2003 November 04 Tuesday
Richard Lamm On Harmful Immigration

Former 3 term Democratic Party governor of Colorado Richard Lamm lists some harmful effects of current American immigration policy.

4. We are told that illegal immigration is "cheap labor," but it is not "cheap labor," it is subsidized labor. The National Academy of Sciences has found that there is a significant fiscal drain on U.S. taxpayers for each adult immigrant without a high school education. Illegal immigration is something that benefits a few employers, but the rest of us subsidize that labor through the school system, the health-care system, the courts and in other ways that this form of labor imposes. With school spending of more than $7,000 per student per year, even a small family costs far more than a low-wage family pays in taxes.

5. America is increasingly becoming, day by day, a bilingual country, yet there is not a bilingual country in the world that lives in peace with itself. No nation should blindly allow itself to become a bilingual-bicultural country. If it does, it invites generations of conflict, tension and antagonism. America has historically demanded that its immigrants be self-supporting and English-speaking to join our polity. We vary from that rule that made us "one nation, indivisible" at great risk to America's future. Today, when over 40 percent of today's massive wave of immigrants is from Spanish-speaking nations, people can move to America and keep their language, their culture and their old loyalties. If the melting pot doesn't melt, immigrants become "foreigners" living in America rather than assimilated Americans.

My local cable TV service is now up to 5 Spanish language channels. A local AM channel that has been a news channel for many decades just changed to Spanish language.

If the poor scholastic achievement of the Mexican immigrants did not persist across generations the long term effects of this huge wave of immigration would not be so bad. But as Lamm points out, it does. Low scoring Mexicans are now getting almost as much in the form of racial quota preferences for jobs and university slots as blacks get. A highly developed first world economy does not need and can not afford the many costs of masses of poorly educated people. America's leaders are betraying their people by ignoring the wishes of the people that current high levels of immigration be reduced.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2003 November 04 11:19 PM  Immigration Societal Decay

M said at November 5, 2003 7:33 AM:

"Low scoring Mexicans are now getting almost as much in the form of racial quota preferences for jobs and university slots as blacks get."

And here is where the whole multi-cult experiment will collapse,as blacks nationaly are pushed out by latinos.California's race problem today is between black and brown.However,this will not and cannot be admitted,as this exposes the whole fraud.
Expect libertarians to complain bitterly as the cost of subsidizing immigrants moves from the border states to the national level,even though they were happy enough to stick it to the border states over the last 25 yrs in exchange for "cheap" labor.

P.S.,Sean Gabb has a very good essay about something similiar.


The future ain't looking too pretty,is it?

M. Simon said at November 6, 2003 7:34 AM:

A big easy low cost way to reduce some of the negative effects is to eliminate bilingual education.

James Jones said at November 6, 2003 10:37 AM:

Thanks for posting some of Governor Lamm's remarks. Seven thousand dollars per year per child for education! What are the addtional costs generated by illegal aliens for health care, law enforcement, fire protection, water treatment, building code enforcement, higher car insurance, higher medical insurance, etc., etc. There appears to be a very powerful economic argument against low-wage, illegal immigrant labor, particularly if they bring in family members or create families after their arrival.

The threat to our long-term national unity and cohesion has always been my major concern with illegal immigration. However, quantifying the negative economic impact on municipal governments, school districts, state governments, and federal programs such as Medicaid and Medicare looks like a great way to get the attention of a lot of our short-term oriented fellow citizens.

I wonder how much the California budget deficit would shrink if eighty percent of the illegal aliens in California were deported? Fifty percent? Who knows, there might even be a budget surplus.


M.E. said at November 6, 2003 3:55 PM:

Much of the agriculture and service industry relies on illegal immigrants. Does anyone really believe that the produce they bought at Vons or Ralphs was picked by someone paid at least minimum wage?

I think many people fail to see that businesses are just as guilty of breaking the law. These people wouldn't be in the US if companies didn't hire them.

Congress should eliminate agriculture subsidies. This will have two effects. It will save money and give the migrants working in the agriculture industry an opportunity to stay in Mexico or Central America and earn a living there.

Randall Parker said at November 6, 2003 4:43 PM:


There'd be another benefit if the illegals working in agriculture were shipped home: American agriculture would have a much bigger incentive to pursue automation.

I've read that there were a lot more agricultural automation projects being worked on at California universities in the 60s and 70s than there are now because it was not as easy then to get illegals to work in the fields for low wages. Take away the cheap labor and people will invest in automation and look harder for ways to reduce the need for labor.

Also, if labor is paid little that is the market's way to saying that the task being performed has low value. When people say that we can't get along without illegal alien workers I ask them how important can the jobs be if the jobs pay so little. The jobs will either pay more or will be automated out of existence or less of whatever those jobs make will be made. The market will adjust and we will be better off in the long run if the availability of cheap illegal alien workers is put to an end.

