The Origin of the Specious

David Weigel | May 29, 2007

Peter Brimelow frets about the coming white minority (a mere 25 years after Black Flag!) at VDare.com and explains why a darker America would be a doomed America.

In The Federalist Papers, John Jay wrote that the experiment of the U.S. Constitution could work because Americans were “one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, very similar in their manners and their customs…a band of brethren…”

Of course, there have been evolutionary changes since then—but nothing like the revolutionary change now being brought about by immigration policy.

Wait, evolutionary changes? Has John Jay's band of brethren grown sturdier or smarter on the road to finally becoming the Eloi? Have immigrants developed stronger limbs, smaller crania, and the propensity to join mass-murdering tattoo gangs? And if so, why isn't the MSM reporting this?

UPDATE: Yes, I realize that Brimelow is not literally referring to human evolution. It's still odd that he discusses the evolution of American society apart from immigration policy, as if you can separate the two. And then there's the split between good, evolutionary immigration policy (pre-1965) and bad, revolutionary policy (the 1965 law that broke down quotas and allowed more Mexican legalization).

Comments

|5.29.07 @ 2:07PM|#

I went to read the article but was cut short by amusement at the first paragraph...

I'm writing this from Washington DC where immigration reform patriots are fighting back against the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge pushed by President Bush and assorted Senate Sellouts.

He misspelled both Amnesty/ImmigrationSurge and SenateSellouts!

Fluffy|5.29.07 @ 2:27PM|#

All this "white minority" junk goes right out the window when you remember that Hispanics are white.

Last time I checked, Spain was part of Europe.

REAL AMERICANS LOOK LIKE ME|5.29.07 @ 2:30PM|#

THIS IMPURIFICATION OF OUR AMERICAN BODILY FLUIDS BEGAN WHEN WE STOPPED TREATING THE IRISH LIKE BLACKS NOW WE ARE REAPING WHAT THE IMMIGRANTOCRATS HAVE SOWN AND OUR PROGENY WILL ALSO PREFER SALSA TO KETCHUP AND PLAY SOCCER WHAT COULD BE A WORSE FUTURE SPAIN HAD THIS IN MIND ALL ALONG WHEN THEY SENT CORTEZ OVER TO MEXICO AND TOUGHT THEM THAT GOING TO OTHER PEOPLES COUNTRIES AND TAKING THEIR STUFF WAS OK WHEREAS WE AMERICANS CAME HERE AS PILGRAMS TO THE PROMISED LAND ITS NOT THE SAME THING

|5.29.07 @ 2:30PM|#

Uh, perhaps someone should mention to Mr. Brimelow that by 1750 more than 40% of the American population consisted of African slaves. In South Carolina, they were closer to 2/3 of the population. Of course, since slaves didn't vote, they didn't have any place in John Jay's formulation, nor did women. Mr. Brimelow has also obviously not spent much time analyzing immigration rates, which were spectacularly higher in the 18th century than they are today. During the Revolution, there were entire counties in Pennsylvania (Lehigh) where English speakers were distinctly in the minority.

shockcorridor|5.29.07 @ 2:31PM|#

I'm just jealous again that I'm thirsty and miserable for a six pack over this police story! Time for a TV party!

TLB|5.29.07 @ 2:33PM|#

It's clear to me what he means by "evolutionary changes", but then again I'm not a lightweight like Weigel.

As for Hispanics being "white", some consider themselves to be white, but many do not, with some engaging in good ol' BlutUndBoden thinking. The difference between the current and the last historical example is that the current is considered acceptable.

It's also interesting to imagine the outrage if similar demographic changes were being forced upon a non-majority-white country, but once again discussing the involuntary nature (at a libertarian site no less) of the changes or understanding how things would be perceived differently if another country was involved are clearly beyond the grasp of those here.

On another note, John Hawkins is sounding like me.

|5.29.07 @ 2:33PM|#

Last time I checked, Spain was part of Europe.

Yeah, but it's the swarthy part of Europe.

I keed, I keed. A lot of the anti-immigrant talk is similar to the stuff being put out in the 1880's when the fear was that German immigrants were changing our culture with their weird "Frankfurters" and "hamburgers." They also didn't speak English, demanded their won separate education. Finally, anarchist terrorists hid in the midst of the German hordes. Unfortunately, there was no strong immigration policy and the Germans became the largest ethnic group in America today. Who knows how great America would have been if we'd been able to keep the Hun out?

