Immigration

The Right's Incredibly Shallow Argument Against Immigration and Diversity

It depends on misusing the research of a liberal academic

|

One Trump era argument against immigration that has climbed from the alt-right gutter to respectable conservative circles is that homogeneous societies are

Silicon Valley
Mark Richards/ZUMA Press/Newscom

much more "natural" than multi-ethnic diverse ones because people have a natural desire to be with their own. Interestingly, the academic whose work the right invokes to make its case isn't some Nazi nut job but Harvard University's Robert Putnam of the Bowling Alone fame.

Putnam's research purportedly shows that diverse societies have less "social trust" than homogeneous ones because their bonds tend to be looser. But I note in my column at The Week that Putnam has oversold his research and conservatives are overselling Putnam. The fact of the matter is that any the loss of trust due to increasing diversity is a short-term phenomenon. "Over the long run, people reconstitute new identities and bonds based on other shared characteristics. Yesterday's "them" become tomorrow's "us." For example, Putnam notes, in the 1920s, Americans were acutely conscious of divisions among European sub-groups — the Irish, Italians, Germans, Eastern Europeans — and in the 1950s of various Protestant denominations — Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists. None of these distinctions matter anymore."

That's not the only problem with the right's slams against diversity.

Go here to read about the others.

NEXT: Senators Push To Defund Jeff Sessions' Civil Asset Forfeiture Expansion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The USA is diverse enough. We have enough people.

    All you are doing, Shikha, is making people become more entrenched against any any immigration.

    1. No joke.

      How about “We. Do. Not. Want. More. Immigrants. Period”?

      Call me racist? Fine. You’ve made the word meaningless and the “increase” in white nationalism is largely caused by obnoxious scolds like Dalmia here.

      1. There is nothing racist about not wanting anyone to immigrate to the USA. You are not saying “x” race cannot come here because “x” race people are worse than “y” people. Also, American is not a race.

        1. Could someone explain to me why Reason’s comment board is run by right-wingers. The commentariat is like 90% MAGA-men with a sprinkling of left-wingers and Libertarians that get thrashed when they raise their voice.

      2. So is that any immigrants or just the brown ones?

        1. All. Period. I’m tired of negotiating. Cut the spigot for a while and assimilate the ones we have.

          1. The problem with her fantasy is that there is no longer assimilation.

          2. For what purpose?

            1. Bitch, drink your Drano. Fucking weak little coward.

            2. I know you lefties need a purpose but ending immigration just ends immigration for a few decades.

              1. But for what purpose?

          3. The rest of us have known for months that this was your real position. Good of you to finally be honest about it openly.

            1. Immigration should be limited to hot chicks only.

              1. Finally…something we would all love to get behind

            2. Limit immigration from all countries or certain countries. End all immigration for a few decades.

              I don’t care because I can see that open border types don’t care about what Americans want.

        2. I don’t see a whole lot of embrace of the free market and the individual from anywhere these days. We’ve got enougj socialists here already, thanks. France is that way.

          1. Is it the libertarian position that we should police the political beliefs of immigrants?

            1. It’s the libertarian position that I don’t have to give you a vote in how I live my life.

              1. Vice versa, buddy. If I wanna hire some Mexicans, you need to fuck off.

                1. OK, pal, then you’re fine with just work visas, right? I am. You’re not? What a shock.

                  1. As opposed to what?

                    1. It’s a simple 4 letter word contained in the post you responded to. I don’t know how to simplify it further for you.

            2. Tony|11.8.17 @ 7:27PM|#
              Is it the libertarian position that we should police the political beliefs of immigrants?

              It is the belief of lefties to police the political beliefs of everyone and punish people for having the wrong beliefs.

          2. Tony has every right to call out your hypocrisy on this issue & I applauded b him for it. Idon’t see a whole lot of embrace of the free market and the individual in the notion that the state should be the final arbiter in deciding who lives where and preventing free individuals entering into contracts of employment. I don’t see much of Smith, Hayek or Nozick in the enforcement of the hateful enforcement of arbitrary immigration policies: policies that have resulted in the kidnapping and detention of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, separating families under explicit threat of violence and sowing mistrust & fear throughout communities. You are welcome to spew whatever toxic mix of racialist & totalitarian fantasy you want, but have the intellectual honesty to admit that your endeavor stands in opposition to human freedom & not in support of it. None of the xenophobes here arguing in favor of fortress America have any business calling themselves a libertarian. Doing does an immense disservice to libertarianism as a coherent political philosophy; furthermore it does the zealots themselves a disservice – you would undoubtedly find the work of Julia’s Evola or similar European fascist thinkers more compelling than anything on offer from the Austrian school. Assuming of course that your thoughts are informed by the reading of actual books of course.