Larry Griffin said at February 24, 2004 4:29 PM:

Your narrow and parocial viewpoint reflects an elitist position that is fearful of change and welcoming diversity. I have alway welcomed what was a braod and enlightened view of the future -- UNTIL NOW!

Ken Mulvaney said at February 25, 2004 9:48 AM:

How Can we stop this illegals from comming in to this country if the country goverment will not obey the laws we have on the books now. I am for putting our troops on the Borders. Than Shoot to wound.

Wayne G. Elliot said at March 10, 2004 8:10 PM:

I wish to thank Mr. Lamm for facing up to this third rail of politics. He is dead on right and the Sierra Club should take the lead in addressing this obvious problem. We don't have enough sewerage treatment systems in the country to handle the present population. If you examine our population in relation to arable land, we already have a problem. If you look at our consumption of nonrenewable resources, we have a problem. Why is our government reluctant to face this problem?

Wayne G. Elliot said at March 10, 2004 8:10 PM:

I wish to thank Mr. Lamm for facing up to this third rail of politics. He is dead on right and the Sierra Club should take the lead in addressing this obvious problem. We don't have enough sewerage treatment systems in the country to handle the present population. If you examine our population in relation to arable land, we already have a problem. If you look at our consumption of nonrenewable resources, we have a problem. Why is our government reluctant to face this problem?

NC said at March 12, 2004 11:02 AM:

Dick Lamm writes, "...there is not a bilingual country in the world that lives in peace with itself."
Belgium, with two national languages, French and Flemmish,
Canada with two national languages, French and English,
Switzerland with four national languages, French, German, Italian and Retto-Romanish
are a few examples of peaceful multilingual countries.

I used to respect Dick Lamm, especially after reading his book "The Angry West".
But with sloppy thinking like this, I can not trust him to
be a reasonable leader of any organization.

Randall Parker said at March 12, 2004 11:19 AM:

NC, Canada is at peace with itself? The Quebecois constantly threaten to secede. The Meech Lake Discord and other events in Canadian politics illustrate the huge problems caused by bilingualism.

Belgium similarly has deep political divisions along linguistic lines.

Switzerland has a confederation structure that devolves a great deal of authority to its cantons. The US could adopt a confederation too in response to rising Spanish language usage? Do you support a move to confederation?

Or how about the Canadian approach? Up for special constitutional recognition of Spanish as the dominant language in California or Texas? Want to see laws which require that signs put Spanish language text larger than English language text on signs?

I know a lot of Canadians who want to see Quebec secede from Canada so that English-speakers don't have to deal with the demands of the French speakers any more. Do you oppose or support Quebec secession?

rob cahill said at March 16, 2004 11:58 AM:

I think that the comment regarding countries with two or more languages was not researched enough to make it into this speech or these comments. Immigration is not an issue that will be solved with any quick fix solutions.

if we prevent the entry of illegal or undocumented aliens, those industries that hire low-wage workers will leave this country and take their business abroad. many of these industries are agricultural or are involved in other aspects of our food production. One comment above mentions a lack of sewerage systems, but fails to mention that new sewers will likely be dug by undocumented workers.

our politicians create laws and policy that enable undocumented workers' entrance into the US because our economy is so focused on growth that American citizens will not or cannot support themselves on the wages they could earn perfomring the jobs that are typically filled by the undocumented. who will do such work if not aliens who cannot obtain work with a minimum wage?

this is far from being an environmental issue solely. I also wish that someone would successfully define "American values" or American culture" without trying to divorce that definition from ethnicity or diversity. Those who try to say that multiculturalism is diffusing our cultural foundations is blinding themselves with their monocultural divisions that are self-built and are not endemic to that self-same American culture they believe that they espouse.

B. Clune said at March 18, 2004 4:38 PM:

Here is the warning my 105 year old father provided before he died in 1995. Anyone concerned about over population of the human species would be well advised to read what a wise old man had to say. His comments follow the brief biography in the paragraph below.

In six decades as a newspaperman, Henry W. Clune mingled with the mighty, from W. Somerset Maugham, Winston Churchill, and Jean Harlow to Rochester’s own George Eastman, the founder of Eastman Kodak, and Rattlesnake Pete, a colorful local saloon keeper in the 1940’s. From 1914 to 1969 he was a columnist for the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. One of the country’s best read local columnists, his Seen & Heard articles ran three times a week. He authored 14 books, including six novels. His last book went to press just after his 100th birthday. Mr. Clune was born in 1890 and died in 1995. Until his death at 105, he was in remarkable health. His mind and memory were clear, and he remained widely informed on current events.