MattXIV|5.29.07 @ 2:34PM|#

Have immigrants developed stronger limbs, smaller crania, and the propensity to join mass-murdering tattoo gangs? And if so, why isn't the MSM reporting this?

Lou Dobbs only has a finite amount of air time and it's more important to warn us about the coming plague of leprosy?

poco|5.29.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Just as long as we rid this country of caps-lock typists, of any color.

|5.29.07 @ 2:39PM|#

"...forced upon...involuntary nature..."

Who is being marched into our nation at gunpoint, again?

That's some find Newspeak you've got there, LoneWacko.

If people don't use the power of the state to coerce other people out of moving freely, you are being coerced by the fact that they might live peacefully near you.

|5.29.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Uh, perhaps someone should mention to Mr. Brimelow that by 1750 more than 40% of the American population consisted of African slaves.

And tell him, while we're at it, that we've never had the slightest bit of social turmoil in this country as a result of that importation of cheap laborers to do the work that Americans wouldn't do.

LarryA|5.29.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Uh, perhaps someone should mention to Mr. Brimelow that by 1750 more than 40% of the American population consisted of African slaves. In South Carolina, they were closer to 2/3 of the population. Of course, since slaves didn't vote, they didn't have any place in John Jay's formulation, nor did women.

That's only true if you're limiting "American population" to European immigrants. There were still quite a few native Americans, but of course Jay didn't count them either.

GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Brimlow notes =

At VDARE.COM, we pointed out that this was really an immigration tragedy-shooter Seung-Hui Cho came from Korea in 1992, although tellingly he never took out U.S. citizenship or even Americanized his name-and a case study in the need for immigration control.

Yes.

but then, at VDARE.com EVERYTHING is an immigration tragedy!

Terrorist Cells in our midst? Immigrants!
Economy going to shit? Immigrants!
Potential viral outbreak that can wipe out the human race? Immigrants!
Cultural dissolution? Immigrants!
Shitty TV? Immigrants!
A dog shit on my yard? Immigrants!
Not scoring with the ladies? Immigrants!

Question for Reason editors =

Why link to or comment on their stuff at all? I've never seen anything from them but nauseating overblown fear-of-a-brown-america horn-tooting. They are so one-track that it hurts to read.

on the other hand... =

BREAKING NEWS: Our advisers tell me I should offer to come to any U.S, city to speak at a private dinner in your place of choice for a donation of $10,000. Please write us at [e-mail]

why not just send him bogus invites to Mexican restaurants then PUNK HIM sending in Rosie Perez and Manny Ramirez to kick his white-bread ass

Ken Hagler|5.29.07 @ 2:47PM|#

Does anybody else find it amusing that a site devoted to fanatical hatred of immigrants is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?

highnumber|5.29.07 @ 2:52PM|#

Ah, LonelyWhacker, now you start leaking the racist piss. I thought you were strictly paranoid.
Where's your buddy, the flemur monkey?

|5.29.07 @ 2:52PM|#

Does anybody else find it amusing that a site devoted to fanatical hatred of immigrants is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?

Oh. I thought the name had something to do with these lizards. Guess I was wrong.

dhex|5.29.07 @ 2:56PM|#

"It's clear to me what he means by "evolutionary changes", but then again I'm not a lightweight like Weigel."

i have this image of lonewacko jumping up and down screaming "adrian! adrian! i did it!"

but then i realized "adrian" sounds kinda...foreign.

|5.29.07 @ 3:01PM|#

...is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?

The salient fact for the VDare folks is probably her color, not her immigration status.

David Wegel, why the link to VDare? I'm not gonna say "Shame on you! Don't link to those morons! Were you raised by gibbons?" but i can think it.

highnumber|5.29.07 @ 3:02PM|#

From VDare:

Rachel Smith was born in Panama and is described on the official Miss USA site as "biracial". She is a lovely-looking girl, but I can't help brooding about why my own niece was told by New York modeling agencies recently that there is no longer any demand for six-foot, blue-eyed blondes.