            1. You are part of the problem just like this writer. The problem isn’t with us, applying these libertarian “philosophies” (your problem right there) and principials improperly. It’s philosophical blow hards like you that are too stupid to acknowledge the reality of the country we live in and the mechanisms our government has.

              You call us racists, we point out your just an ideologue with no real solutions that work within our govt framework, and the party gets nowhere.

              And again, WHY ARE LIBERTARIANS SO FUCKING DUMB that your falling into the liberal trap of dismissing all you disagree with as racist/hateful/emotional feels instead of debating it?

              Seriously, fools like you love preaching from a high horse but have no applicable solutions. People like me and loveconstitution recognize the mechanisms of our government, and rather than throw our hands up and bitch about how messed up it is, we look for ways to use those mechanisms to a libertarian advantage. The difference between philosophy and actual application, one you can’t see.

        3. Tony, you are reading words no one wrote. “Brown” wasn’t even mentioned until you typed it. Get your eyes checked.

          1. He can’t socialism is not up and running in the USA for free eyeglasses and his mom won’t spring for the spectacles.

    2. This article could just as easily be titled “The Left’s Incredibly Shallow Arguments for Immigration and Diversity.” Her arguments are weak and don’t truly address the issues of people who want to have more control over or limit immigration. Let’s ignore race and nationality and focus on just culture and shared morals and ideology. Increasing the immigration of people who don’t share the culture and values of the native population is an act to displace that of the natives. This is how some are viewing the push for “diversity.” I think it reasonable to limit immigration enough to allow for assimilation. While I absolutely agree that having a broad range of options and views is a positive thing, there is an issue when promoting change for its own sake while tossing out the conventions that made things work. It makes sense that a homogeneous society would be more cohesive and productive. One doesn’t have to be a proponent of ethnic nationalism to recognize that a culture is more productive when the people have shared values and interests.

  2. was it an argument against diversity ?

    Or an argument against diversity as a primary reason for letting people immigrate ?

    1. Can someone name me one benefit to diversity that’s anything close to compensation for all the bullshit we’ve had to tolerate implementing it?

    2. Mass immigration is either a lazy way to MAGA or they just want to change voter demographics to suit the socialists.

      Either way, open border types don’t care that the majority of Americans don’t want to be flooded by immigrants.

      1. I mean why don’t libertarians ever acknowledge the differentiation between illegal immigration and legal immigration, or that immigrants from many places simply don’t share American values?

        The philosopher libertarians like to act like all people are amorphous blobs who will simply use their creator given free will to all arrive at the same conclusions about liberty and freedom.

        Any real person knows each case is different and needs investigated/researched as such.

        Like i said in another thread, our intelligence official have said multiple times regarding middle eastern immigration…the countries on the travel ban list either didn’t ever keep or don’t have proper criminal records and documents to verify who these people are and what they’ve done. And if they do have the records our diplomatic ties are so strained we can’t get them or it takes a lot of time. We don’t know if the people are domestic abusers, which is rampant in the Muslim world and basically endorsed by sharia law, let alone wannabe terrorists. If you believe in all American values but think it’s still ok to go home and force your wife to serve you, then i don’t want you here. Period, fuck off.

        It literally has nothing to do with color or race.

  3. Ha, like I would trust Dalmia to tell me what ‘the right’ thinks. She doesn’t even think herself, how could she figure out what anyone else thinks?


    1. One Trump era argument against immigration that has climbed from the alt-right gutter to respectable conservative circles is that homogeneous societies are
      Silicon Valley much more “natural” than multi-ethnic diverse ones because people have a natural desire to be with their own.

      Uhh…this has been a feature of cultural anthropology for longer than Dalmia has been alive. As a matter of fact, it’s such a recent development it would be more logical to claim that a multicultural society is the anomaly.

