2006 May 11 Thursday
Some Immigrants Want Less Immigration
Some immigrant groups want to restrict immigration.
Under Yeh Ling-Ling's proposal for immigration reform, even she wouldn't be allowed into the country.
In 1980, Yeh arrived on U.S. shores on a visa sponsored by her sister. She went to work as a paralegal for an immigration law firm, helping file petitions for fellow foreigners to enter the United States. But then she started to notice the effects of immigration and population growth on the San Francisco Bay area.
"When I found out the cost of infrastructure, the cost of educating kids in America, I was shocked," said Yeh, executive director of the Oakland-based Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America, a nonprofit organization that wants to reduce immigration. "There would be a tremendous drain on America. . . . Isn't it clear that immigration is not needed to boost the U.S. economy?"
Hispanics perform poorly in American schools. Some claim more money for schools would solve the problem. But see this table "Total and current expenditure per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools: Selected years, 1919-20 to 2001-02". From 1971 to 2001 the total expenditures per student in inflation adjusted dollars doubled from $4884 to $9614. Going back even further the expenditures tripled from 1963's $3228. Money is not the problem.
The rapidly increasing sums of money spent on Hispanic education in America do not purchase a highly educated ethnic group. About half of Hispanics drop out of high school and on average those Hispanics still in school in 12th grade know about as much as white kids know in 8th grade. So the demographic trend in America is making the nation dumb and dumber. As the white baby boomers retire expect American living standards to stagnate due to a less skilled workforce. We are going to move down the curve of IQ and the wealth of nations.
A Christian Science Monitor article about environmentalists who oppose population growth but do not oppose immigration (because it feels so good to pose as morally superior to other white people about other races) points out that Hispanics are causing half of US population growth and immigration to the US increases their fertility and hence world population growth.
The US Census Bureau this week reported that Hispanics - the largest minority at 42.7 million - are the nation's fastest-growing group. They are 14.3 percent of the overall population, but between July 2004 and July 2005, they accounted for 49 percent of US population growth. Of the increase of 1.3 million Hispanics, the Census Bureau reported, 800,000 was because of natural increase (births minus deaths), and 500,000 was due to immigration.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, finds that once women emigrate to the US, most tend to have more children than they would have in their home countries. "Among Mexican immigrants in the United States fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per woman in Mexico," he wrote in a study last October. And the same is true among Chinese immigrants. Fertility is 2.3 in the US compared with 1.7 in China. However, typically these high fertility rates decline in the successive generations as immigrants assimilate into America.
The environmentalists for Open Borders are fools. Their position not only increases the population of the United States. It even increases the population of the world. But they do not want to agree with Right Wingers. Got to maintain their pretense of moral superiority. So they'd rather be wrong and morally superior in their own imaginations.
...on average those Hispanics still in school in 12th grade know about as much as white kids know in 8th grade.
Yes indeed. And the proof is that the state of CA is rejiggering the entire notion of what a high school diploma is by only requiring that graduating students test at the 8th grade level in math! And still the state is being sued...for demanding too much from the students. The incredible details were discussed tonight on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
"DOBBS: For the first time this year, students graduating from California high schools are required to pass a uniform test administered statewide. Twelfth grade students -- this is how tough this is -- they have to pass eighth grade level math in California."
"They must also demonstrate competence in ninth and 10th grade level English. Students are allowed to take the test over again until they pass. Nevertheless, 47,000 students in California failed."
Where the conversation got really interesting was here:
"DOBBS: Superintendent O'Connell... Why would you not have a 12th grade test for 12th graders?"
"O'CONNELL: Well, Lou, I'm with you."
And then the Superintendent danced and proved how he wasn't in fact "with" Dobbs at all. But how could he tell the truth? "Well, Lou, if we required 12th grade achievement for a diploma, almost no one in Los Angeles would graduate."
But then it got interesting here again:
"DOBBS: But what is the source of that population? Why has California been on decline? Is it because of the overwhelming number of illegal aliens moving into the state?"
