MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Myth of Mass Immigration

America needs more, not fewer, immigrants

Literally every trope that restrictionists hurl against immigration is false. It is false that immigrants decimate native jobs and wages. It is falseImmigrant studentsD.J.Tansey via Foter.com that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born. It is false that immigrants today don't assimilate. It is false that immigrants are welfare queens.

But one trope that has gone unquestioned not just by the foes of immigration but also its supporters is that America has experienced mass immigration in the last half a century when Congress finally jettisoned racist national quotas in 1965 and opened the door ever so slightly to immigrants from Asia and Eastern European countries.

But, I note in the New York Times, that this trope, too, is false. By any reasonable metric—past, present, or future—America hasn't experienced too much, but too little, immigration.

The main evidence that peddlers of this myth cite is that America's foreign born share of the U.S. population is now touching 13.7 percent— which is close to the historic high of 15 percent at the turn of the last century. But they don't explain why that's a good standard. It's not like it is based on some objective law of human nature. Rather, it is an arbitrary metric based on a historical event that they themselves foisted on the nation.

I note:

If it were indeed a tipping point, countries would regularly experience a backlash once the immigrant population approached that level. That is far from the case.

America's share of the foreign born ranks 34th among 50 wealthy countries with a per capita gross domestic product of over $20,000. The United States netted five new immigrants—authorized and unauthorized—per 1,000 people from 2015 to 2017, United Nations figures show. Compare that to the figures in two other English-speaking liberal democracies: Canada let in eight (and just announced that it's going to admit over a million new immigrants over three years), and Australia 14. All in all, the foreign-born are now over 20 percent of Canada's population and 28.2 percent of Australia's (more than double America's figure). And yet they haven't inspired the sort of public condemnation of immigration that often occurs in the United States.

Furthermore, the modest amount of immigration occurred slowly, not in one big flood as restrictionists like to portray. Consider:

In 1965, when Congress got rid of national-origin quotas, America's foreign-born made up around 5 percent of the population. Over two decades from 1980 to 2000, this proportion rose to 11.1 percent, from 6.2 percent, not insignificant but not particularly noteworthy.

But then the rate of increase slowed to a crawl, rising from 11.1 percent in 2000 to 12.9 percent in 2010 and then barely inching to 13.5 percent in 2016. In other words, in six years, America's foreign-born population inched up 0.6 percent.

In fact, given America's dropping birth rates and aging population, if the pace of immigration doesn't literally double, the country is in for a very difficult time finding workers to keep up economic growth:

From 2015 to 2035, the number of working-age Americans with domestic-born parents is expected to fall by eight million. Furthermore, the Census Bureau in 2017 quietly revised downward its population forecast for 2050 by a whopping 50 million people from its 2008 estimates, as Jack Goldstone, a political demographer at George Mason University, pointed out…

Unless American birthrates pick up suddenly and expand the work force—an unrealistic assumption given that the country just set a record for low fertility—or the productivity of its dwindling work force quickly doubled, only slightly less unrealistic, says Mr. Goldstone, the United States will be staring at real G.D.P. growth of less than 1.6 percent per year in less than a decade, all else remaining equal.

America should be admitting a million more immigrants per year—more than double the current number from now until 2050. This still won't add up to mass immigration because it would put America's foreign-born population that year at around 26 percent, less than Australia's is today.

Go here to read the whole thing.

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.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I for one can't wait to live in the USA with 1.5 billion people.

    I mean... it works so well for Communist China.

    I can never get an answer from Lefties how many people are enough in the USA? 100 million? 300M?

    Just goes to show that they are full of shit. Just like Shikha.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    How many people are too many?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    This is a simple question that I don't have a simple answer to.

    I know your question is a response to the previous post, but I think a better direction to take the conversation is about the pace in which we allow for legal immigration, and how society could manage a large influx.

    20 million people right now would be a lot harder to manage than 100 million people over 50 years.

  • M.L.||

    We should focus on turning the birth rate around, just for general societal health reasons. But also we need to get rid of this idea that we need constant population growth. Stop assuming it in our economic models. That's just a Ponzi scheme. Flat population levels for a time would be good.

  • ||

    We should focus on turning the birth rate around

    I can't speak for all Americans, but you have my word that, short of options that could be construed as 'statist' or 'voiding the NAP', I'm pretty focused on turning it around.