  4. But I note in my column at The Week that Putnam has oversold his research and conservatives are overselling Putnam. The fact of the matter is that any the loss of trust due to increasing diversity is a short-term phenomenon.

    Given that, historically, ASSIMILATION was the goal for immigration policy. Balkanization is the new goal of shit-kicking morons like Dalmia so, yes, cohesion is impossible.

  5. The only known DACA deportee to sue the Trump administration over his deportation dropped his suit a few weeks ago.

    Then he was arrested for reentering the country illegally.

    “LOS ANGELES?A Mexican man who earlier this year sued the Trump administration, alleging he had been unlawfully deported, was arrested this week and charged with illegally re-entering the U.S.

    ?-Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2017

    http://tinyurl.com/ya2t9khg

    My question isn’t why we bother deporting people when we have no effective means to keep them out of the country. My question is why we have no effective means to keep people out after we deport them–for whatever reason.

    1. You just said the guy was arrested by the jackboots. There’s the means.

      1. You missed the word ‘effective’, but in your defense you might not know the meaning of that word.

        1. Tony also likes it when government jackboots to stomp on people’s necks.

        2. Ken is here licking Trump’s nutsack by parroting his absurd, almost retardedly childish Great Wall concept, and I’m the one who has a problem knowing stuff.

          1. How was Ken licking? He had a point?how come we’ve spent all this money on the Border Patrol but still can’t keep people out? Maybe there should be a reassessment of how we do this stuff.

            1. Tony was projecting his fantasy of licking.

            2. Perhaps you missed the part where I correctly called the idea of keeping all human movement from happening via a physical barrier to be “retardedly childish.”

  6. acutely conscious of divisions among European sub-groups ? the Irish, Italians, Germans, Eastern Europeans ? and in the 1950s of various Protestant denominations ? Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists. None of these distinctions matter anymore.”

    You never met my mother. She was a European immigrant. And boy was she aware of the divisions.

    1. Well, I would go so far as to point out that the majority of immigrants today are not Irish, Italian, German, or Eastern European and the dominant religion of our immigrants is probably not Methodist, Lutheran, or Baptist.

    2. You never met my mother. She was a European immigrant. And boy was she aware of the divisions.

      My oldest son used ‘Jew’ as a verb the other day. My wife and I didn’t teach it to him. The school didn’t teach it to him. We, of course, explained why he shouldn’t use the word but he meant for it to be offensive and selected his company before use so it starts to become an absurd parenting/free speech issue to say something like ‘Never use Jew as a verb.’ More to the point, somewhere out there is someone who’s still holding a grudge from an entire world away and a time, quite possibly, before the written word. The idea that an exceedingly recent and idiotically simple immigration policy will resolve the issue or that people invariably assimilate and associate peacefully and successfully once and for all is willfully blind and idiotic.

      Fuck, I grew in America, have never set foot on Indian soil, and can do a better-than-random job of discerning people from various portions of India’s caste system. The overwhelming majority of whom are native-born Americans and didn’t grow up with or learn about the caste system any more than I did and are all Indians or Indian-Americans and haven’t been subject to the caste system in India or America.

      1. One of my Jewish friends has told me in the past that using “jew” as a verb is one of the most offensive slurs a Jewish person can hear.

        1. As opposed to Welsh as a verb?

  7. “PORTLAND, Ore. — A man accused of breaking into a 65-year-old woman’s home, sexually assaulting her and stealing her car was arrested after allegedly assaulting another woman and running from police.

    . . .

    He has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has been deported 20 times.

    . . .

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez, asking authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez to allow ICE to take him into custody. The Department of Homeland Security said a detainer was requested for Martinez in December 2016, but he was released into the community and authorities did not notify ICE.

    Earlier this year, Multnomah County leaders and Sheriff Mike Reese wrote a letter to the community saying, “The Sheriff’s Office does not hold people in county jails on ICE detainers or conduct any immigration enforcement actions.”

    Prior to the July 24 arrest, Martinez’s criminal record shows a felony conviction for burglary and three misdemeanor convictions for battery, theft, and obstructing a public officer.