"O'CONNELL: You know, it's not that simple, Lou. It's ..."
"DOBBS: OK, make it complicated, just give me an answer. What's the reason? "
"O'CONNELL: We've actually seen our test scores on our standardized tests improve almost every grade level every year."
Of course Superintendent O'Connell never gave the reason. How could he do it without getting fired? And burned at the stake? "Well, Lou, these kids are mestizo indians who do not as a whole demonstrate average ability in mathematical or verbal testing. In fact, all of Latin America has produced a startlingly low number of important scientific or literary figures in its entire history."
It occurred to me that the situation is probably even worse: the new 8th grade math level requirement for a high school diploma in CA is likely pegged to a modern dumbed down version of "8th grade". Meaning it is not even as demanding as the 8th grade level of twenty or thirty years ago.
IMO there is no way CA can maintain its economy and bond rating in the future no matter what happens in Silicon valley. The mestizo demographic explosion coming in the next twenty years will severely hinder statewide performance.
Latino dropout rates are approx 50% and do not show signs of improvement over generations. They are lowering math standards to the 8th grade level in order to cling to the 50% graduation rate!
-- "The environmentalists for Open Borders are fools. Their position not only increases the population of the United States. It even increases the population of the world. But they do not want to agree with Right Wingers. Got to maintain their pretense of moral superiority. So they'd rather be wrong and morally superior in their own imaginations."
Yes, and it also increases consumption, since the U.S. consumes more per-capita.
Whatever happened to ZPG (zero population growth) of the 1970s?
The guy who founded Earth Day in 1970 (Senator Gaylord Nelson) said that the #1 environmental problem was population growth due to immigration.
-- "If you had to choose just one, it would have to be population. . . . The bigger the population gets, the more serious the problems become. . . . We have to address the population issue. The United Nations, with the U.S. supporting it, took the position in Cairo in 1994 that every country was responsible for stabilizing its own population. It can be done. But in this country, it's phony to say "I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration." It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here. And you don't have to be a racist to realize that. However, the subject has been driven out of public discussion because everybody is afraid of being called racist if they say they want any limits on immigration."
-- Statement by Gaylord Nelson, in the year 2001
Democratic Governor Lamm tried to run to become a board member of the Sierra Club on a platform of reducing immigration, but I think the moneyed interests were able to stop him.
-- "Amazingly, while reporters covering the Sierra Club election were obsessed with the racism angle, they missed a huge story that was staring them right in the face.
According to I.R.S. records, the Sierra Club received over $100 million in anonymous donations during 2000 and 2001. And it spent $250,000 to defeat the so-called "outsiders." Pressing Pope on the nature of those donations or the wisdom of such excessive spending would be a real story."
It seems like the official liberal position is that we have to approach all problems on a global level, whether that be poverty or environmental issues. The national interest is irrelevant. But how do we control what goes on in other countries? Besides, I care about this country more than others.
But there are some liberals that have come to their senses. For instance, Ralph Nader said in 2004 that we need to reduce immigration, because our country can't support the 400 million that will be here by mid-century. Nader said that a policy of "open borders" is "insane."
Most ó not all, but most ó environmentalists are poseurs and moral exhibitionists who care more about the approval of their Liberal Establishment cronies than coming to grips with overpopulation and its causal factors.
A group within the Sierra Club is trying (in what is probably a quixotic effort) to get the club to see off its biggest pro-immigration donor. See "The Sierra Club needs a spine transplant" at Reflecting Light.
Although some immigrants don't want more immigration I'd be surprised if that were the case with most Latin Americans. I'm an immigrant to Canada as are several of my neighbours and we all want immigration cut. But we're mostly British and can identify with Canada and its history. Latin Americans do not identify with George Washington and James Madison. They are not interested in Jamestown or Yorktown. They see America as a white nation that has always been run by and is likely to remain dominated by whites for years to come. Whites are "the other" as far as Latinos are concerned and always will be.