  • Lester224||

    "We should focus on turning the birth rate around."

    Maybe that's the real incentive for the right wing forced-birther contingent. Making most forms of effective birth control like pills and IUDs illegal due to "personhood" crap (those poor fertilized eggs!) would certainly increase the birthrate. Making abortion illegal might create more low-pay workers to eventually wipe the asses of old people too (assuming ass-wiping is one of the last jobs to get robotized).

    Couples in their 20s and 30s don't want 2 or more kids because they don't want reduced quality of life for them or their kids (gig economy, stagnant wagers, high costs of education, expensive healthcare).

  • Nardz||

    You seem like a perpetually unhappy person, lester

  • buybuydandavis||

    If you want to turn the birth rate around, make it easier to have children.

    Better income. More secure income. Cheaper housing.

    Stop importing labor supply. Stop importing housing demand.

  • M.L.||

    How many immigrants you mean? We should cap it around 500k or lower annually, for the time being.

    Large majorities of Americans support this, black Americans and Hispanic Americans' support for it is higher than white Americans.

  • ||

    How many people are too many?

    I was gonna guess it was a lie. I run into lefties all the time who'll readily tell you 300M is more than enough. They publish papers illustrating as much all the time and have been doing as much for the last ~century.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Every immigrant who makes the country worse for Americans is one too many.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    The entire world population can live in TEXAS ALONE ... at the same population density of NYC.

    Do you consider that to be a good argument? Who would want to live like that?

    Concrete jungle, where socialist dreams are made of

  • Overt||

    Do you consider that to be a good argument? Who would want to live like that?

    It actually is a good argument. I don't want to live in NYC, but it also isn't a wasteland of over population. Spread out to a size three times texas, and all of a sudden you are at a lower population density than nearby East Rockaway, where I spent my summers growing up in neighborhoods with 2 story houses and large lots.

    You could spread out every household in the US, and each one would have over an acre of land. Of course most people wouldn't choose to live that way- many people like living in Urban areas.

    The point of the texas remark is that we are not in any danger of overpopulation. If we HAD to live in an area the size of Texas, that would mean that the vast majority of the US would be pristine nature.

  • ||

    It actually is a good argument.

    Uh... this depends on the externalities you want to consider.

    You like living in NYC? Fine. We'll put you west side of the 'Israeli/Palestinian borough', that butts up against the east of the 'Iran/Lebanon/Hezbollah borough', just 5 blocks north of the 'India borough', and 3 blocks south of the 'Little Pakistan'. A place where, on its best day, still lays claim to the fact that it's run by a guy like DeBlasio.

    Personally, I'd prefer to be as far away from that place as reasonably possible.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano the Enemies List creator weighs in with his morning shitposting.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has a bitchfit meltdown.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still having his bitchfit meltdown.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's an especially relevant question when you consider that the trend is clearly going in the direction of getting more and more productivity from fewer and fewer workers.

    The U.S. Labor Force participation rate peaked at 67.1 percent in early 2000, it has been mostly declining since then, it is projected to continue declining, and it seems almost guaranteed to never get back to that 2000 level ever again.

    People who don't work need massive amounts of welfare to survive, and we simply can't afford another thirty, forty, or fifty million sad sacks cases sponging off of everyone else. We're going bankrupt fast as it is now.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano's IQ remains Zero.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So is the Hihn franchise now the Reason version of a series of trailer park reality TV shows?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (snort) THE ENTIRE WORLD POPULATION CAN LIVE IN TEXAS ALONE, AT THE SAME POPULATION DENSITY AS NYC, YOU UNEDUCATED GERBIL

    Posts Dumbfuck Hihnsano from his small Rocky Mountain metro area of 700K people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has nothing but copypasta burblings.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still posting from his small Rocky Mountain metro area of 700K people.

  • KevinP||

    Shikha: It is false that immigrants are welfare queens.

    Census confirms: 63 percent of 'non-citizens' on welfare, 4.6 million households


    Quotes and charts:
    A majority of non-citizens are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump's concern about immigrants costing the nation.

    In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don't get off it.


    While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    And that's not even taking into account that many illegal immigrants use fraudulent IDs and identity theft to pretend to be citizens.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When compared to native-born citizens of a similar education and income level, immigrant household and native-born households consume welfare at about the same rate.