My Last Testament
Henry W. Clune

Scottsville, NY
October 1993

I am 99 years old. I have lived 68 years with the only women I could possibly envisage as my wife. If it were not for the fact that I want to lie near her eternally, I would decree that at my death my body be cremated and my ashes flung into the air near a fir tree at the eastern boundary of my property in Scottsville. I should like nothing of my physical being left in evidence, since I strongly believe that by the middle of the next century our planet will have disastrously become repellent to human life.

We have viciously abused our heritage, the southern half of the North American continent. We have polluted the air we breathe, and poisoned our lakes, rivers and oceans.

Wantonly, headless of all environmental planning, and posterity’s economy, we have covered vast areas of arable land with macadam and asphalt speedways, industrial complexes, shopping plazas and housing developments.

Our arsenals are stocked with explosives of horrendous force, but there release against an enemy would provoke a retaliation that would result in a pyrrhic victory for both sides, and end the existence of all of us. And we have delegated, at least in one instance, the push-button control of this sovereign violence to a president chosen for leadership because of his matinee-idol appeal on television.

Crime is so rampant in this country that even such a reputedly orderly city as Rochester, NY where I was born and lived the first 38 years of my life, now averages a murder every other week; and Washington, DC, the place where our governing bodies convene to devise the laws of the land, has the odious supplementary distinction of being the murder capital of America.

Our courts of law seem often to demean the victim of a crime in their finicky fear of violating the rights of the criminal.

This sort of judicial leniency is said to have demoralized the police of various American cities who, after exerting their best efforts to apprehend a criminal, often see him lightly dealt with by the court or, if imprisoned, quickly granted parole.

Capital punishment may be abhorrent to a civilized nation, but how civilized is a nation when the streets and parks of its cities are an ambush for muggers, murders and rapists.

And how stupidly hypocritical is a nation which spends millions of public money for inefficient schemes to suppress the sale of illegal drugs when the practice could be stopped almost at once if anyone convicted of selling illegal drugs was taken into the public square and shot dead! A harsh measure, to be sure. But circumstances today would seem to warrant it, although of course the bleeding hearts would keen their protest at the state’s taking a human life, even though the possessor of that life was one of a vicious company that was destroying the lives of thousands.

The commonest form of murder in this country is the handgun, but every effort to control the circulation of these weapons is opposed by the National Rifle Association, a great bullying organization with a huge slush fund, which seems to put the fear of God into every legislator who even hints at disagreement with its policies. In the meantime, the deliberate and accidental deaths inflicted by these weapons (children have been known to slay their classmates with their parent’s guns) exceeds in a single year the number of deaths suffered by our armed forces in the Vietnam War, a scandalous tally and a national disgrace.

Now consider the future proliferation of the automobile. It boggles the mind to attempt to envision the congestion of city streets and interurban highways 60 years hence. And think of the clutter of the airways, not to mention the growing number of crashes with no survivors. Years ago, we rejected what seems to me the only civilized means of transporting a large volume of human beings long continental distances, the railroads.

It appears to be the thesis of the human race that this planet was designed and appointed for the exclusive use of the featherless bipeds who have for so long dominated it and who so often seem determined on its ruin.

Now environmentalists and others who are concerned about the preservation of the planet and the perpetuation of the human race, have concluded that there are far too many of us for the good of the planet and for the good of ourselves; and China with its teeming billion, alone among the great nations, seems to be doing anything to soften the detonation of the population explosion. It is estimated that fairly early in the next century there will be 10 billion of us on earth.

Deserts are forming on lands that were once richly productive of food, as topsoil is lost because of concentration of growing. Forests are being decimated, including the rain forest, so necessary for our welfare. To feed the globe’s bulging population in the next quarter century, our growing lands must produce as much food as they have in our entire history.

Because there are so many of us, there are areas in our great cities where men, women and children are huddled in habitations of filth and squalor, and festering depravity. Racism is aggravated by crowding, crime and by poverty; there are vast numbers destitute and wanting means of support, yet we are still inhibited by medieval superstitions and forget that the Lord’s admonition to Jacob, "Be fruitful and multiply," is very old hat.

Some time ago, a women on a television talk show proclaimed that she had fourteen illegitimate children, and declared challengingly that she would have as many more as she pleased. She was subsisting, of course, on welfare. Whether she carried out her threat I do not know, but I am sure the authorities never made a move to suppress her. Unfortunately, the issue of birth control is one that no politician seems to want to touch, even with the tip of his umbrella.

Since over population is such a vital problem, it may be that the savior of the world will be the genius who can devise means of imposing sterilization on people living in densely populated areas, perhaps in the manner that pesticides are scattered from the air on field crops. It would be a boon to mankind.

# # #

George Taylor said at March 22, 2004 1:56 AM:

Have you seen how hard Mexicans are working here in the U.S.A. to get immigration laws to favor them even more than they already do?


