2007 May 10 Thursday
Americans Driven Off Coasts By Immigrants

Michael Barone reports the facts. Why do this to ourselves?

Start with the Coastal Megalopolises: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.

There are some variations. New York had a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%; San Francisco a whopping domestic outflow of 10% (the bursting of the tech bubble hurt) and an immigrant inflow of 7%. Miami and Washington had domestic outflows of only 2%, overshadowed by immigrant inflows of 8% and 5%, respectively.

This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations--these are driving many Americans elsewhere.

The desirable areas to live are full. Letting in more people will just drive up housing costs. We do not benefit from immigration. It is time to stop it entirely.

America's frontier closed late in the 19th century. It is about time we start thinking and acting like our country does not have an infinite amount of desirable land.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 May 10 11:07 PM  Immigration Demographics


Comments
John S Bolton said at May 11, 2007 12:04 AM:

Barone of course, does not draw the conclusion that such migrations are negative for freedom and the electoral chances of the moderate right, but tries to make it sound as if that would not follow at all.
Insofar as a citizenry is strong in its resistance to the growth of despotism,
that population will be berated for racism, xenophobia, fascism, etc., regardless of truth,
and,
insofar as an immigrant population is hostile and destructive of freedom-from-aggression,
those immigrant populations will be celebrated as somehow good for those whose prospects they despoil.
This is the consequence of having government schools; power breeds further power and
exploits the propaganda organs which it can most efficiently synchronize interests with.

John S Bolton said at May 11, 2007 2:50 AM:

Houselot values initially rise with higher quality of population, then quantity takes over, raising prices even as quality of population may decline steeply. Densities per house mount higher, as immigration of lower quality allows for this.
The middle element gets cleared out, especially those starting families, very much to the empowerment of the left. That is, so far as the left is an alliance, of those with more money and education than power that they consider themselves quite entitled to, allied with the needy low-literate elements. Barone presumably knows this, but won't say.

Vee said at May 11, 2007 4:22 AM:

Capitalists invest where it is cheaper.
Then they draw the educated workforce which sees a better life elsewhere to their jobs (more money)
As Barone writes
State capitals that were just medium-sized cities dominated by government employees in the 1950s--Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville, Richmond--are now booming centers of high-tech and other growing private-sectorbusinesses.

Natural ebb-and-flow. Moderately well-off people leave a place to try and make more money at the end of the day and build a better life.
Who wants to live in a megacity anyway and be stuck in traffic all day? No use living near the coast but not enjoying it. Rather live more in the country, lead a better life quality... simple economics.

People are desperate to migrate:
Haitian migrants die in Turks and Caicos

John Smith said at May 11, 2007 7:54 AM:

Given technological innovations in food production, the problem is not too many people. Instead, the problem is people of low IQ not being able to generate enough economic value to support themselves in a rich country, thereby stealing or draining government resources to make up the difference.

Considering that the US has to compete with China and the EU and many other countries to remain the global superpower, they should keep letting in high IQ immigrants. The 80,000 per country rule is pretty stupid. Replace all illegal mexican immigrants with Eastern European, Indian, Chinese... high skilled immigrants. Problem solved. I'd say we have to keep increasing our INTELLIGENT population significantly to offset dysgenic trends. The only way to do that is to scale up high skilled immigration.

Kurt9 said at May 11, 2007 9:38 AM:

John Smith,

You are entirely correct. However, differentiating immigrants based on IQ or other such criterion is considered racism by the liberal-left. No politician wants to be condemned as being racist. So, your completely reasonable and logical policy would never be implemented by congress.

James Bowery said at May 11, 2007 12:29 PM:

America's frontier closed late in the 19th century. It is about time we start thinking and acting like our country does not have an infinite amount of desirable land.

What people don't seem to get is the true nature of JFK's "New Frontier". It was merely an extension of the old slave game.

The slave game gets played by the slave-providing society (frequently African) with the slave-trading society (frequently Jewish) against the target territory (frequently European-controlled):

1. Get the elites of the target territory addicted to cheap labor.
2. Thereby destroy the middle class (yeomen) of the target society by turning the elites against their own people economically.
3. Put enough “feet on the ground” in the form of slaves from the slave-providing society, that it is “impossible” to repatriate them.
4. “Liberate” the slaves and destroy the remainder of the society that slavery has already gutted of its yeomen/middle class.

The only thing that staved off utter disaster for the US during the 1800s was the fact that the yeoman class had a frontier to which they could escape—an “error” that was “corrected” with JFK’s phoney “New Frontier” and the subsequent land grab.

NASA’s manned space program was, not only an ersatz substitute for the American Pioneer Spirit, but a pioneer-funded (via taxes on the Americans which the US Founders called “our posterity") enemy of the American Pioneer Spirit.