The more immigrants arrive the more they reinforce a constituency opposed to the old Anglo-European America. The other week Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter said he had trouble supporting any kind of immigration restrictions because his parents were immigrants. Senator Pete Domenici made similar remarks regarding his Italian mother being questioned during WW2. So things that happened to the families of first generation Americans more than half a century ago are getting in the way of immigration control in 2006! Even if immigration were cut off tomorrow all the Latinos who got in over the last generation will, like Specter and Domenici, use their experience to defend more immigration decades from now.
Today at NR's The Corner neocon John Podhoretz (probably a third generation American)stated that immigration has been good for America in the past as if it were an established and undeniable fact. Good for his people perhaps but was it good for Anglo-America? Has traditional New England townhall democracy survived in areas of the region dominated by Jews, Italians, and Catholic Irish? More like Tammany Hall I suspect.
"It occurred to me that the situation is probably even worse: the new 8th grade math level requirement for a high school diploma in CA is likely pegged to a modern dumbed down version of "8th grade". Meaning it is not even as demanding as the 8th grade level of twenty or thirty years ago. "
You got it, Jorge D C. Remember the absolute appalling statistics from last December regarding the ability of college graduates to comprehend basic instructions and tasks? In 2003 41% of GRADUATE students were considered proficient -down 10% from 1992, hardly the "Golden Age". Plain old college grads: 31% compared to 40% in 1992. The rate for Hispanics, which would figure in the CA story, dropped 18% over this time frame with the rate for blacks going up and whites staying pretty much the same. What this says to me is that colleges are not only letting unprepared students in but also that they are giving them diplomas when THEY CANNOT READ WITH COMPREHENSION.
Wide open immigration did even less for the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree etc.
I think you've been hitting on the core of the current US malaise with your recent series of posts-- the US elites today, as in other corrupt quasi-imperial or post-imperial countries like Latin America, are at war with their productive classes (i.e., the striving middle classes that work hard to social-climb and become self-made), preferring instead an enormous underclass of malleable serfs to do their bidding. The mostly-white productive class in the US is under full attack by the ideological elites on both sides.
If you think about it, the most successful countries have been the ones that most value and celebrate their high-achievers, that greatly admire accomplishment in general, and who consciously reward and assist those who do great things-- IOW, who value the members of their productive classes who pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The USA, back when our country was an actual republic, used to be like this. The failed countries, and in particular the soon-to-be-failing states of the West (such as France, following in the footsteps of Russia during its Communist days), instead parasitize their productive classes and their high achievers, even scorn them since the high achievers interfere with their notions of radical egalitarianism (among the Leftist-Marxist classes), or pose a threat to the neo-feudalism that the neoconservative lot among the conservative movement ardently craves.
That's a key point that's often missed-- the US mainstream media often frames our conflict as a battle between liberals and conservatives, but it's more a battle being waged by the worst elements among *both* the liberals and the conservatives, together, against the striving productive class of the US that's mostly interested in being successful and being productive. Indeed, the US, now, is fast on the road to becoming a failing state as well.
One can see this in specific policies that are viciously anti-meritocratic and that target the productive classes in particular. Affirmative action is one of the most pernicious. It scorns and penalizes those who work hard and achieve success by their own efforts, while rewarding the least productive in a society and also rewarding those who whine the loudest about "discrimination" and seem to see it everywhere. Even worse, affirmative action penalizes the US's founding population-- the white population-- and a subclass of productive Asians, while rewarding less productive ethnic groups. Thus, wealth and resources are siphoned away from the White productive class to less productive groups, and the value of achievement overall is denigrated. I've noticed that affirmative action supporters often adjust their rhetoric to lay into white high-achievers and make them feel guilty about their own success. Oddly enough, US white elites (often inheritors of wealth) are complicit in this and sell out their own kind, i.e. the hard-working striving productive classes, since they themselves are relatively insulated. The very worst type of person in the US these days, it seems, is a member of the white productive class or working class. Your hard and work and achievements are scorned, you're despised by non-white ethnic groups, you're even sold out by white elites. Not even the French have stooped to this level-- that don't have affirmative action (yet).