Now then, do you know that Mexico's immigration laws happen to be highly discriminatory? After reading what's below, why not let your voice be heard by the following U.S. Congressional subcommittees (and by the media)?





Here is a NONpropietary list of "anti-gringo" legal differences that we've thus far compiled regarding Mexico's and the USA's immigration regulatory schemes:

*To our knowledge, Americans in Mexico still cannot own property near the coasts or border withOUT having to go through the strange bureaucracy involving fideicomisos (trusts). We're not aware that this is even remotely the case in the USA for Mexicans who are not U.S. citizens. Regardless:

*Mexicans, and Hispanics with Mexican parentage can become dual citizens of Mexico and the USA, but U.S. citizens who are NOT of Mexican descent apparently still canNOT in Mexico, unless we're mistaken. Consequently, rights to own beach or frontier property are limited for an American citizen who has lived for decades in Mexico but who has understandably NOT renounced his or her U.S. citizenship. Such an American citizen also cannot vote or be immuned from Constitutional Article 33 deportation threats for the opportunistically vague crime of "political activism." Meanwhile:

*We are not aware that Mexico allows foreign-born citizens to hold important governmental posts. In contrast, the U.S.A. has allowed foreigners to hold various prominent federal and gubernatorial offices, accomodating the likes of Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Next:

*When renewing a Mexican visa, foreigners have to be present in Mexico and await the slow, at times corrupt immigration bureaucrats just to get a decision on something that could easily be decided upon while they´re outside of Mexico. In contrast, the USA lets foreigners who happen to be outside of the USA when the time for visa renewal arrives actually renew their visas while still outside of the USA (at the nearest U.S. Embassy). Additionally:

*The U.S. Treasury Department accepts the Mexican consulate-issued matricula card for undocumented Mexicans in the U.S.A., and many U.S. banks accept them too in order to tap into the flow of some of the scarce dollars that Mexicans send out of our country. Nevertheless, what acceptance does Mexico and its banks have for foreigners who have not yet successfully navigated Mexico's immigration quagmire? We suspect it's not comparable. Meanwhile:

*Mexico's Immigration Institute often inefficiently delays Americans' visa renewals, thereby forcing them to stay in the country until they re$olve matters. For example, they at least sometimes give rejection responses which do NOT list all problems with Americans' renewal applications. Instead, the process is sometimes handled highly inefficiently, in piecemeal fashion. After the initially reported problem is resolved, Americans subsequently have to go through much of the submission process again, which could be expedited if the Mexican government would simply report everything that a renewal application is lacking in the INITIAL reply. Although some Mexican Immigration apologists might try and defensively claim that subsequent reported problems are contingent upon foreigners' resolution of initial ones, such that the piecemeal response approach could not be avoided, this "excuse" is NOT appropriate. Matters that have nothing to do with one another are at times used as obstacles on separate occasions, instead of simultaneously. Does the USA put Mexicans through such hurdles? Similarly:

*By the time an American has complied with Mexico's immigration hurdles, he or she has practically no privacy left. Worse still, his or her information becomes potentially corruptly available to the highest bidder among his or her competition in the business world. Are safeguards regarding confidential information not a great deal stronger inside of the U.S.A.'s immigration department? Arguably they are. Next:

*We do not doubt that there are also other significant, effectively anti-gringo legal differences regarding foreigners in our two countries.

Meanwhile, here are some additional facts worth considering:

*Self-serving conflicts of interest exist with Mexico's immigration agency. Indeed, in November of 1998 a public protest among Immigration workers in Mexico City took place because multas / fines waged against Americans in Mexico were no longer being shared with the employees who were SIMULTANEOUSLY supposed to offer RELIABLE advice to foreigners so that they could avoid being fined. We do not know how this labor dispute was resolved but we would not be surprised if the same conflict of interest endures. In the U.S.A., do such fine payments not go directly to the U.S. Treasury instead of essentially directly to the immigration employees who are SUPPOSED to want Americans to know how to AVOID being fined?

*"Coyotes" are Mexicans who specialize in handling foreigners´ paperwork with Mexico's immigration agency, and they share bounties with the immigration officials in various subtle ways (especially at restaurants and night clubs as we have personally observed). To say the least, this collaboration feeds the perception that conflicts of interest abound among immigration officials who might OTHERWISE make things less complicated for Americans in Mexico.