“The Civil Rights Movement” aspect of JFK's "New Frontier" had legs, the vigorous support of Hollywood and the vigorous support of academia and aggressive expansion to include opening borders to third world laborers. Meanwhile the American Pioneer Spirit’s frontier aspect was relegated to a dysfunctional bureaucracy continually complaining that not enough funding was available to deliver the promise. This vicious betrayal of the American Pioneer Spirit is central to our time—since it was during the 1960s that the liberalizations we now decry were enacted at the same time it appeared there was a new frontier opening up. The bottom line is Kennedy’s “New Frontier” was a con game to grab the land of the “posterity” of the founders of the US, on behalf of other interests—thereby rendering the government utterly without legal foundation.

Randall Parker said at May 11, 2007 7:47 PM:

Vee,

Ebb and flow? That implies bidirectionality. How are the people who move inland ever going to afford to move back to the coasts again?

We wouldn't have so many people living near the coasts if we didn't have so many people in the first place. The more we let immigrate the less desirable and, at the same time, more costly the coasts become.

Vee said at May 11, 2007 9:44 PM:

Randall,
stand your man and remove any adsense ads promoting US immigration :)

I don't think the issue is that of the coast being desirable, it is one of capitalism...
What past immigration has done — and what the temporary worker program will continue to do on a potentially larger scale — is to depress wages and increase the profits of the firms that employ the immigrants.
So, while wages go down, capital will move or stay where it is most useful.
Immigrant labour depresses wages, but some benefit

Ebb and flow refers to ebb and flow of money. It's control of capital that controls migration. The intelligent control capital, hence migration. The intelligent and wealthy have the ability and resources to plan ahead and move their capital. Because people follow money by nature, they move towards capital investment. Crop rotation in a way.

John S Bolton said at May 11, 2007 10:26 PM:

To add a correction here, differentiating also from intervening comments, the wipeout of the bourgeoisie,
happens if they will not start families in the extended-family household similarly as the immigrants do.
If they do opt for the extended-family approach, maybe they cease to be 'yeomanry'
or participants in the specific pioneer spirit which settled America, or maybe they don't.
In either case, loyalty is owed to the citizenry and the net taxpayers thereof, including the rich ones,
so that no mass immigration on to net public subsidy is permitted.
Watch those pennies, dollars, and billions of dollars traitorously diverted to foreigners here,
to aid their colonization, and the bilions of acres will take care of themselves, won't they?

John S Bolton said at May 12, 2007 2:53 AM:

Combining some of the above points, and applying them to the topic
of the post:
immigrants move preferentially to the areas of highest per capita investment,
which strongly and positively correlates with desirability of land at the outset,
then tend to displace citizens by taking lower pay,
and spending more on housing space,
by putting more people in at higher density, in existing units mostly,
and this will happen until per capita
investment, accumulated in fixed locations,
are equalized between localities.

D Flinchum said at May 12, 2007 7:41 AM:

I read this article in the WSJ and was surprised that no mention was made regarding quality of schools. I suspect that a lot of the US citizens moving out are middle-class mostly educated families with children, seeking better schools AND more affordable living.

The influx of immigrants causes a rise in ESL and special ed classes, as well as over-crowding, gangs, etc. ESL and special ed are expensive services that help a limited number of students, very few of which are middle class US citizens.

Rich educated families with children can send them to private school so they stay in the immigrant-saturated urban areas. Many middle-class parents don't have that option, especially if they will have 2 or 3 children in school at one time. Why pay high taxes that support expensive services that don't add to the average - or gifted - child's education, especially if that child is yours and you see the quality of the schools going down even as costs go up? ESL and special ed are mandated. Great science and technology labs and courses like art and music aren't. We know which get cut as expenses rise. So these parents move farther out.

It also doesn't help when so many of the students that those high-cost ESL and special ed classes are set up for drop out before completing HS. It's one thing to pay high taxes for a world-class education system, as California's used to be, but quite another to pay higher and higher taxes for declining quality.

Robert Hume said at May 13, 2007 6:10 PM:

This is likely an echo of the movement of middle class (some upper-class and without-children WASPS remained) WASPS out of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and perhaps some other cities when Catholics and Jews took over those cities after about 1840-1890. Those newer ethnicities reaped the benefits of the infrastructure, physical and intellectual (e.g. teachers), built by the WASPS. The WASP middle class lost those benefits and perhaps as a result their average income is below that of Catholics and Jews today.

The new immigrants are probably unable, due to low IQ, to reap those benefits as they take over large cities. As a result there will be a dead loss to our overall society due to the inability of those moving out to draw upon that infrastructure. However, the internet may ameliorate this problem.


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

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