    The blaring headlines from that CIS study was an example of lying with statistics.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh dear hope I didn't screw up the tags.

  • KevinP||

    Yes, so that means we are importing immigrants from the lowest socioeconomic rungs, who are a net burden instead of a net asset.

    Why would we want to do that? Immigrants should be self-sufficient!

    Full disclosure: I am a self-sufficient immigrant.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "When compared to native-born citizens of a similar education and income level"

    Much of the point is that we don't need to import more poor people.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Status Quo Collectivist is such a stupid motherfucker he has no idea how much he just owned himself.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I have no actual arguments, but I'm really incensed!"

  • KevinP||

    Shikha: It is false that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born.

    Illegal aliens have not been vetted by anyone, and in many cases don't even possess traceable documents issued by their own home country. Sure, there are many farm worker illegal aliens who are not criminals, but there are large numbers of illegals who are criminals, usually preying upon their own ethnicities. In Texas alone, in a four year period, 39% of murders were committed by illegal aliens.

    Undocumented Immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona


    Quotes:
    Using newly released detailed data on the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017, we are able to separate non-U.S. citizens by whether they are illegal or legal residents. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.
    ...

    If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.
  • 67.5 unaltered||

    I apologize for mentioning this, but you've made an ad homnem error. If you have alternative sources I'd love to read them.

  • TuIpa||

    So you don't have any links and engaged in two more ad hominems to hide that fact.

  • KevinP||

    Shikha: It is false that immigrants decimate native jobs and wages.

    Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers


    Quote (but read the whole article):
    ... it's not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers - the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans - sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

    Once we understand immigration this way, it's clear why the issue splits Americans - why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.
  • Overt||

    While we shouldn't ignore the effect that immigration has on low-skilled labor, calling it income redistribution is hyperbole, and ridiculous.

    If people freely exchanging goods and services is re-distribution of income, then you getting a degree is income redistribution, since it makes you more competitive than someone with a highschool degree. I agree that the government should fix immigration law. However, government is who redistributes wealth. Them not intervening in a private contract between a migrant worker and a farmer is not the same as taxing me and sending the money to someone who didn't earn it.

    Further, what happens if the government does act and forces out millions of illegals? Wouldn't that also be income redistribution, based on this argument? It is taking money out of employers' pockets, and the pockets of millions of consumers that use their goods and services and delivering it to a small population of low-skill workers.

    This is what drives me nuts about the anti-immigration, conservative movement. They used to see this type of socialistic nonsense and call bullshit. Now they have adopted the exact same language, where not-taking is giving and not giving is taking. I get- even if I don't agree with- the nationalist, security and cultural objections to immigration. But the economic argument is proggressive socialist nonsense, from top to bottom and conservatives should be dismayed on just how far they've fallen from principle.

  • M.L.||

    It is wealth redistribution. And the government is the one doing it, by setting unreasonably high immigration levels which result in a $500 billion dollar wealth transfer annually (generally, from poorer to richer).

    The problem with a certain strain of globalist Libertarianism is that it doesn't recognize that markets are a delicate construct, rather than a state of nature. The construct is enabled by government and by institutions and by a society of generally moral people who collectively act in accordance with common principles. These constructs are necessarily local and cultural. There is no global construct just as there is no global government, and if you're a realistic libertarian you should be happy about that.

    Your problem is getting hung up on "this type of socialistic nonsense" and "the exact same language." You're focusing on language, aesthetics, feelings, and general concepts rather than specifics. It's OK to be staunchly pro-markets and anti-socialism, while also recognizing that immigration policy is a political and cultural choice that should be designed to benefit the largest number of Americans possible rather than maximizing global or domestic GDP. That's just recognizing the nature and function of nations. Libertarians have trouble maturing enough to contend with nuance and see the world as it is. A nation state is like a corporation that should be acting to maximize shareholder value, where a share is citizenship.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    If you're going to argue in favor of immigration restrictions on a libertarian forum, perhaps at least once in your response you should at least mention, you know, individual liberty.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Shikha: It is false that immigrants decimate native jobs and wages."
    i.e.
    "The law of supply and demand doesn't apply to labor markets."

    It's really just sad to see a "libertarian" magazine deny the most basic economic facts.

  • EirkKengaard||

    It's not just how many, it's how fast we get there, adn where people locate.