Juh? Juh? And juh?
BTW, Miss USA is not "a lovely-looking girl," she is smoking hot! (with all due respect to her accomplishments, of course.)

thoreau|5.29.07 @ 3:04PM|#

I can't help brooding about why my own niece was told by New York modeling agencies recently that there is no longer any demand for six-foot, blue-eyed blondes.

I know. I mean, just look at TV shows. Not a tall blonde actress to be found anymore!

|5.29.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Wow, I've seen a lot of right wingers dress up their mourning for lost privilege as oppression, but "the modeling jobs aren't limited to white Aryans anymore" really takes the cake.

|5.29.07 @ 3:08PM|#

That the American English speaking descendants of Irish, German, and even Italians would be considered part of the majority culture would be the evolutionary change.
I am an optimist generally; my only concern is their children's unwillingness to abandon their ancestor's culture. America does have a culture of its own. It is not static but it does exist! Recent immigrants have never been popular in America but until these newcomers are unironically protesting against immigration their assimilation will not be complete.

|5.29.07 @ 3:09PM|#

All this "white minority" junk goes right out the window when you remember that Hispanics are white.
Nope.
Last time I checked, Spain was part of Europe.
Hispanic != Spanish, and has no relation to any race. Look it up.

Uh, perhaps someone should mention to Mr. Brimelow that by 1750 more than 40% of the American population consisted of African slaves.
Nope. More like 20%.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/Pa-Po/People-of-America.html

Mr. Brimelow has also obviously not spent much time analyzing immigration rates, which were spectacularly higher in the 18th century than they are today.
"During the years from 1775 to 1830, immigration may have been slower than at any other time in American history, with the exception of the 1930s. A surge of immigrants from England and Europe after 1760 came to an end with the War for Independence."
(Same URL).

Does anybody else find it amusing that a site devoted to fanatical hatred of immigrants...
So, do the several immigrants who write at vdare hate themselves, or just hate each other?
Please be specific as to who hates whom.
...is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?
Really? Which immigration law(s) were broken?

highnumber|5.29.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Recent immigrants have never been popular in America but until these newcomers are unironically protesting against immigration their assimilation will not be complete.

JParker, that's priceless. I'm putting $10 on you to win.

Edward|5.29.07 @ 3:11PM|#

How about encouraging Jewish immigration?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10855&page=all

The IQ mean for the American population is "normed" to be 100, with a standard deviation of 15. If the Jewish mean is 110, then the mathematics of the normal distribution says that the average Jew is at the 75th percentile. Underlying that mean in overall IQ is a consistent pattern on IQ subtests: Jews are only about average on the subtests measuring visuo-spatial skills, but extremely high on subtests that measure verbal and reasoning skills.

A group's mean intelligence is important in explaining outcomes such as mean educational attainment or mean income. The key indicator for predicting exceptional accomplishment (like winning a Nobel Prize) is the incidence of exceptional intelligence. Consider an IQ score of 140 or higher, denoting the level of intelligence that can permit people to excel in fields like theoretical physics and pure mathematics. If the mean Jewish IQ is 110 and the standard deviation is 15, then the proportion of Jews with IQ's of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.

The imbalance continues to increase for still higher IQ's. New York City's public-school system used to administer a pencil-and-paper IQ test to its entire school population. In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ's of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews.

|5.29.07 @ 3:12PM|#

Sigh...

All this "white minority" junk goes right out the window when you remember that Hispanics are white.
Nope.

Last time I checked, Spain was part of Europe.
Hispanic != Spanish, and has nothing to do with race. Look it up.

Uh, perhaps someone should mention to Mr. Brimelow that by 1750 more than 40% of the American population consisted of African slaves.
Nope. More like 20%.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/Pa-Po/People-of-America.html

Mr. Brimelow has also obviously not spent much time analyzing immigration rates, which were spectacularly higher in the 18th century than they are today.
"During the years from 1775 to 1830, immigration may have been slower than at any other time in American history, with the exception of the 1930s. A surge of immigrants from England and Europe after 1760 came to an end with the War for Independence."
(Same URL).

Does anybody else find it amusing that a site devoted to fanatical hatred of immigrants...
So, do the several immigrants who write at vdare hate themselves, or just hate each other?
Please be specific as to who hates whome.