    —-KGW, NBC-TV Portland

    http://tinyurl.com/y9w9f98d

    1. Portland is a sanctuary city, so, of course, they can’t do anything about violent felons if they’re illegal immigrants–because that would be wrong.

      The interesting thing is that even if they had handed him over to ICE for deportation, what’s to stop him from coming back the 21st time?

      If only there were some way to make something like a barrier that could physically prevent foreign citizen felons from just walking back across the border again–after we decide we don’t want them violating people’s rights here in America.

      If only there were a way to monitor such a barrier . . but obviously, that’s unpossible.


      1. If only there were some way to make something like a barrier that could physically prevent foreign citizen felons from just walking back across the border again…

        The only way to be sure is jail, a bullet or a nuke. Take your pick, but know that choosing ‘none of the above’ is just dicking around the glory hole and in any of the above scenarios you’re spending a fuck ton of tax money.

        1. We can’t really stop rape, arson, or armed robbery, entirely, either. Still, making some effort to minimize that kind of thing makes sense. Just because we can’t fix a problem completely a) doesn’t mean it’s not a problem and b) doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything to address it.

          Meanwhile, like I said, we’re not likely to see voters come together for legal immigration or open borders so long as we’re incapable of keeping out those we reject. And while Dalmia in the past has suggested that deporting illegal aliens is like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, the fact is that some people need to be thrown out of the country–especially after they’ve committed violent felonies and served their sentence in prison.

          If open borders with Mexico is when Mexican citizens can come across the border without a visa, simply by showing ID and not showing up as a convicted felon, etc. in our database, then we probably won’t have open borders so long as we can’t even begin to keep violent felons out of the country after they’re deported.

          Letting innocent people in probably depends on keeping known violent threats out; support for the former almost certainly depends on people’s confidence in the government’s ability to do the latter.

          1. Think of it this way: if people had no confidence in FBI background checks for gun buyers, do you think that would make them more likely to support gun control?

            The correct answer is “less likely”. If they don’t think we can keep guns out of the hands of known violent threats, then they’re less likely to want everybody to be free to buy a gun.

            1. I may have gotten that backwards.

              You know what I mean . . .

              If the government can’t do anything to stop known violent criminals from buying guns through background checks, then people are less likely to support everybody being free to buy guns.

              People’s support for our freedom to buy guns, to some extent, depends on the government’s ability to reject gun sales with background checks.

              And people’s support for legal immigration and open borders is not helped by our inability to keep out violent felons. If you want to convince people that we should open up our immigration policy and our borders, you should probably support developing the ability to keep those we reject out of the country.

              1. The right to keep and bear arms vs. the right to immigrate to the US? One of these things is not like the other in a very specific way.

              2. Alternatively, maybe we should look into jailing people who break the law after illegally entering the United States rather than simply deporting them?or making sure that their home countries put them away.

                I doubt the wall will work, I think that we spend too much on Border Patrol already, and things like these only reinforce my view because JESUS the government is incompetent. There’s no easy solution, but arguing “MUH MEXAKINS!” and calling anybody worried about illegal immigration “BIGOT!” doesn’t help advance an argument for more immigration. And this is coming from somebody who thinks immigration is a net good and that we should rework our quota system.

  8. Ah, yes… my favorite. Europeans with minimal genetic and cultural distance were able to come together as Americans (after World War II with unprecedented State interference) so therefore we will be able to do it with people who have nothing in common.

    Reason, we cant even make black people agree with free speech. As yougov’s surveys on partisan opposition to it show it being driven by blacks and hispanics from the Democrats

    And you have absolutely no way of converting Hispanics to small government.

    And again, nothing you said contradicts the empirical evidence that this kind of racial diversity is bad.

    1. Moreover, Putnam is the beginning of the anti-diversity stuff. Not the end. Altright blogger Heartiste has kindly compiled a list of his favorite studies just for people like the author. I cant like it because Reason is terrible so just google diversity + proximity = conflict and Heartiste. It will be called “the reference list”

      1. And Putnam’s predictions of a new identity are based on nothing much at all. Such as social contact theory originating in the Army during World War II. You know, not a remotely generalizible situation.

        And also, he ignores the question of it the new identity will be worth a damn or not.