    We had reached a sweet spot in the early 1940s. Life was great for the next 20 years - affordable homes, reasonable tuition, . . . . when the total population reached 150 million, things turned around.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I can never get an answer from Lefties how many people are enough in the USA? "

    Enough to make it Not America.

  • Spookk||

    How about the idea that more humans is bad simply because it makes our country and wild places more crowded, dirtier, and less nice to live in? All the whining about demographics can be addressed via proper taxation and planning - no need to continue the current Ponzi-scheme methodology. Worldwide, just as here in the USA, we should be rooting for large REDUCTIONS in human population - on the order of 30% or so what we have now. Everyone would have a much better standard of living, and the other living things on this planet (well, those that remain) will thank us for it.

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    Ever notice that proponents of zero-growth or population reductions either have kids or are still breathing?

  • Ron||

    good point where are the anti immigrant environmentalist they should be against immigration on several levels but as we all know environmentalism isn't really about the environment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano evidently doesn't know about David Gelbaum's $100 million donation to the Sierra Club in exchange for them dropping their opposition to mass immigration.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano calls anything that makes him look stupid a cowardly diversion.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Japanese population is declining, but lacking White Self Hatred, they don't see the solution as having their population replaced by foreigners.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Food trucks, baby!
    Think of all the food trucks!

  • buybuydandavis||

    And the wonderfully fertilized streets!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Dont import more shitty FAKE Americans like Shikha.

    Let Americans decide what our population will be based on how many kids we want to have plus a few legal immigrants each year.

    People like Shikha come to the USA and benefit from our Constitutional Democratic Republic while simultaneously try and destroy it from the inside out.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Hihn troll

  • Jerry B.||

    I keep hearing that immigrants assimilate, and then I see a woman on local TV last night that immigrated to the U.S. in 2000 and has to be interviewed in Spanish because of her lack of English skills...and this isn't a rare occurrence. I don't care too much if people want to come here (although I'd prefer it was a bit more orderly), but failing to learn English so you can communicate with other people, even other immigrants who have different native languages, doesn't sound like assimilation to me.

  • Rat on a train||

    It is your responsibility to learn the languages of all the immigrants.

  • Don't look at me!||

    You Evil monster! Just learn Spanish so you can show some respect for our newfound citizens.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano still hasn't assimilated into human society. That's why he'll die alone and unloved.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity.

  • Azathoth!!||


    Alt-Right Goober EXPOSED on this same page ... with PROOF

    Michael, who are these for? Do you believe that there are people out there who follow you, anxiously awaiting your 'proofs', 'rebuttals' and 'defenses'? People who sit, and applaud gleefully each time you write 'proof' with bold caps?

    As one watches your steady progress through a thread, one can almost hear the sullen, childish tones of 'oh yeah? well what about THIS?' or , 'see, I toldja.'

    Who are you 'telling', Michael? Who reads your responses with applause?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't get owned like Kunta Kinte on gun control like the worthless protozoa that he is.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    They assimilate in the third generation

    Why not the first? the first seems reasonable

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is also ignorant of past immigration laws.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again.

  • KevinP||

    In Los Angeles, Latino immigrants have to pretend that they are Mexican to get a job. Seriously.

    LA Times: In L.A., speaking 'Mexican' to fit in


    Quote:
    Juan Carlos Rivera knew that if he wanted to get a dishwashing job at the MacArthur Park hamburger stand, he would have to pretend to be Mexican...
  • Dan S.||

    You say that it "isn't a rare occurrence", but it's probably not all that common either. How old was the woman, and what was the interview about? I expect that a sizable majority of people who have been in the U.S. for 18+ years do speak English fluently. That would be an interesting statistic to have, actually - the percentage of immigrants who aren't fluent in English after x number of years in the country, for various values of x. But Shikha's statistics about the percentage of foreign-born people in the U.S. are certainly interesting. We often hear that the U.S. admits more immigrants than any other country, but since we have a higher population than any other "Western" country, the percentage of immigrants in our population, rather than the absolute number, seems like the more relevant figure.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Read Victor Davis Hansen.

    He's at ground zero of the Mexican Reconquista of CA. Has lived in eastern CA all his life. His family goes back generations.

    Many towns are simply now Mexican towns. Signs in Spanish. Populated with Mexicans.

  • SIV||

    I see something about immigration since 1965 and the supporting citation is only for 2015-2017. Shikha and Cato should move to Kuwait as they are getting the most benefits from mass immigration.