...is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?
Really? Which immigration law(s) were broken?

dhex|5.29.07 @ 3:12PM|#

"I can't help brooding about why my own niece was told by New York modeling agencies recently that there is no longer any demand for six-foot, blue-eyed blondes."

that really is one of the weirdest fucking things i've ever seen on the internet. and that includes this fucking thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFV5SUztRBw

(safe for work, marginally, but not safe for soul.)

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 3:19PM|#

Why is it that the biggest immigration oppoenents are A) recent welathy immigrants (Brimelow, Malkin) and B) third and fourth generation Irish Catholics and Italians (Pat Buchannan, Bill O'Reiley, Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo)?

You don't see many WASPs who have been here for oh, ten generations bitching about it nearly as much.

|5.29.07 @ 3:20PM|#

It's funny, some of the comments on vdare pertaining to the condition of Mexican and Cuban homes (i.e. broken down vehicles, trash, and drunken men in the front yard, along with 10-15 family members living in the house) reminds me of many homes in the small town that I currently live in and another (somewhere in Kentucky) that I used to live in. The only exception is the race (white, "redneck") of the people in question.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 3:22PM|#

In any case John Jay was using a little hyperbole. Besides the fact there were black slaves (20% of the population) there were also literally tons of German-speakers in Pennsylvania. The first bi-llingual university in America wasn't a spanish-speaking one in California. It was Franklin & Marshall in Lancaster, and the second language was German.

rhywun|5.29.07 @ 3:24PM|#

why the link to VDare

Sure, they're off-the-deep-end nuts, but all the "respectable" right-of-center rags link to 'em, so you have to smack this crap down when it pops up.

Anyway, I've lived in a white-minority city for years and while I occasionally have to suffer the indignity of hearing strange tongues and looking at funny costumes, the "white" culture still seems pretty strong. There's still a McDonalds every few blocks and I can order it in English.

|5.29.07 @ 3:26PM|#

The Mexicans immigrating to the USA are primarily of american-indian descent.

The natives are repopulating their homeland.
It may take centuries, but justice is being served.

|5.29.07 @ 3:27PM|#

All this "white minority" junk goes right out the window when you remember that Hispanics are white.


Aren't most Mexican/Central American immigrants actually indigenous people - descendents* of the Aztecs/Mayans/Olmecs/toltecs, etc?


*Bill Stevenson played drums in both Black Flag and The Descendents.

|5.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Evolutionary theory applies to societies and culture too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

Not that I see any reason why current immigration should be regarded as a function of something other than social evolution.

norbizness|5.29.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Gimme gimme gimme! Gimme some Moors!

Edward Higby III|5.29.07 @ 3:38PM|#

You don't see many WASPs who have been here for oh, ten generations bitching about it nearly as much.

Well, they do make good maids, housekeepers, and gardeners. And of course, by paying them cash, one doesn't need to bother with employment forms and taxes and such.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Also, race pimps like La Raza and crypto-racists like Brimelow and Jared Taylor are going to have realy trouble in 20 years. Hispanics, particularly younger ones, have a very high rate of intermarriage with "anglo" whites.

(I myself am the product of one such union. And I'll be damned if anyone has called me "hispanic" by looking at me.)

I would make their head asplode.

Timothy|5.29.07 @ 3:49PM|#

SOCIAL DARWINISM! FUCK YEAH!

Thomas Stevens|5.29.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Are your arguments against Brimelow really so weak that you have to resort to misrepresentation and smear to counter him?

Chucklehead|5.29.07 @ 3:58PM|#

(I myself am the product of one such union. And I'll be damned if anyone has called me "hispanic" by looking at me.)

I got you covered, Cesar.

I'm of polish/czech/german descent, but a lot of folks assume I'm hispanic for some reason.

;-)

Fluffy|5.29.07 @ 4:02PM|#

TLB, it's clear to everyone what he means by evolutionary changes. Weigel is being facetious to embarrass him. It's clear that what he is saying is that adding white Irish, Italian, Polish, Russian, and Jewish immigrants to American society was "evolutionary" change, but adding those darn dark Mexicans is much, much different.

I would point out that since the nativist groups at the time overestimated the cultural gap involved and for their own part would have characterized the groups above as non-white and as betokening a "revolutionary change", we have every reason to doubt similar claims made today. If those nativists were trapped by their misconceptions, it's likely you are, too.