        I can tell people like Reason magazine right now, it will be more hostile to libertarianism based on the statism of the New Americans.

        1. You don’t need to go forwards in time with guys like Putnam to figure out there is no historical basis to their claims. They are inventing ahistorical phenomena that fits their narrative, no more and no less. Looking backwards in time you would hit the Roman Empire and still not find a ‘culturally diverse’ society.

          The ‘melting pot’ theory of American integration has been roundly debunked for decades.

          This doesn’t mean people of different cultures can’t live side-by-side in relative harmony, but it also doesn’t mean that we truly integrate either unless you want to start looking at generations which America barely has, what, 7 or 8 of those total so far? And it’s not like only the non-American’s are integrating, America changes too and can become less American. Good or bad, them’s the facts.

        2. The Statism of the old Americans has me equally worried.

      2. Good Lord. That website is a cesspool of scum and villainy.

        1. I assumed that from the contents of his comments. I’m gonna presume that it was “scientific racism”?

          1. Oh no. It was very unscientific racism.

  9. How about we trade all of you slack-jawed morons for some high skilled immigrants?

    1. So you’re leaving first? You are the biggest moron that I have ever met.

    2. Tony,

      Define “high skilled”?

      Do you think a skill is more valuable because it commands a higher hourly wage? If so, you’ve just verified that Capitalism is great.

      Do you think a skill is more valuable because it comes with a certification from a government recognized educational facility? If so, let’s create a special visa program for elementary school teachers from overseas. The Commonwealth of Nations has a program to help teachers immigrate.

      1. It means you some piece of paper from a foreign institution who’s very existence is unverifiable, in a developing country where corruption is systemic and everything is for sale (surprisingly cheap too), apparently signed by people who may or may not exist and you couldn’t communicate with anyway…. that states you have essential training, generally in some vague area like “information technology” that consists of skills which can’t be tested or verified by govt.

      2. “high skilled” is lefty code for WOKE as a Socialist.

  10. > The fact of the matter is that any the loss of trust due to increasing diversity is a short-term phenomenon

    Yes, if the newcomers assimilate.
    When newcomers refuse to, or attempt to enforce reverse assimilation, then what?

    1. “[Group] fears racist backlash in wake of [atrocity].”

    2. Why is it any of your goddamn business what culture complete strangers choose to practice?

      Libertarianism is losing credibility in real time here.

      1. Bake that cake, bitch!

      2. Private culture or public culture?

        I doubt most of us would have a problem with a household that practiced all the tenets of Islam as they would have been practiced in the 10th century within their own home and without hurting anybody. That’s culture in private.

        Now let’s say that not only do they practice it in public, they endorse killing infidels, want to get rid of free speech, believe freedom of religion is horrible, and want to impose these beliefs on others. That changes the script considerably, because now instead of it being “I’ll believe what I want and you believe what you want” it becomes “YOU WILL BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE!”

        Do libertarians give a crap if people speak Esperanto in their homes? No. Libertarians care when they want to force everyone else to speak Esperanto in their own homes. And consequently, when that leads to attacking freedoms in public, advocating for less freedom overall?that’s when pushback appears.

        Geez, Past Me, you should know this by now.

        1. I was responding directly to a sentiment that immigrants should be forced to assimilate into a culture they weren’t born into. That’s definitely a position people have, it just shouldn’t be ones libertarians have.

  11. The fact of the matter is that any the loss of trust due to increasing diversity is a short-term phenomenon. “Over the long run, people reconstitute new identities and bonds based on other shared characteristics. Yesterday’s “them” become tomorrow’s “us.”

    When has this ever happened with continental races?

    1. Constantly.

  12. Fuck off, Dalmia. Everyone hates you.

  13. I knew from the headline title alone who was writing this.

    Diversity would get fewer ‘slams’ if it wasn’t being placed above everything else.

  14. The Left relies on defining away humanity from the unborn immigrants. Wee, this is a fun game. Let’s play some more!

  15. BTW, just because I tend to like those gonzo things that fuck up the narrative, I have a coworker who’s a Chinese Immigrant. Man he loves him some Donald Trump.

    1. He’s Asian. That’s like an honorary white guy, only more so, because they do better on standardized tests.

  16. Every time Reason allows sh-t like this to foul the internet another libertarian leaves Reason. KMW, please return to your libertarian soul like you do on the podcasts. Please!