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    "It is false that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born."

    1) they are ILLEGAL immigrants, not undocumented.
    2) 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants commit crimes.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The law is the law!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Well of course it's false. There are 300 million native born Americans and maybe 10-12 illegal aliens. Those aliens would really have to try hard to commit more crimes

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    "It is false that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born."

    1) they are ILLEGAL immigrants, not undocumented.
    2) 100% of ILLEGAL immigrants commit crimes.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    America needs more, not fewer, immigrants

    Nothing you say proves this.

    In fact, given America's dropping birth rates and aging population, if the pace of immigration doesn't literally double, the country is in for a very difficult time finding workers to keep up economic growth

    Odd, I've heard that tech innovation will solve this "problem".

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And I've heard that the biggest tech problem will be what to do with all the unemployed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks we should be worried that not enough FICA taxes will be collected.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano terrified he might not be able to parasitize off of younger workers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lying that he's not terrified of the possibility that he might not be able to parasitize off of younger workers.

  • Dan S.||

    In all honesty, if "economic growth" means a constant increase in the absolute size of GDP, there is no reason we need to keep that up. If the population is falling, and GDP is falling at a lower rate, then per capita GDP will still be rising. Which says nothing either way about the desirability of a rising or falling population.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    "Literally every trope that restrictionists hurl against immigration is false"

    LOL

    Is it false that all cultures are created equally?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    I'm fine with more immigration but let's not pretend that limitless third world immigrants is a good thing

  • JWatts||

    "I'm fine with more immigration but let's not pretend that limitless third world immigrants is a good thing"

    +1

  • KevinP||

    You probably think they're coming to seize our guns.

    No one wants to ban or confiscate guns. Ever! It's a crazy and paranoid idea!

    CNN: Georgia Democratic candidate for governor Stacey Abrams admits "people would turn their guns in"


    During a November 4 appearance on CNN's State of the Union Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) admitted that a possible outcome of her gun control plans could be that "people would turn their guns in."
  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    ""Nobody" said anything so fucking stupid."

    Calls for open borders wind up closing doors for Democrats- The Hill

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano gets triggered by reality that no one takes him seriously.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Maybe it's a good thing. Maybe it's a bad thing. Maybe it's just a thing. Who knows and who cares. What is more important, the health of the state or the liberty of the individual?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shows his lack of reading comprehension to burp out another shitpost.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own stupidity again. It's all he has in his lonely, unloved life.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano references his own stupidity, thinks he's a Holocaust survivor.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Don't worry, Chem Jeff will come by shortly and lecture us all about how all cultures are created equally.

    Until then, crazy person, why dont you give it a try? Give me one culture more accepting and prosperous than western culture, and why we should allow unchecked millions of less effective cultures to join ours?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I never said that all cultures are created equally.

    What I do believe, is that individual liberty should take precedence over trying to preserve some sort of vague culture that can't even be precisely defined anyway and isn't even homogeneous even if you could define what your particular microculture is in your area.

  • A Lady of Reason||

    We simply don't have room... Not when our own citizens are in need!

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Room and need aren't related, dummy.

  • TuIpa||

    I love how I can count on you to be triggered into scolding people every day.

  • A Lady of Spam||

    I totally agree with you, sister... Finally someone on here who has the stones to speak their MIND... Don't listen to the haters, especially some guy who think it 'cool' to be a misanthrope. 2 against 1 u LOSE $PARK¥

  • A Lady of Spam||

    Another old man off his meds.... Men on this site just can't leave us women alone ! Keep it in your pants you old hound dog.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    REAL "Ladies" don't talk like infantile assholes

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano does, though, especially when no one buys what he's selling.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano touts the benefits of density while living in a small metro area in the Rocky Mountain West.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Why would anyone want to live like that?

  • Fats of Fury||

    Or they could all live in your head, dense as it is,

  • Ron||

    her first paragraph is a lie so no need to read any further

  • ||

    From 1988:

    "However, the most useful studies suggested that illegal alien workers may displace native
    or legal workers: That is, our answer was a highly qualified "yes."

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/76971.pdf

  • ||

    Lol.

    /throws Scooby snack to distract. Quietly walks out of room backwards.

  • ||

    I didn't post it as a point to prove anything except that it's a debate that's being going on for decades.