*Mexicans claim that plenty of Americans reside in Mexico but we tend to believe that there are fewer than 100,000 (yes, one hundred thousand or less). Nevertheless, the Mexican government pleads ignorance as to the exact number while exaggerating the quantity of Americans who supposedly live illegally in beach resort communities. Where's the proof, though? At the same time, however, there are as many as 20 million Mexico-born Mexicans living in the USA (if not more). Incidentally, during the Rodney King riots of 1992 in Los Angeles, half of those arrested were illegal immigrants from Mexico. Mexico nevertheless demands immigration amnesty in the U.S.A. even as Mexico still won't make its own laws as hospitable to foreigners as California's Proposition 187 referendum still would have been to Mexicans back in 1994 (before a U.S. judge basically nullified it while Mexicans hypocritically called that *Mexican American-supported* referendum "racist"). Is Mexico's immigration hypocrisy justifiable?

james said at May 11, 2004 2:35 PM:

The United States went through a similar immigration problem with the Irish, the Chinese, the Vietnamies, etc. This is not new. What is new is an effort to keep cultures seperate and maintain seperate languages. The solution America has traditionaly used is forced integration and English as a default language. This has worked in the past, there is no reason for it to fail now. Remove bilingual education. Force new immigrants (legal and illegal) to meet existing standards for education, job, etc. Remove the double standards. The US could then support a larger number of immegrants.

John S Bolton said at June 12, 2004 2:16 AM:

Here is an estimate of the net public subsidy of 80's and more recent immigrants. They might be assigned a premium for medical expenses. Our medical costs are over $4000 a year per person, but older people get half of this, so let these immigrants be charged $3000 per year for one adult and one child for every two of them. A minimum contribution for the military might be $500, since the national per capita cost is over $1000 a year. The police, courts and prisons cost about $150 billion, or $500 per capita a year. The children of immigrants are not born to the net taxpayer, but to the parents. Let them be charged $4000 for one child in public school for every two adults in this group. Public schooling costs are averaging over $8000 per student per year, and the foreign born have over 11 million in public schools. For 22 million adult immigrants, one child in public school for every two of them in this more recent group. This all yields $8000 a year in public subsidy to the main group of immigrants. Subtract the total taxes on the 'median personal income of foreign born', as given in the government data, and estimate this taxation at $3000 a year. These cohorts are 30% below the national median personal income. The typical immigrant will be showing $5000 a year in subsidy before the interest and partial amortization brings the net public subsidy to $10000 per year. The interest on the national debt is a real expense, and the immigrant is borrowing his subsidy. Multiply $10000 a year by 20 million immigrants at this, or a higher, level of net public subsidy, and the net taxpayer is being exploited for hundreds of billions a year by these immigrants.

John S Bolton said at June 12, 2004 3:52 AM:

Checking census.org ... the median personal income figures for foreign born by decade cohorts were reported for 3/99... under 'birthplace/foreign born .. data tables... at 14k for that year, but it's in the 15-16k range today, or so it was estimated above using the 30% below the nat'l median reported by Borjas and others

John S Bolton said at June 12, 2004 4:39 AM:

Correction... it is census.gov not org... searching google for 'criminal justice expenditure' gives a dept. of Justice figure of 145 billion for '99 federal state and local police courts and prisons... peacetime military is 300 billion plus

noseme brown said at December 6, 2004 3:33 PM:


Unchecked immigrants are certainly a threat to our way of life. They could ignore our customs, language, and laws. They might demand that WE defer to THEM.

They may become so powerful, that they push us out of our schools and neighborhoods, force us to speak their language, and adopt their culture.

If we hold on to our ideas of family, god and duty, we could be viewed as outcasts. Maybe we'd be obstacles to their way of life. If we refused to assimilate, we'd finally be shuffled from one dusty, cold place to another, dependant on them for food and shelter.

It's extremely troubling, and entirely possible. Our ancestors did all to these things to the people who were here before us.

JIM WARREN said at December 30, 2004 10:40 PM:

Without a doubt the most insightful comments I have heard from any politician in three decades,especially from a democrat, with most being the votewhores they are

An American said at January 17, 2005 5:02 PM:

Living in Arizona as I do, I don't have to worry about the Mexican's taking over the state as Americans. Governor Janet is going to give the state back to Mexico. It will no longer be an issue. She has already stymied the ability of the government employees, for example the DOT, from sending illegal immigrants back to Mexico. She did this by allowing illegal immigrants the right to have a driver's license in this state.

What's really bad is the way we treat the illegal aliens. Why don't we treat them the same way we are treated in their country? If we were to be caught with illegal drugs in their country, or even the medications belonging to our own spouse, we can go to jail in Mexico for a long time. If they are caught here, the police don't want to deal with it. At the very worst, they get deported. After being deported, and sometimes being flown all the way back to South or Central America, they come right back across the border.

Wake up America!! If they aren't here legally, they have no rights. They should all be deported directly across the nearest border. I also don't want to hear about them dying of thirst while illegally traversing the desert. That's their problem, not ours!!