  17. Well our liberal friends won’t shut up about how fucking awesome places like Japan and Scandinavia are. I guess people are starting to believe them.

    1. I’ve actually come to believe that socialism may be a somewhat workable system in a homogeneous society with shared values. I still think it’s ultimately inferior, but when everyone is dedicated to the same goals big things can be produced. The question still remains regarding whether such a system can reward individuals enough to feed their self-interest and drive innovation.

  18. LOL. The left has no idea what diversity really means. Like with all the progs, you need to get them to define their terms.

    To a leftist — suppose you have a room of 8 white guys, but they all come from different backgrounds, have different political views, different areas of interest, etc… well that’s not diverse.

    But get a bunch of leftists together that believe exactly the same thing and speak as if they are all robots who’ve been programmed… well that’s diverse as long as they arn’t white.

    When the left talks about ‘diversity’, it’s really just a code word for leftist. They believe in the superficial diversity, and not the real diversity that matters.

    1. If race is so superficial why are you people so fucking obsessed with screening out all the brown people? Or is their brown skin simply a handy way to estimate their political beliefs so you can have the federal government punish them for having the wrong ones?

      Freedumb! Freedumb! (Emphasis on the ree ree.)

      1. skin color is superficial, to everyone but the so called alt-right and to leftists. Tribalism / Identity Politics is all you have anymore, since your entire ideology is a spectacular failure.

        I am assuming you are talking about the “Muslim ban” since you brought up “screening out all of the brown people.” To that I would say you are a racist, since Muslims are not a race, and a majority of them are not even brown. There are significant muslim populations in Africa and Asia, not just the Middle East. So if you see Muslim as “Brown People”, then yes, you are racist.

      2. …so in the future, I get told I’m a jerk who doesn’t listen to people and twists their words when I debate them.

        I think I’m not always that way, so I hop in a time machine and come back to the past.

        And MAN am I feeling disgruntled.

      3. Tony,

        You need to talk to a professional about the words you read here that no one is typing. Get some tin foil, make a hat, and stop worrying about those racist aliens you see. They are not really there.

      4. Tony, being American is not a race.

        Stop immigration for a few decades and let current immigrants assimilate.

        1. For what purpose?

          1. So that we can help immigrants assimilate in a timely fashion and mitigate the current issues affecting and/or caused by unassimilated immigrants.

            When you have a lot of financial debt that you need to pay off, you don’t keep spending. You buckle down, focus on the debt you have and then consider spending again, albeit a little more responsibly this time around.

      5. If race is so superficial why are you people so fucking obsessed with screening out all the brown people?

        We’re not.

        You guys keep bringing up that some of the people who immigrate here illegally are non-white. You do this because racism is the biggest sin–no one really wants to be a racist or be called a racist.

        That should tell you something, something really important, but it never does.

        When people talk about the undermining of American culture, you claim they mean ‘white’ culture–when they really mean the collection of odd ideas that made America possible in the first place–ideas that we are STILL trying to live up to. The civic culture.

        And a big part of that civic culture is that it–and a lot of our social culture–is comprised of the best ideas, customs, and traditions from ALL of our people.

        Another big part of that civic culture is that you have to want to BE a part of that culture. That’s where the idea that yes, if someone doesn’t like who and what we are, we shouldn’t let them in, comes from. They should seek to immigrate to a place that’s more copacetic to their beliefs–instead of trying to destroy that place for us.

        Why is that seen as wrong?

        Black, white, yellow or brown, if you’re coming here to undermine everything we’ve built, then no, we’re under no obligation to let you in–or, if you sneak in, to keep you.

        1. Everything we’ve built? You mean we, the nation of immigrants?

          And what a fantastic utopia this is anyway.

          1. Yes, Tony, I mean we–the nation of immigrants

            Because the problem isn’t immigration–it’s illegal immigration.

            And the illegal immigration is a problem because it’s a very clear indication the immigrant does not place the same value on the shared part of our culture that we need.

            Utopia? No.

            Just a nicer place than anyone, anywhere has been able to make on this planet.

            And we’re still working on it.

