”. That name came from the thousands who were brought here to labor on the railroads as virtual slaves, and stayed to become the highest educated and per capita income group in the country.
The solution to the “immigration problem” is to infect those cultures sending their needy and dissatisfied surpluses to the US with the attributes that draw the travelers: open social, economic, and educational avenues that can lead to a better life. I firmly believe that freedom is effervescent, i.e., it cannot be contained once the idea begins to circulate in a society.
See the current situation in Iran, after relentless indoctrination for their entire lives, it is the youth who have known nothing but the repression of the Mullahs who are leading the movement towards liberation. It is the flow of information, from satellite TV or the internet, as much if not more than people, that threatens these closed societies. The best thing that can be said of the US is that it is not afraid of either.
Mark,
“I’m sure French would be much more of an international language still if the French of France weren’t so consistently snobbish about Belgian French, Swiss French, & Quebecois French”
Don’t forget the French are also snobbish about each other. It’s more a sadly unrepentant habit prevailing among Fr rednecks or arrogant twerps.
I’m not too sure but I suspect Francophony to be (in numbers) more African than European or North American.
The impact of snobbish Fr people is limited.
Just thought… i’d better stick up for Brixton here…. yeah, it’s got it’s rough spots, & you’re right in thinking that a lot of the trouble there comes from imported Jamaican violence…. but if you want to point to a ‘nice’ bit of london, contrast it with Brixton, & draw some general conclusions about the results of immigration,, can I take you up to Newcastle for a moment? Parts of the west end are notoriously dodgy, & primarily white; it definitely helps to know the right people around there… meanwhile, nearby areas which have significant asian populations are peaceful and law abiding. If we follow your line of ‘logic’ here, immigration is suddenly good, & native britons are ‘unassimilated’ criminals who can’t exist in the modern law-abiding world. Both conclusions are, of course, spurious.
What I do think is interesting is that some of Jamaica’s problems are coming across to the UK, & little short of the most hardline of approaches can probably stop this. I’m not sure what the solution is, but it definitely shows that we all have an interest in sorting out problems wherever they are… either that, or building high-tech fortress countries, which I for one have no interest in living in.
Cydonia asks: Ok, but until the State is finally abolished, what do you think is the correct anarcho-libertarian take on the problem?
Any question phrased thus can only be answered with “first abolish the state…”
The whole “benefits” mess amounts to “given rampant theft, should British thieves have a higher moral claim on the proceeds than immigrant thieves?”. No possible answer. They neither of them have a moral claim.
Paul Coulam mournfully states: While I share Julian’s sentiments, however ineptly expressed, I feel that I should point out to him the sad truth that states are real, they really do exist. The anarcho-libertarian point is that they ought not.
The state exists to the same extent, and for the same reasons, that Santa Claus exists. Namely some people believe in him, and others act as if they do, for various reasons of their own.
Doesn’t make him real.
Good point, Kodiak. French is perhaps mainly African now. I don’t know.
Actually, I find Africans speaking French easier to understand than white people speaking French – they tend to speak more clearly (it’s often their third or fourth language, after all, so many Africans being multilingual). The only time I’ve been able to speak and understand French for a couple of hours continuously was when I got drunk at a summer barbecue outside Warsaw a few years ago hosted by some black guys from French West Africa.
In the autumn Atlantic Monthly carried an excellent article in the same vein about how the future of world Christianity was overwhelmingly African and Latin American (and hence focussed on traditional liturgy, miracle healing, anti-liberalism etc), for similar demographic reasons.
Brian,
I feel somewhat responsible for all this immigration talk. This was not the purpose of my original comment, as such. I merely wanted to express my own deeply conservative and pessimistic view of the choices that have been made for and in my country. These, of course, include immigration since 1958 but are by no means limited to it.
In response to your reply to my comment I will say this. As an instrument through which to test and determine the greatest issues like race, libertarianism is neither large enough nor small enough to be truly effective. A few clever proofs can be fashioned, I grant, and there are a number of them in the thread above. But the slippery and difficult nature of race is properly apprehended via psychology, the science of genetics, political theory and occidental civilisation and culture. And that’s by no means a comprehensive list.
At the same time and, I admit, in complete contradiction, race is well within the compass of any man who knows who he is and is not, from whom he is descended, where he belongs, who he loves.
That is to say that I look to specialists for guidance and try to learn as much as I can from them, which perhaps is not so very much. But I also believe in the natural judgement of the common man and in his right to choose his own people’s future. The specialists do not tell me the immigration is cool, yeah, and we’re all mongrels. The common man, well who can claim to speak for him? He has been first ignored and then silenced.
I am glad that you are happy to provide a platform for a little of that silence to be broken. I’m not going to add to the breakages this time, though. Let me know when you’ve got some fresh crockery.