We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, September 11. 2015
Regular people know that mass immigration will assimilate with difficulty, even if they want to. Regular people know that they will not value or respect their history, their legacies, their traditions, as they do. This is why regular people do not welcome mass multicultural invasions.
For us ordinary people, it's much more about preserving a culture and a neighborhood than it is about economics.
Predictably, Thomas Picketty: In migrants crisis, Europe must follow Germany’s lead
Wise thoughts re Noonan from Fernandez: Prediction From the Grave
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
There are numerous negatives for the "natives". Even our legal immigrants cost us a fortune. The average amount of money the federal government pays to support a single immigrant family is $5000 a month. That is housing, food, medical, cell phones, cars, everything except education which is paid for by the local citizens. Someone must pay for this largesse and it is in general the middle class. The results are destroyed nieghborhoods and cities, increased crime, especially assaults, rapes and murders, increased health problems and a diminishing quality of life. Why? What is it that makes the government force immigration on it's citizens against their will and against common sense and logic? Is it their intent to destroy America or are they just stupid?
The only rational explanation, at least from my lowly viewpoint, is they are needed to keep social security funded going forward. That, and get other taxes out of them to support our betters in DC.
"Mass multicultural immigration is a highly disruptive, if not destructive, event to an established, stable culture."
It didn't seem to hurt your country much in the 19th Century.
"Regular people know that mass immigration will assimilate with difficulty, even if they want to. Regular people know that they will not value or respect their history, their legacies, their traditions, as they do. This is why regular people do not welcome mass multicultural invasions."
Yeah, all those Irish, Germans, Italians, Polish and - gasp! - Jews from the stetls who flooded into the US from 1840 to 1930 somehow never managed to become Americans, did they?
It took over 40 years for 4 million Italian immigrants to America.
Were they multicultural? Not really.
re "Mass multicultural immigration is a highly disruptive, if not destructive, event to an established, stable culture."
It didn't seem to hurt your country much in the 19th Century.
Some important differences:
1) We could reject undesirables at the border and send them home.
2) The new arrivals did not receive financial assistance from the taxpayers.
3) They didn't demand privileged status.
4) They all wanted to become Americans.
5) We could and did limit how many immigrants were allowed in the USA.
None of that applies today.
You realize of course that you're effectively putting the blame for your country's immigration policies on the immigrants themselves?
If there's a problem with your immigration system, it's hardly the immigrants' fault.
The NJ: It took over 40 years for 4 million Italian immigrants to America.
The NJ: Were they multicultural? Not really.
Immigrants from Italy and many other parts of Europe were Catholics, so nativists considered them Papists, invaders loyal to a foreign prince. Others were Orthodox or Jewish. Then there were many Asian groups. They didn't speak English, lived in ghettos, were unrefined, and usually poor. Yes, they were considered alien cultures, and a threat to stability. Now, everyone's Irish on St. Patrick's Day!
OK, so let's let the country decide on our immigration policy. We do have a law now, for better or worse.
Simple answer: Put a moratorium on all legal immigration. Put the federal, state and local police onto finding and arresting illegals. Return them to their home countries within 24 hours of apprehension. Once all those here illegally are gone put the effort into assimilation of those who are here legally. Once this is complete put this to a vote of the citizens, do we have legal immigration or not.
That's a simple answer all right.
Tell me, what colour is the sky in your world?
so, a US serviceman marries a woman from the Philippines and you people want to stop all legal immigration?
really? did you think this through?
We get similar anti-immigration talk up here in Canada. When you point out the same sort of thing (a Canadian marrying a foreign national), the response is invariably: "That's not what I meant and you know it."
They can marry who they want to but no immigration during the moratorium.
I would go a step further and put a limit on how long anyone could visit the U.S. to 180 days a year. And require that every non-citizen have a visa before entry.
denying citizenship to the spouse of a US combat veteran?
good luck with that fantasy.
I wonder if they'd make a difference if her name were Fifi Danielle-Monique rather than Kim-Ly Linh.
The Province of Québec always wanted a say in immigration quotas in order to ensure an influx of Francophones. And so they got it.
Of course (in their heart of hearts) they were hoping for French, Belgian and Swiss immigrants.
Instead the Francophone immigrants have mostly been Haitians and North Africans.
the Constitution preserved the slave trade -- think of it as a kind of immigration -- for ten years after ratification.
how did that law work out?
Yes, and if the flow of immigrants through Ellis Island from 1892 to 1954 was not an example of "mass multicultural immigration", what exactly was it then?