Another example that's been brought up before, is divorce law in many US states, which is viciously rigged against productive members of society. I've worked in this field before-- fortunately have not suffered it myself-- and have seen incredibly admirable and productive people, founders of companies and top doctors and engineers (mostly men but also many women), that is, the backbone of US productivity and economic leadership, have their careers and their financial status utterly dismantled by the US divorce court system. It seems as though all the most extreme Marxists and Socialists in the legal profession have focused on divorce law. A sensible divorce policy (in a country that actually respected its productive citizens) would definitely provide substantial financial support to a less-productive divorced spouse, would allow them to live comfortably and effectively start up a new life on their own. But it would avoid going to the extremes that are common in divorce law in the US and Britain-- which is to say, to severely penalize and cause extreme financial damage to the productive spouse, to make it difficult for them to advance financially and generate new wealth, and to make many bankrupt. That is, smart divorce law would take actual consideration of the hard work and economic value of the contributions of a productive spouse (as well as the *education and preparation to arrive at that point*), would not have a blanket conclusion that "both spouses contributed equally to the productive spouse's career" (when the productive spouses has probably worked for decades to get advanced degrees and nurture the company even before meeting the other spouse, who may sit home and watch TV all day), and would make sure the less-productive spouse could live comfortably and have opportunities for their own advancement, but not get rich from the divorce itself. In my old job, I was shocked at how many incredibly productive and bright Americans-- again, founders of budding but promising tech companies, other technical professionals and wealth generators-- were driven to bankruptcy and financial ruin by a messy divorce that was often a result of nothing more than their spouses' being irritated at their long work hours. I can't begin to calculate the amount of economic and social damage we're suffering in the US and Britain because of this.
A third example of the anti-productive policies, and perhaps the most damaging of all, is of course the mass Third-World immigration that elites among both parties and the media are so intent on. This damages the (mostly) white productive classes in the United States many times over. Their wages are driven way down as the value of their work is denigrated (if they can keep a job at all without being outsourced), their educational costs go way up, and their fertility rate plummets sharply as more and more urban centers and even suburbs become overcrowded, and the cost of land goes up geometrically. Furthermore, the white productive class in driven increasingly to demographic minority status and political marginalization.
Already in the US as a whole, as I think others have pointed out, white children comprise barely half of the total kindergarteners. In many states these days (such as California), whites are less than a third of the school-age population. The white birth rate throughout the US is about 1.5, dangerously low since other groups are above replacement, while the white fertility rate in many states (again, California most notoriously) is at a shockingly low level of perhaps 1.1-1.2. The lowest white birth rates are in the US states with the highest immigration levels, for the reasons cited above-- it's just not economically feasible for productive whites to start families when they're being attacked by all sides.
The hard truth is this: The proto-Socialist Left in the US has a vicious hatred of the productive white population and Western culture in general, and has been at war against this population for decades now, and sad to say, they've been shockingly successful. In pushing so hard for affirmative action and other anti-meritocratic policies, for harsh divorce laws that hit productive people as well as for mass Third-World immigration, they've slammed the very economic underpinnings of productive white Americans here, driving down both our wealth and our fertility rate. But they've been helped by corrupt "conservatives" (i.e., neoconservatives) who attack productive whites for different reasons. They also favor mass Third-World immigration as well as massive outsourcing of technology expertise that undercuts the US technology job base, and they push for extensive foreign wars that drive terrorism and more wars, to embroil the US in conflicts that enable the government (and the corporate parasites that feed off government handouts) to grow faster and faster and expand the spoils system. They, too, want to utterly gut the white majority and make it a minority, while dumbing down the population with bread and circuses in the mass media, to help make us all into easily duped serfs. Not even France has gone so far in this direction. The French, of course, have their own disaster brewing-- they're so obsessed with radical egalitarianism and equality of results (rather than equality of opportunity, which does make sense), that the French look down on anyone who succeeds too much. The French can't even make the most basic of economic reforms to introduce workplace flexibility, and can't make even modest and obviously sensible changes in the educational systems since this would allow some universities (with smarter policies) to flourish while others, stuck in hidebound tradition, flounder. So the French get something like their radical egalitarianism, with the vast majority of the population stuck in failure and squalor, even as they struggle with 5 million North African Muslims who don't want to work and hate the country that accepted them. The US is also seeking a mass serf population (with a tiny and privileged elite), but in the US, we also have mass affirmative action and bloody warfare to push the process along even further.