  19. “For example, Putnam notes, in the 1920s, Americans were acutely conscious of divisions among European sub-groups ? the Irish, Italians, Germans, Eastern Europeans ? and in the 1950s of various Protestant denominations ? Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists. ”

    Great job arguing against your premise.

  20. Shallow?

    It’s incredibly tribalist. “We’re one people” or Ein Volk.

    1. Acknowledging that tribes exist is tribalist?

      How tribalist is it to spend a ton of time arguing that all your people should be able to move to the country with the nice roads?

  21. Immigrants who speak English, respect the US constitution, and are able to support themselves without driving the wages of US citizens into the toilet are the only ones who should be admitted.

    For every “diversity” entrant (plus the chain they drag behind them) the US should deport one Democrat to whatever country will accept them.

    1. “plus the chain they drag behind them”.
      This is the secret protocol to immigration, including the diversity lottery. Not only does the immigrant get to come into the USA but the wife and kids too. People in Asia, Africa, and South America tend to have more than 2 kids, so its a net gain for future socialists.

  22. Racially diverse is a great thing. The wider the gene pool, the better. Cultural diverse is not, because some cultures just suck.

    If they are willing to drop their culture, then that’s okay. But if they insist on speaking their own language, having their own customs and even laws that contradict ours, then it hurts us.

    1. I’m fine with own language given that they’ll probably learn English (or at least, they should, because it’s super useful for living in the U.S.). I’m fine with own customs so long as they don’t hurt anybody. But trying to apply a different set of laws should not be allowed.

    2. The wider the gene pool, the better.

      wut

    3. Yup nobody wants to discuss how some of these non-Americans cultures are horrible, which is why they want to leave. Some of these cultures have mass corruption, no right to firearms, socialism is seen as good, voter fraud, crime is okay, strong men rule, etc.

      If their culture was so great, why didn’t they stay put?

  23. I favor a generous immigration policy on moral grounds, but these articles about the tangible benefits of immigration undercut the movement. Immigration policy should not be a vehicle for social engineering, and the claims made by articles such as this tend to breed skepticism. For example, Japan’s population is about 125 million. If that is too few people to form couples, how do you explain the existence of families in Egypt, which has a population of about 90 million, a restrictive immigration policy, and a high birth rate?

    The left also looses credibility on immigration when left-wingers keep restricting home construction in their municipalities. You can’t demand that town hall stop people from building homes and then demand that the feds open the borders to unlimited immigration.

    1. The left doesn’t have a coherent idea of the world they want, they just have feel-good policies that make minor adjustments at the edges and imagine no effect elsewhere in society but in the ways they want. They are mostly conservatives too, just less conservative than the other side.

      1. On this one, they actually have a plan. They want immigrant socialists to change the demographics of the USA to accept more socialist policies.

        The left has tried to brainwash kids for 50 years and Americans still tend to be conservative.

  24. The Townhall piece was particularly stupid for those with a decent World History elective from High School or University.

    A longer rnt will be up in the morning.

  25. homogeneous societies are much more “natural” than multi-ethnic diverse ones

    They are. It’s just human nature. See Scandinavia as an example. And no, it is not racist to acknowledge this.

  26. Longtobefree|11.8.17 @ 7:06PM|#

    The problem with her fantasy is that there is no longer assimilation.

    DING DING DING! Immigration is fine when immigrants assimilate to the culture of the country to which they are immigrating. Not all cultures are equal and not all are compatible.

  27. Tony|11.8.17 @ 7:30PM|#

    Why is it any of your goddamn business what culture complete strangers choose to practice?

    Because getting stabby, shooty and explody (and recently, crashy) on “infidels” is unacceptable in the US. Because marrying pre-pubescent children is unacceptable in the US. Because stoning women for being raped (among other things like treating women as second class citizens) is unacceptable in the US…

    1. Do you not find it odd that the people most obsessed with this paranoid narrative are living in near-theocracies (of the Christian variety) like Alabama?

      1. The (supposed)”near theocracy” of Alabama is still centuries ahead of the actual theocracies where a lot of immigrants are coming from.

        There are no legal marriages to preteens, stoning of homosexuals or adulterers, caning of blasphemers, raping as a punishment, drowning of promiscuous teenagers, etc. in the US.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.