I know plenty of first nations people that are still pissed about the Colonial invasion and genocide. They are very blunt about how colonials have not assimilated, they don't have the slightest clue about proper culture that honors nature and balance, the dominant culture is incompatible, etc. etc. They also have lost much of their culture and language (enforced re-education of children in boarding schools ended in the US in '79). I also know a fellow who was named "Wilson" because priests and government officials could just go around naming people's kids (Native kids) less than a lifetime ago. I have worked with Saudis. Islamic culture (even the gentle version) is as incompatible with the current Western culture as the colonial culture was and is incompatible with Native American culture. We are just witnessing the migration faster because of population dynamics. I hope we never see Sharia here but I just don't know how things are going to go. Fortunately most people like decadence. We have that going for us.
ah.. the Noble Savage, in perfect balance and in complete harmony with Gaia. we name our attack helicopters and sports teams after them. what else can we say, but:
Yes it is romanticized, very much so and it took 500 years for the change to be complete. Germany is adding 1% to it's population this year. Could be the western culture will be just as romanticized in 100 years. Tibetan culture has been nearly wiped out in under 60 years. Population dynamics meet migration and a culture that doesn't want/ like the fore-running culture. It can happen here and maybe it is.
It is ironic that you used the term first nations people. I bet you don't know any first nations people. There were three major pre-columbian immigrations and many smaller immigrations. Those real first nations people were killed or enslaved by the second nations people who in turn were killed or enslaved by the third nations people. Ironic isn't that they claim to be the "first" nations people and dislike new immigrants.
Wait, you say, I never learned that in my native studies classes. Of course not history is written by the winners. Your first nations people when looked at in the entirety of their lives and cultures were murderers, slavers and the most dispicable torturers. What are they today? Mostly drunks, certainly dependents and many are criminals. Don't drive the roads at night near Indian country.
Woa Inspector Drayfus, did not intend to hit upon the trigger word "Cleuseau!" here at Maggies farm. I hit an unintended nerve here and it detracts from the point I was trying to make and the pleasures of reflecting on parallels in history as well as differences. Yes all those points are as true as we can discern from archiology and humans being human, I'm sure there's more. There were plagues and there was a colonial genocide. Slavery and war fare were a constant part of the lamented lost "the old ways" too (not to mention human sacrifice if you want to talk about Central and South America). I assumed you would be aware of the full spectrum good and bad to ponder potential parallels for the west and islam. After all the topic is mass migration of muslims and the potential impact on the common man in the west.
The actual point I was going for was that mass migration can bring sweeping change for the locals- some of it intended to wipe out the current culture - some of it violent and very ugly. Change that sucks and it can happen here. The global demographics are such that changes of that nature can happen in a life time vs something that approximates geological time. What parallels can we draw from history to predict how things might go? Why not look at American history - it's familiar enough?
I would prefer that it not happen here. I like our culture. I like our decadence. I like our modern inventions. I could be bitter 150 years later if I lost what we have now and had to wear a Burka and live under Sharia. I'd probably be a drunk too (oh wait that's banned).
Then again maybe hitting a nerve is instructive: "First Nations!"
PS I'm too old to have taken Native Studies and I'm old enough to pick my own books and read, I'm not afraid of uncomfortable territory or my own conclusions (sad that dates me). No one uses American Indian any more (except some elders) and I don't like the ring of Aboriginal.
"There were plagues and there was a colonial genocide. "
There were plagues more "colonials" died from these diseases than Indians. But of course you are trying to imply that the "colonials" intentionally infected those first nations. Never happened. It is a fiction of the film industry continued by the hate studies departments of colleges.
Was there genocide? Depends on how you define it. I do agree that the first nations people did intend to kill all colonials and they tried to. So I guess you could say there was genocide. But in fact most of the deaths on both sides were individual battles of survival. A dozen Indians might come upon two wagons on the plains so they killed them,raped their women, enslaved their children and stole their property. Was it genocide? Sometime the tables were turned and a dozen Indians would come upon two wagons but the men had good rifles and good skills so some ofd the Indians died. As for military conflicts it was about even. The Indians (oops, first nations) were the greatest guerrilla fighters in the world and would often coordinate large military style attacks on groups of "colonials". The Colonials fought back and would have similar attacks on large groups of first nations people too. So which side was genocidal? The Indians killed about as many "colonials" as "colonials" killed Indians. So who were the clear bad guys and who were the clear good guys? I guess it depends on your personal biases.
Sure both sides did bad things - I never said either were angels, just gave the current perspective of one group that was over run by migrants that had a different culture. Now you're just being willfully blind about the genocide. Policy of killing buffalo, reservations on the shittiest lands, small pox blankets (don't tell me you never heard of that), starvation policy you probably never read about in Canada. One side had way more people and better weapons. So it went. Mass migration can bring sweeping changes for the locals - changes that suck from the local perspective. I don't think we should be naive about what mass migration of islam could mean for us. I don't see any majority muslim place in the world that I would want to live.
“small pox blankets (don't tell me you never heard of that)”
That was my point. Of course I heard of it. It was in a Hollywood movie so you believe it was true. Ward Churchill taught it in in his hate studies class so it must be true. It never happened. It was always propaganda. Incidentally Small Pox would be extremely difficult to catch from a blanket. It really needs to be aerosoled to be transmitted effectively. Small pox was an extremely contagious disease and no one had to manually transmit it. More white immigrants died from small pox after 1492 than Indians did.
All this reminds me of the old joke:
"Democracy, immigration, multiculturalism: pick two."
Mass Immigration or Welfare state. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwDhx1XkXX0#t=575]Choose one./url]
Miltom Friedman explained it back in the '70s