And Mr. Le Mur, to my mind the product of the union of Spanish and native forbears is still white. I didn't realize we were applying the "one drop of colored blood makes you colored" standard here. Is that really your standard?

|5.29.07 @ 4:05PM|#

In The Federalist Papers, John Jay wrote that the experiment of the U.S. Constitution could work because Americans were "one united people-a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, very similar in their manners and their customs…a band of brethren…"

And yet a generation later, that "one united people" were fighting a brutal civil war amongst themselves. And, ironically, it was over the status of a people descended from different ancestors.

|5.29.07 @ 4:06PM|#

"Why is it that the biggest immigration oppoenents are A) recent welathy immigrants (Brimelow, Malkin) and B) third and fourth generation Irish Catholics and Italians (Pat Buchannan, Bill O'Reiley, Lou Dobbs, Tom Tancredo)?"

A) Those are just the ones you see on teevee. Conservatives have a powerful affirmative action program for the their cable news pundits, in an effort to make them less vulnerable to charges of racism. You know, the stage at the Republican convention isn't precisely representative of Republicans, either.

B) "They tk r jrbs" has always held the most appeal among those near, but not at, the bottom of the economic ladder.

|5.29.07 @ 4:15PM|#

The Mexicans immigrating to the USA are primarily of american-indian descent.

The natives are repopulating their homeland.

Hate to break it to ya, but Amerinds from south of the Rio Grande are just as much immigrants to el Norte as Europeans.

Nice racial collectivist try, though.

|5.29.07 @ 4:19PM|#

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many Hispanics, especially Mexicans, prefer to identify as "Mestizo?"

|5.29.07 @ 4:21PM|#

"Cesar says:

Also, race pimps like La Raza and crypto-racists like Brimelow and Jared Taylor are going to have realy trouble in 20 years. Hispanics, particularly younger ones, have a very high rate of intermarriage with "anglo" whites.

(I myself am the product of one such union. And I'll be damned if anyone has called me "hispanic" by looking at me.)

I would make their head asplode."

Or make their ass headplode.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 4:22PM|#

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't many Hispanics, especially Mexicans, prefer to identify as "Mestizo?""

Among other things. Latin Americans don't have the stupid "one drop rule" to the extent North Americans do.

Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:24PM|#

Being that I've read the Federalist Papers a number of times I can y'all that he is quoting from Federalist #2. The language comes (if I recall correctly) in a bit where he is talking basically about divine providence. In talking about unity Jay basically ignores the divisive war which had just been fought, the divisive nature of the changes in government which the advocates of the Constitution were trying to entertain, etc. In other words, Jay is engaged in a bit of myth-making.

TLB, etc. note that I don't even have to get into the issue of ethnicity to illustrate Machiavellian foundational myth which Jay is attempting to construct in Federalist #2.

Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:26PM|#

David Weigel,

A while ago one of the Reason staff made a remark about Machiavelli and the founders. As I recall the gist of the remark centered on what they thought was the lack of influence Machiavelli had on them. Well, Federalist #2 is a good example of the profound influence which Machiavelli's thoughts on the foundation of states had on the "founders."

|5.29.07 @ 4:50PM|#

Why is it that the biggest immigration oppoenents are . . . B) third and fourth generation Irish Catholics and Italians

Gee, I'm fourth generation Catholic Irish, and just last week I was called an ass for promoting the idea of openning the border to all those dark-skinned Mexicans.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 5:11PM|#

Thomas Stevens-

What are we mis-representing, exaclty Thomas?

Peter Brimelow says there is a "national question" in the United States. What "national question?" Well, he thinks the entire existence of the United States depends on whites being in the majority. Don't you think thats a little, just a teeny *tiny* bit ridiculous and dare i say racist?

Hes positively obsessed with white birth rates vs. minority birth rates and the fact that (oh noes!) there are 100 million minorities in America now.

If he really, really dislikes the idea of a multi-ethnic society, why on God's green earth did he move to a place like the United States in the first place? (He's from Britain by way of Canada).

|5.29.07 @ 5:36PM|#

If massive immigration is such a wonderful thing, American Indians should be the happiest people on earth.

thoreau|5.29.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Tommy-

Valid point, but there is a difference between immigration for the purpose of conquest and immigration for the purpose of seeking employment from willing employers in a market economy.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Tommy Jefferson-

"If massive immigration is such a wonderful thing, American Indians should be the happiest people on earth."