My ideal state in the US would basically be a Red State, but one without the anti-intellectual currents in much of the Bible Belt (i.e., anti-science attitudes and distrust of the concept of evolution and technology) that make it so hard to be economically productive there. Maybe places like Kentucky, Missouri, Idaho, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota fit this bill at least in their major cities-- avoiding the hateful penalization of their productive classes that is common in the high-immigration Blue States, but with positive attitudes toward science, technology and intellectual accomplishment.
Oddly enough, I feel like at least some European countries are moving in a positive, pro-productive direction. France of course is heading for Third-World states, like the UK and US, unless they change course awfully fast. But I was in Germany almost a year ago, and to my surprise (because I was very down on them just 3 years before that), it looks as though Germany is rebounding. There was recently some big mass protest among Turks in Germany seeking something like affirmative action benefits like what we have in the US, and the Germans all over the country flatly said, "No way." Germany is one of the first countries to move to a heavily meritocratic immigration system, seeking out educated Russians, Poles and Latvians who are not only capable and accomplished, but who are Europeans with a strong shared culture (and often German blood themselves). Germany has its own birth rate problems, but the laws have been changed to actually reward educated couples who have kids, as well as to promote immigration by fellow Europeans who have (or intend to have) families themselves. The German media, government and civic organizations are even quietly encouraging a Christian revival throughout Germany, and there is still substantial respect for high-achievers, high social status, and significant rewards. Germany's tax sector still needs reform, but the Germans in general seem much more resilient in this regard than the French, British and Americans-- they refuse to succumb to the idiot tempations of massive Third-World immigration and cheap labor, they value achievement, and they heavily reward their productive classes. They encourage immigration and child-bearing by productive Europeans, while discouraging it from unproductive Third-World migrants. IOW, Germany-- along with East Asia, probably-- places a high value upon and greatly respects its productive classes, and will probably be quite strong in 20-25 years.
As for the US, I think we're splitting up basically, into a few remaining zones where the white productive class still has some semblance of demographic clout and political power, and immigration-overrun states in which the white productive class has been dismantled-- states like California, New York and Illinois. I frankly could not care less at this point if California and Arizona break away from the country. I used to live in Cali for a while, and I could not believe the war that's being waged in that state against productive whites in the areas I mentioned above. In some places (and in the universities in particular), you haven't "arrived" in the social circles unless you're rattled off some screed or tirade against those evil, oppressive whites. Unsurprisingly as a result, as I know Randall posted recently, productive whites are deserting California. Therefore, I honestly couldn't care less if California and much of the rest of the Southwest just split away-- if they want their Socialistic Third-World banana republic there, shorn of those pesky productive whites that they love to drive out, I say let them have it. The rest of us will get to see them flounder and flail economically as a result, and that may be the only sort of lesson that the corrupt elites in the US these days can actually understand.
Wow, just found a spectacular article, covers a lot of my points but much better than I could from a guy who's obviously done his homework, maybe is an expert on this topic.
Frosty Wooldridge, "Fractured States of America." Says that the break-up of the United States, the disintegration of America, is in fact already upon us, right now (as of late 2005). Maybe we're already on the road to a Thomas Chittum-style civil war.
I also like the fact that this guy points how unchecked legal immigration is as or even more dangerous than illegal immigration. A lot of well-intentioned immigration reformists fall into the classic trap of claiming that it's only "illegal" immigration that they oppose, not the "legal" kind-- failing to realize that it's the legal kind that's making the US into an overpopulated, northern Hemisphere banana republic version of Brazil (with 1.5 million "legal" Third World immigrants). Even worse, some immigration reformists slip into the disastrous trap of saying that all this mass immigration is OK "so long as we make them Americans," "so long as we teach them English," "so long as they have jobs" or some distraction like that.