    Maybe I should always put FWIW before every link like this.

  • ||

    And how am I a liar? I just posted a paper I thought interesting written by other people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano confirms his bias.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about his lack of bias, links to his own stupidity again.

  • ||

    More pointless yelling at the clouds. We all know the net benefit and positives of immigration.

    Don't people tire of conflating legal immigration with illegal/unlawful immigration? It's not productive in my view.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Shika has to go back.

  • buybuydandavis||

    She's waiting to finish her work destroying America first.

  • Mongo||

    The more the merrier.

    Especially Indians - bring your friends and relatives, Shikha.

    Can't have enough Indian restos -- the southern India and Sri Lanka cuisine is the best.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Literally every trope that restrictionists hurl against immigration is false.

    literally every. cute.

  • ||

    Literally Hitler.

    Literally Nazis.

    Literally.

  • JWatts||

    "It is false that immigrants decimate native jobs and wages."

    Ok, but it's True that low skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low skilled wages. That's basic supply and demand. And indeed low skilled wages have lagged behind the trend line for the last 20 years.

    https://goo.gl/FmaZws

    You'll note that starting in about 1998 a gap developed and the lowest quintile dropped below the 2nd and 3rd quintile.

    https://goo.gl/eDHep7

    Granted, there's a lag in the data and the graphs themselves are mere correlation. However, the supply and demand curve represents the potential causation explanation.

    So, how about we address the real Facts and engage in good faith.

  • JWatts||

    I left out my original link on the topic:

    "When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent."

    https://goo.gl/t5hrBQ

  • Mr. JD||

    Legal immigrants have to commit crimes at low rates or they're kicked out of the process. Scoring the crime rate of "immigrants" by mixing such people with the illegal population is just dishonest.

  • KevinP||

    The studies proving that "immigrants are law abiding" willfully conflate legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.

    Legal immigrants have been fingerprinted and have been through criminal background checks many times before becoming permanent residents, so it is not surprising that they are more law abiding than average. Something as small as shoplifting is enough to reject an application.

  • Mr. JD||

    The immigrants who "built this country" had common ideals, language, et al. For a time thereafter, immigrants assimiliated. Eagerly.

    Today's Left tells us that assimilation is bigotry and actively discourages learning English.

    These are not the same.

  • Overt||

    Bullshit. Ever heard of Little Italy? China Town? The Pennsylvania Dutch?

    These people settled in their own enclaves and many, many of them continued speaking their native language. And after about 2 generations, their grandkids were speaking english. The same thing is observed today among immigrant populations.

    And by the way, as recently as the early 1900's there were STILL enclaves in the Southwest where Spanish was the norm- all dating back to colonies established by Spanish settlers in the 1600s and 1700s. There is a reason we have cities and counties named Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Animas, etc, and it wasn't because the people there were speaking English.

  • D-Pizzle||

    My grandmother immigrated from Italy at age seventeen and settled in an overwhelmingly Italian neighborhood. She died at eighty five barely speaking a word of English.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The immigrants who "built this country" had common ideals, language, et al.

    No they didn't. Where do you get this nonsense?

    Read a little bit on how the Chinese were treated out west in the late 19th century. You know, those immigrants who *literally* built the railroads.

  • Drumgroove||

    Myths?
    Typical thinking inside an elitist bubble.
    Can't know if my direct experience working with legal and illegal immigrants is a microcosm, but it's different working in the trenches:
    Yes, they pay taxes through payroll withholding, work hard for the most part, are not theives or killers (that I know of) and typically drive better cars than I can with no (or out of state) insurance.
    and...
    Very few have any interest (or incentive) to assimilate. Typically, they are here for about ten years and send money back home. I have been shown many pictures of homes being built; stating "so, that when I return to my country, my family will…" Adds up to about $30 billion anually by one account.
    Way too many (especially young women) have multiple babies by multiple men. Guess why…
    Back to work

  • Drumgroove||

    Nothing to do with Trump appeal, just observation; I put the microcosum disclaimer right up front.
    I'm am not referring to immigration where families are here long enough for a third generation. Did your parents go back to Germany (to stay) after ten years?
    What I mentioned came direct from coworkers who are here both legal and illegal.
    I live in central NJ; Most illegals live in NJ and have PA or Delaware license plates. Insurance, yes, the person that side-swiped my car did have insurance and it did pay for the damage. Yep, they break NJ's motor vehical laws, so what? You got me on the driving better cars; just a curiosity. I think it's great! I say good for them!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano remains assmad that he'll die alone and unloved.