Sorry, that dog don't hunt
That wasn't immigration.

What happened to the American Indians was a demographic catastrophe dude to 1) conquest and invasion--a *real*, invasion, not the 'invasion' of gardeners and cooks--by technologically superior nations, and 2) new diseases infecting them that they were not resistant to, leading to a demographic catastrophe.

TLB|5.29.07 @ 5:40PM|#

Anywho, I don't see anyone addressing the point that the massive immigration of the past several years - especially of the illegal variety - has been involuntary. And, I don't see any "libertarians" willing to address the issue of a "libertarian" rag like Reason trying to assist with that imposed scheme.

Since most of those here need all the help they can get, let me point out a couple ways that scheme is imposed:
- PropagandaArticles, with newspapers in effect selling IllegalImmigration as well as lying about politicians, their links, etc.
- politicians refusing to do the jobs they swore to do

They're only able to impose these policies through lies and subterfuge.

Maybe one of the "libertarians" here could address how that squares with the "libertarian" philosophy.

thoreau|5.29.07 @ 5:48PM|#

I don't see anyone addressing the point that the massive immigration of the past several years - especially of the illegal variety - has been involuntary.

You mean somebody is pointing a gun at them and ordering them to sneak across the border?

|5.29.07 @ 6:13PM|#

I don't see anyone addressing the point that the massive immigration of the past several years - especially of the illegal variety - has been involuntary.

No state in the US has allowed involuntary immigration since before 1808.

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 6:14PM|#

OK, LoneWacko, TimetoAsk YouAQuestion.

JustAnswer YesOrNo.

Does you believe that the survival of the United States as a nation depends on anglo-whites remaining in the numerical majority?

Yes or no will do.

|5.29.07 @ 6:34PM|#

As not a few commentators have pointed out, you go back to the 1880s and 1890s and the exact same type of garbage was getting spewed out about "those beastly Irish" and "those dirty Italians." They're Not Our Kind And We Don't Want Them Here.

Plus they speak funny languages. And eat funny food!

*snort*

|5.29.07 @ 6:54PM|#

If Hit and Run has a drinking game it should not be to drink whenever one mentions "...for a magazine named Reason" but to drink whenever someone makes the "you know, bad men said bad things about immigrants in the past JUST LIKE the bad men do today" statement. The logic goes like this: folks used to say the same things they are saying now about Mexican immigration as they did about Irish, German, Italian, Norwegian, etc immigration. Since we don't think of Norwegians or Germans as social drags now it's crazy for folks to make the same mistake about Mexicans.
1. Of course, for all their differences, Germany and Norway are more alike than Mexico and Norway. European culture has some commonalities, you know. One difference is this: they were worried about Mexican immigration back then too, but now 100 years later Mexico still sucks as a nation.
2. I don't think it has, or can be, established that the earlier waves did not harm America. I know that if you look at the history of the time there was some substance to the fears of growing crime/gangs, public health disasters, ethnic corruption in government, etc. that accompanied the earlier waves. We tend to focus on the Einsteins and not the Luciano's. Today Reason focuses on hardworking North Carolina Xmas tree farmers and not the Railway Killer http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/resendez/track_1.html

|5.29.07 @ 7:06PM|#

Let's get beyond the obvious racism charge to come. I wouldn't want mass immigration of Russians (who the last time I checked were not 'swarthy') right now either. And I admire Russian culture, I really do (you can't beat their literature for example, or their vodka). But since I love capitalism and the Anglo-Saxon political institutions, I would shudder at massive Russian immigration just as I do at massive Mexican immigration. Neither culture's history or character demonstrates much use for either (of COURSE this is not to say that individual Russians or Mexicans cannot appreciate these institutions). You might say, well it's only THOSE individuals who come here, but that's nonsense. Most immigrants don't come here for theie deep appreciation of American economic and political institutions, they come to keep from slaving in dumpy economies all day. But one day, once they are here, they will make decisions that will effect our institutions, no doubt.

|5.29.07 @ 8:05PM|#

...is named for Virginia Dare, the first (recorded) child born to illegal immigrants in the Americas?