PANAMANIAN CHRISTIAN said at April 28, 2005 11:56 AM:


Randall Parker said at April 28, 2005 5:31 PM:

Panamanian Christian,

When some ethnic group in America does poorly are they blamed for their crime rates or for poor scholastic achivements or low incomes or high unemployment are they blamed for their performance? Not in America for the last 40 years. When some other group does poorly white people are blamed. We get blamed for racism. We get blamed for opperssion and neglect.

Any group that does porly becomes another burden for white people to carry. We have to get blamed. Plus, we have to pay for them. Plus, we have to be discriminated against to give that group jobs and promotions even members if their group does not deserve it.

You tell me we shouldn't worry about Mexicans. But looked at objectively it seems obvious that white folks do have to worry about Mexicans. They get racial preferences. They get government that we pay for. They also commit crimes at higher rates.

Mike Wood said at June 2, 2005 9:07 AM:

It's been said that a Christian is one who has his feet firmly planted in the clouds. Both Yockey and Spengler warned that crackpot religiosity would be one of the agents of our doom, and "Panamanian Christian" serves a sterling example.

Mainstream Christian doctrine has morphed into Marxist dogma, with its paregorics of "equality," "brotherhood of man," and other such tripe. Anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think can arrive at the logical conclusions as follows: All men are NOT created equal; that if Mexicans (or other non-Whites) were indeed our equals, their own countries would be as nice as ours; that if all of our immigration was coming from Scandinavia, Germany, Ireland, and France still, it would not be the apparent problem that it is; that Western (read White) civilization is no accident but rather the result of the unique genius of its people; that unrestricted mass non-White immigration is causing a tremendous load on our social services thus increasing the tax burden on all of us; that Whites will be a minority in our own lands in mere decades; and that overpopulation and overcrowding and the concomitant environmental destruction will be the ineluctable result of our failure to control our borders.

Christianity can be a force for good, but it has gone over to the Dark Side -- in more ways than one. It feeds leftist, pudibund communist blather into the little brains of two-legged sheep incapable of turning off the "caps lock." Maybe your god created the sub-humans, but my gods do not suffer fools gladly.

Anglo said at June 4, 2005 12:12 PM:

James pointed out above that we had a similar brouhaha over Chinese immigration.

In fact we had a series of sadistic laws, including laws against Chinese marrying whites (so all those male Chinese railroad workers essentially were forced not to have families, because there were very few Chinese women here). But now in fact
the contribution of those of Chinese descent in the computer, defense, space, pharmaceutical and other high tech industries cannot be replaced. Our immigrants and their descendents from India, China, Japan, and other parts of south and east Asia really are priceless.

Second, there are a bunch of Latinos who live near me. They are all hard working, and the men seem to uniformly be good fathers --- i.e., you see them in close loving contact with their children, in a way that i just don't see among other Anglos. My two eyes tell me that they are a very strong addition to our country, and (with Panamanian Christian above) i welcome any more Mexican or Central American amigos who want to come here and help us out. (And i don't think we have to worry about them learning to speak English: some of the adults work so much they don't have time to study, but they love their children very much and know that it's an economic advantage for their children to speak English. So the children get taught.)

Finally, the melting pot still melts, and you certainly do see mixed families around, particularly as immigrants (from Latin America, China, and elsewhere) are here more generations.

Let the free market and human inventiveness work, and prosperity to all.

Marvin Jason said at August 10, 2005 1:22 AM:

Louisaiana is bilingual English and French. Funding is being supplied there by Quebec but also by Canada and France. You can expect a thrust similar to what we found in Canada and the federal government. The first step you should expect is a requirement that state workers provide bilingual service in parts of Louisiana. From there it will spread. Eventually French employees will demand to be served in French. From there it will escalate. In Canada the agency that controls radio and tv will consider government supported or required coverage by cable firms for those area with a potential French audience. In Canada a potential audience is anyone that can just understand French. This has resulted in situations where employees of the station exceeds the audience.

TJ Horton said at December 19, 2005 7:51 PM:

I see this happening here in Canada in a big way, in Quebec and very multicultural society, and worry about the same things. On the other hand, I love the fact that I can socialize and date anyone in Toronto, any race or nationality, without a second thought.

On first take I think the risk is very real, and that the glow here is temporary, bouyed in large part by high economic well-being and rising expectations (like USA in the 1960s), but when the chips are down, when war or depression hits us, we'll be in real trouble.

The one hope is that the points are predicated on earlier eras. Nation states are a creation of the last few hundred years. Before that there were only smaller communities, i.e. cities and (roughly) states. The general trend is toward bigger and bigger communities, such as nations, NAFTA, the European Economic Community, the Asian Economic Community ...