They fail to realize, that the sheer numbers of immigrants themselves are wrecking America with all the crowding, the inevitable crime and gang proliferation, environmental trashing, choking traffic, pollution and demand for oil that pushes us into Middle Eastern wars like Iraq. In fact, in one of my old neighborhoods, the worst, most criminally-inclined immigrants were a group of English-speaking Caribbeans who'd themselves migrated over from Britain (obviously descended from earlier immigrants)-- criminal, arrogant, aggressive, prone to theft, just a nasty bunch overall. Obviously, speaking English did not exactly have a civilizing influence for them-- the only solution would have been to deport them (or keep them out in the first place). I don't know, but I've never felt so angry or powerless about the state of our nation's policies, and this Wooldridge really captures the mood. Maybe I should start learning German or something, preparing to emigrate. (I know of quite a few other ex-Americans who've already done just that.)
Thank you for your taking the time to write your well-argued and cogent analysis. (Both your comments.) I don't recall seeing your byline here before, but I am sure you will be welcomed by Randall and most of his readers. You are also welcome to comment (as is everyone, whether I agree with their ideas or not) at my blog, Reflecting Light.
Where would you consider emigrating to if the United States enters a worst-case scenario? Where have your acquaintances gone? Any English-speaking countries among them?
While I agree with Mad Maxwell, I am hardly ready to just 'turn over' a significant portion of the USA to illegals. There is something perversely attractive about that line of thinking; itís just that I don't think the illegals taking Cali back would ever be willing to stop with just those two states. I swear they are just like locust and that when they had ruined what was left of Cali and AZ they would come after the rest of the USA using some other rationalization to fuel the new invasions. That said, my spouse and I have been looking into emigrating for years. New Zealand is an option...for English speakers...they have very select policies on WHO they will let emigrate. It is also relatively expensive; you have to cough up around $100,000 (cost of infrastructure, etc.) per person if you are seriously planning on making that move.
Wide open immigration did even less for the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree etc.
How about this? To hell with the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree, etc. Let the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree, etc., worry about the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree, etc.
On another tack, I think you have immigration confused with colonization. Or, can you point to the immigration offices of the Sioux, the Mic-mac, the Cree, etc?
Had you bothered to read or to think at all, you would have seen that the whole point is the Sioux, the Cree and the Mic-Mac failed to set and to enforce a sensible immigration policy. The implicit suggest was to learn from their mistakes.
That said: What, pray tell, is any significant difference between immigration and colonization?
They had, what seemed to THEM, a sensible immigration policy...it involved scalping, killing and torturing the settlers who continued to flood their hunting grounds with farms and fences (at least they didn't pansy around with their cronies playing slap-ass 'aren't we the LIBERAL ELITE', rather, they KNEW what was at stake). Of course, we all got to see how well that worked out for them. The US government decided to 'test' their brand new Gatlin guns on villages full of Native American women, children and elderly. Oh, and then there was the Trail of Tears, the reservations...etc. Yeah, but who gives a shit about them? I guess, I do, since the way I see it, I am the New Native American and the illegals are the new flood of immigrants coming to dismantle my country. Is it possible that there is anyone who can't see the parallel?
Why is it that my government was so effective getting 'rid' of the Indian scourge and they turn into wet limp noodle dicks on this issue? I want to KNOW what has happened to my people, why are we so tame? So domesticated? In a world full of lions, who made us the sheep? And when did it happen? Being knowledgeable or intellectual should not supersede survival.
I got this error when I tried to post:
In an effort to curb malicious comment posting by abusive users, I've enabled a feature that requires a weblog commenter to wait a short amount of time before being able to post again. Please try to post your comment again in a short while. Thanks for your patience.
Did we all get this? I don't feel like I am being abusive.