Yeah, and the admission of all those unassimilable Europeans had almost no adverse effect on the Indians, so there's no reason why we shouldn't want to follow their example.

|5.29.07 @ 8:15PM|#

What happened to the American Indians was a demographic catastrophe dude to 1) conquest and invasion--a *real*, invasion, not the 'invasion' of gardeners and cooks--by technologically superior nations, and 2) new diseases infecting them that they were not resistant to, leading to a demographic catastrophe.

(1) It was only a *real* invasion because the Indians had the foresight to recognize the threat to their culture and the stones to resist that threat. (2) The effect of disease simply accelerated the process by which the Indian population was swamped by European immigration. You can't seriously suggest that if it weren't for diseases and the like, the Indians would still be proudly holding on to their way of life across the Great Plains?

Thomas Stevens|5.29.07 @ 8:15PM|#

Cesar: David Weigel opened this discussion by equivocating over the term "evolutionary change" in Brimelow's article. Brimelow was discussing the nation, not the gene pool, and David knows it; he's even added a parenthetical comment about it. That's all I was referring to.

Bravo for adding the PS, David. *golf clap*

Thomas Stevens|5.29.07 @ 9:03PM|#

PS: I didn't mean "parenthetical comment" >:(

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 9:32PM|#

"The effect of disease simply accelerated the process by which the Indian population was swamped by European immigration. You can't seriously suggest that if it weren't for diseases and the like, the Indians would still be proudly holding on to their way of life across the Great Plains?"

No, but I can guarantee you we would all be looking a lot more brown.

The recent research suggests European diseases reached the Indians ahead of the Europeans, so their populations were depleted even before the first European set foot on North American soil.

Also, the North American Indians had a nomadic culture that did not help them assimilate into a sedentary culture, like the European settlers had. Those Indians which in fact did have a sedentary culture (Aztecs and Incas) did not die out, as evidenced by how most Peruvians and Mexicans appear today.

You simply cannot compare the immigration of foreigners into this country to the conquest of the Europeans in North America. They are so many differences on many levels.

|5.29.07 @ 10:44PM|#

But since I love capitalism and the Anglo-Saxon political institutions, I would shudder at massive Russian immigration just as I do at massive Mexican immigration. Neither culture's history or character demonstrates much use for either . . .

So Ken, when was the last time you were in Russia?

It's been almost 10 years for me, but I saw plenty of people ready and willing to get into western-style capitalism.

The real problem in Russia is corruption not a lack of enthusiasm for capitalism.

TLB|5.29.07 @ 10:56PM|#

I should have put the comments above in simpler terms.

The MassiveImmigration of the past several years is against the will of the great majority of the American people. If most Americans had their way, many fewer IllegalAliens - and perhaps even many fewer LegalImmigrants - would be here now. You can argue for or against that IllegalImmigration (and its associated demographic changes), but you have to admit that that's what most people want.

So, why have we had so much IllegalImmigration? Because of lies, subterfuge, bullying, secret deals (like the SenateBill) and so on. And, the MSM is a huge part of the problem.

So, "libertarians": how does it feel to read a magazine that does its part to support forced, involuntary demographic changes on a nation?

Cesar|5.29.07 @ 11:00PM|#

Chris "LoneWacko" Kelly--

I'll ask you again--

Do you think the survival of the United States as a nation is dependent on having "anglo" whites in the majority? Yes, or, no.

|5.29.07 @ 11:13PM|#

You don't see many WASPs who have been here for oh, ten generations bitching about [immigration] nearly as much.

Ms. Roth has bigger fish to fry.

Mr. Econotarian|5.29.07 @ 11:22PM|#

Speaking of German, in the 1880's the American Protective Association tried to stop German language instruction in the Midwest in coordination with the Republican Party.

After Illinois and Wisconsin adopted anti-German language laws in 1889, Republicans who passed them were voted out of office.

|5.29.07 @ 11:32PM|#

So, why have we had so much IllegalImmigration?

Oh, that's easy.

Because Legal Immigration is subject to so many arbitrary, stupid and capricious rules.

|5.29.07 @ 11:36PM|#

Oh, and by the way, SolitaryLunatic. Name one H&R poster who is in favor of illegal immigration.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.29.07 @ 11:51PM|#

The problem is that getting legal is something like getting a grading permit. First you learn that you aren't getting a grading permit. Then you figure out you can hire a company to get you a grading permit for about two grand. But they don't really get you a permit, they just get the building dept to look at your application. Then, after three to six months you find out whether or not you can grade your property. Meantime, five years later, you haven't broke ground yet.

|5.30.07 @ 1:13AM|#

So, "libertarians": how does it feel to read a magazine that does its part to support forced, involuntary demographic changes on a nation?