Is a "nation state" so special? Generally speaking, companies, industries, communications, are all strongly trending toward ignoring national boundaries. I can call and talk to friends in Texas at any time for next to nothing (1000 minutes/month are "free"). I've lived and worked in three different countries, and have a passport for a fourth country. Nations are clearly becoming less relevant. Will nations really matter in the long run? One of the books I have queued is "The World is Flat", which says NO! We'll see. Ultimately I don't think nations will matter, but in the short term they sure will.

I do think America is on the way down and out, but I don't think it's simply the result of multiculturalism. I think it's going to be forced by the rise of hungry educated competitor nations like China and India, the dependance on cheap energy, and more immediately by the incredible inflation and credit bubbles created in large part by American governments.

Meanwhile the world will go on, and continually become more integrated. Consider the Internet for one thing.

I hope denouncement of multiculturalism does not become a major new dogma. Half my friends in Canada were born somewhere else, and I don't think it's automatically bad that they hold onto some of that. I agree that a common sense of identity is important, but not necessarily defined and confined by national borders.

Incidentally, there are a few cases of peaceful countries with bilingualism,
so some of this speech is a bit extreme:
* Switzerland has French, German, Italian and some kind of Romanish
* Belgium has French and Flemmish
* Canada has French and English
We shouldn't confuse internal political differences with war, or you would have to say the USA and every other country in the world is internally at war.

AW Wesley said at December 20, 2005 3:14 AM:

We have a longstanding ambivalent relationship with Mexico which has not really ameliorated over time...in fact recent Mexican poll results show a majority of Mexicans[59%] believe that Mexico should reacquire US territory formerly occupied by Mexico[roughly one quarter to one third of the US]. Given the proximity of Mexico, their birthrate[somewhat reduced] and the continued political dysfunction of the Mexican state, I think we can expect to see high rates of legal and illegal immigration well into the future.

TJ,you are only right...the US may indeed be "on the way down and out" or at least facing a very difficult 21st century and no doubt, our own political process is in such a state of dysfunction that responsible,thoughtful longterm policy responses are not really going to be forthcoming as we face critical challenges on multiple fronts. In this kind of political environment the scale of Mexican and Central American immigration could prove to be very problematic[ or disastrous]...say,within a generation's time. I don't believe that the dissolution of the United States will be particularly good for Canada...nation states that work aren't obsolete just yet.

C. J. Shoup said at April 11, 2006 8:21 PM:

First time to see this site. Seeing the comments and how long they have been coming makes one wonder how come our politicos can be so dumb. We have a couple of pretty good ones in Arizona but it is amazing how few pay attention. The two big rallies we have just had seemed to be by Mexicans but our illegal influx has Chinese, South Americans, Europeans, -- well you name it, they are here. Twice we have had our businesses and traffic really hurt and they say they are going to do it again 1 May 06. We have wonderful, legal imigrants and we benefit from most of them as they join in our language, businesses and schools. It is the huge influx of illegal -oooops--undocumented that is killing us. I have a number of friends of different races and many are recent citizens having come in and learned our way and passed their tests in history and language etc. They feel like I do. When do we wake up?

Dave Shelley said at April 23, 2006 6:38 AM:

Take the time to read this; It ought to scare the pants off you!

We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context
his thoughts are particularly poignant. A while back, there was an
immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to
capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant
college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his
latest book, “Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and
illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it
would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The
American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and
gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat
spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the
United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too
self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that
hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time.
Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and
that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit

Here is how they do it," Lamm said:

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or
multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation
can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more
competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual
to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The
histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not
assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada,
Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence
in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan
and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion.
France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

Lamm went on: “Second, to destroy America, invent 'multiculturalism'
and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an
article of belief that all cultures are equal, that there are no
cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the
Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and
discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of

“Third, we could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without
much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity.” As
Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent
success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have
been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance
that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an
American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us
together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their
own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor
with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have
various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their
differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least
educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated,
undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this
second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations
and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in
ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.' I
would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the
fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all
minority failure on the majority population."

"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship
and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity.
I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people
worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they
are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is
against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it
takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The
Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a
common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All
Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia,
threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough
to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions
that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" --
From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on
the 'Pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as
surely as Kosovo."

"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to
talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a
word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped
discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe'
halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bi-cultural
country, having established multiculturalism, having the large
foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it
impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra:
that because immigration has been good for America, it must always be
good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the
cumulative impact of millions of them."

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow.
Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor
Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It
exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to
be destroyed, don't read that book."

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous
cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that
room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically,
quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.
Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the
foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even
barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are
growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the
Third World as corporations create a Third World in America. Take
note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal
aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book
"1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of
Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and, "Ignorance
is Strength."