Perhaps libertarians believe in, oh... I don't know... let's just say..., a government of limited powers. And one of the powers that government shouldn't have is, geez... I don't know..., deciding how many workers or residents the economy or the society or the culture need. Libertarians just might, well... you know..., think that these things should be decided by mutually voluntary association among individuals.

Just thinking out loud here.

|5.30.07 @ 8:19AM|#

"The real problem in Russia is corruption not a lack of enthusiasm for capitalism."
Yes, corruption is a real problem in the "Russian national character" thate impedes capitalism. So is authoritarianism, fatalism, lack of trust and underdeveloped capitalist institutions (such as independent courts, state monopolies, etc). We don't need that here, do we?

|5.30.07 @ 8:54AM|#

So Ken, when was the last time you were in Russia?

|5.30.07 @ 9:43AM|#

"Against the will of the majority" is not the same thing as "coerced," Wacko.

Your argument is no different than that of the Archie Bunkers of the 60s and 70s, complaining that the government was "forcing" them to live in neighborhoods with black people.

How did the government "force" them to do this? Why, did not stick guns in black people's faces and put cuffs on their wrists to prevent them from moving into Archie Bunker's neighborhood, even when the majority of homeowners wanted them to.

TLB|5.30.07 @ 3:35PM|#

Isaac Bartram: you don't have to explicitly state that you support illegal immigration to in effect support it. Which is what all the contributors and most of the commenters at Reason do.

MikeP is confused, failing to note the difference between a government that follows its laws, and one composed of "freelancers" who try to subvert them. Does the government have an explicit policy of allowing IllegalImmigration, or does that only occur because the government is corrupt?

joe is, of course, likewise confused. Hint: citizens of foreign countries have no right - natural or law-given - to move to the U.S. at will.

Cesar|5.30.07 @ 3:52PM|#

Hey, TLB-

You still haven't answered MyQuestion.

|5.30.07 @ 3:53PM|#

Lonewacko,

Drivers speed. Kids drink. College students do drugs. All of those are against the law and to some extent are allowed by the authorities. Why? Because enforcing them would cost society far more than not enforcing them.

The immigration of harmless yet undocumented people is high on the list of laws that should not be enforced.

The way to fix the problem is not to enforce bad laws: It is to repeal bad laws.

I'm curious just how forcefully you think the Nuremberg Laws should have been enforced?

Cesar|5.30.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Is it just me, or does LoneWacko's whole "The laws aren't enforced because of 'PoliticalCorruption' remind anyone else how the Communist Party in the old USSR would blame shortages not on the inherent inefficiencies of a planned economy, but on "wreckers" and "Trotskyites"?

|5.30.07 @ 4:39PM|#

Isaac Bartram: you don't have to explicitly state that you support illegal immigration to in effect support it.

Oh, so you read minds?

We already know you're batshit insane.

You really don't have to add your belief that you're psychic to the already abundant evidence.

Again, why exactly should the government continue to enforce laws that are 1) plainly enforceable, 2) whose enforcement provides absolutely no discernible benefit (indeed one can readily argue that enforcement causes harm) and 3) are clearly arbitrary and capricious?

You are in one sense correct. Widespread flaunting of a law does no good for the rule of law. That's why unjust and unenforceable laws need to be repealed or reformed.

|5.30.07 @ 4:42PM|#

Cesar | May 30, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Hey, TLB-

You still haven't answered MyQuestion.

I think the answer's pretty clear from most of his posts.

He'll be around shortly to prove me wrong by letting us know that some of his best friends are Mexicans.

|5.30.07 @ 5:13PM|#

"Hint: citizens of foreign countries have no right - natural or law-given - to move to the U.S. at will."

Nor do you have a right not to have them move to the U.S.

None of which is relevant, in the slightest, to your folly: nobody is "coercing" anybody when a family moves of their own accord from City A, and rents a place in City B.

EVEN IF their new neighbors don't like them.

EVEN IF they have to cross a border to do so.

It's still not coercion. That was a bogus argument you made.