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the
conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is
deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration
monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California
wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American

Harold said at October 28, 2006 1:42 AM:

I found this discussion forum because I searched Richard Lamm's name on Google. Though I disagree with some of his current ideas, I was impressed each time I heard him speak at universities during the 1990's. Some of his past speeches can be found in issues of the publication Vital Speeches Of The Day.
I read everyone's comments on the Mexican immigration discussion. Some of the solutions suggested are brilliant and compassionate. And compassionate we shoudl be, afterall, most of us are the great-grand children of European immigrants. I also found some of the solutions borderline(no pun intended)rascist, culturally illiterate and quite naive. Ignorant people wearing blinders are not going to help the problem of immigration one bit.
The argument against bilingualism is a bit absurd since I don't think our forefathers arrived here and learned to speak any of the 200+ Native American dialects of the era. Most urban Europeans can speak at least one other langauge, while in the U.S. a small percentage of gringos can speak a second language. I think we shoudl emrace other languages. When I first started studying Spanish, I learned a lot about English, too.
I worked for a year in Canada. While there I learned over 40 new words a week, and all of that was just from the bilngual packaging on foods, auto parts, clothing, etc. Perhaps some of you mono-lingualists might start learning Spanish vocabulary from all the bilingual signage and packaging we have in the U.S. now.
You are foolish if you think that Spanish in the U.S. is just going to go away. I will always be here, get used to it. And while you're at it, you should probably start learning one of the major Chinese dialects, as you WILL need that if you are to compete at all in the internatioal marketplace.
To Californians: Your state has been nearly bilingual all along. Remember, Mexicans didn't cross the border, it crossed them. Disagree? Go to any small U.S. town along the Arizona/Mexico border. There are 90-year old citizens there whose first language was Spanish. When their parents were born on that same land, it was Mexico, not California. Look around in California: so many names of streets, towns and all the major cities are in Spanish. So, if you ban bilingualism, are we going to rename the cities? Los Angeles becomes The Angels,etc.? Ha! In general I think the anti-bilingual folks are in denial of their own roots. What language did your great-grand parents speak? If you do not speak that language you are showing great disrespect for your elders and heritage.
In the US I have personally witnessed both things: Mexican immigrants who never learn English and they retain their cultural traditions. Those who do learn English tend to lose most of their Spanish after one generation here. Along with the language they lose many of their cultural traditions. Example: many young Chicanos do not like hot chilies, they prefer techno-rap-crap music in English, they prefer McDonalds over Mexican food, they eat white bread instead of tortillas, the list is endless. I dislike Spanglish(the mix of Spanish & English), a bastardization of both languages that is rising in common usage in the U.S. and in large Mexican cities).
Okay, the immigration issue: I read with interest the person who wrote about how few rights gringos are given in Mexico. I think that this needs to be publicized & editorialized a lot more in the American media. I worked in Mexico for over 10 years illegally. I came in on a tourist visa and worked for large hotels, universities and even state governmental agencies. My employers never did anything(as promised) to help me get my working papers.
Of course, I didn't have to walk 5 days across a desert, nor swim across the Rio Grande to enter Mexico. I simply flew in on a commercial flight, lost among the crowd of 80-plus gringo tourists on the same flight. I'd work 4 to 6 months then fly up to San Diego, spend the night, then re-enter Mexico and get another 6 month tourist visa.
I really want to work legally in Mexico. I want to pay state & federal income taxes there(even though I won't depend on their social medicine or expect them to pay for any education I decide to persue there).
I have also done some work in news gathering & reporting on both sides of the border. You can bet that if I ever get caught working in Mexico, that I will get international press coverage of my case. For one thing, I'd request a meeting with the President of Mexico or the head of Immigration there and request one simple favor: For every 20,000 Mexicans working in the United States, they should grant a work visa to one US citizen. That is not asking too much, is it?
I have worked very hard to become fluent in Mexican Spanish and to learn a lot about Mexican culture, customs, history, geography and politics.
I welcome any comments and questions,
Harold, a man witout a country, or rather, a man with two countries.

Tom Lotus said at March 1, 2007 10:12 PM:

100 years ago... Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907 are truer today than ever before...

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Every American citizen needs to read this!

Ed Enriquez said at March 21, 2007 9:14 PM:

The main problem in regard with imigration is that, most of the imigrant do not anderstand the difference between. caming to America and becoming and American. "There can be no divided allegance here" God bless America

patnphx said at May 21, 2007 1:57 PM:

Since this is all part of the New World Order that has been being effected for many decades, it's just a little too little and a little too late to complain NOW. The vast majority of American's (of all ethnicities) have been complacent too long and all will suffer the consequences. Churchill once said something to the effect that, "This isn't the beginning and it's not the end but it is the end of the beginning." Hold on America, it's going to get a lot worse before (if) it gets better.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©