  • Drumgroove||

    And about the babies... I don't want to miss quote, but when Ithe reason I was given when the third pregnancy came along had to do with welfare. This is what people see right or wrong.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    You know something, leftists absolutely love taxes and are constantly going on and on about how the government needs more revenue, right?

    I would tax the ever-loving shit out of this money being sent "home" overseas!

  • JFree||

    Restrictionism is never really about immigrants per se. It is about class insecurities (which can't be directly discussed in the US because of American exceptionalism) and America's role in the world that get morphed into ethnicity/religion/other. The WORST way to respond to it when it happens is some utilitarian macro BS. Because that is ALWAYS just a 'scientific' collectivist way of saying I'm benefiting from the status quo so fuck you you don't matter.

    Whenever migration is serving as a safety valve for foreign govts/elites, there are Americans (usually at the top but not always) who will benefit - but it is always going to be a net negative for most Americans.

    Whenever migration is focused at the bottom of the ladder, it just either directly kicks those folks in the teeth or at min creates enough economic insecurity to potentially undermine the entire 'opportunity' part of the American dream.

    And ALWAYS - the outcome of that among 'regular folks' is to view the immigrant as the problem and to ignore the real problem of small groups of elites controlling immigration POLICY for their personal benefit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I think there is a lot of insight in this comment. About 90% of the immigration rhetoric from the right originates from a place of fear and anxiety on some level. Afraid that immigrants will steal their jerbz, afraid that immigrants will vote for socialism, afraid that immigrants will just live off welfare, afraid that immigrants will lead to the end of the Republic. I do not know how to dispel this anxiety based on broad-brush stereotypes and misleading statistics.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    About 90% of the immigration rhetoric from the right originates from a place of fear and anxiety

    Any chance you can prove it? I didn't see anything in there that would lead someone to believe this is just your opinion.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let me clarify. It is MY OPINION that 90% of the rhetoric is derived from a place of fear and anxiety.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Why 90%?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What do YOU see when you read some of these comments?

    A very large number of them consist of variations of the following:
    "They're stealing our jobs"
    "They're mooching on welfare"
    "They're criminals"
    "They're voting for socialism"
    "They're shithole people from shithole countries"
    "They're not assimilating"
    "They ruined California, now they are going to ruin all of America"
    "Look, here's another story of an illegal immigrant killing a cute blond American coed"

    And on and on and on. Why do YOU think we are all treated to this endless barrage of gross generalizations and stereotypes about immigrants (of course not just any immigrants, but just the ones south of the border)? I believe it is due to fear and anxiety. People are going all-in with the xenophobia because they are afraid of the country changing in a way that threatens their social standing.

  • JFree||

    The fear/insecurity is legitimate. Eliminating those who voice that fear from having a voice is very different from isolating those who exploit that fear for their own power/status quo. We are tending to do the former rather the latter.

    The only way I can think of to dispel that anxiety at the bottom is to focus on it again. Viewed from the bottom of the ladder - liberty and opportunity are the same thing. But it is opportunity where structural changes can be made. And if creating more opportunity at the bottom creates more insecurities at the top - well that's how pendulums swing. We've spent 30+ years focusing on trickle-down or dependency or negotiating 'free trade' which has neither adjustment/compensation and which mainly benefits the big/established or making the world safe for multinationals/investors. Maybe it's time for that pendulum to swing back again.

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    The fear/insecurity is legitimate.

    Are you agreeing with and reasserting his 90%?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    It would be cool if you would shut up and let the people that the question was addressed to answer it. I don't really care about lunatic ravings.

  • JFree||

    Kind of but not really. I think a more significant part of it is coming from a place that's more evil. People who want to sociopathically exploit those fears/anxieties of others in order to:

    a)acquire some actual power themselves or
    b)get some sense of 'belonging' to the group that seeks to acquire that power by being the loyalist hangers-on and idiots and defenders of group a or
    c)people who don't give a shit about the actual fears/anxieties/situation of others but want to give the impression that they do to hide what assholes they themselves actually are.

    The reason I think those three groups are larger than about 10% is because they constitute the vast majority of the noise on that side - and when pressed a bit they always yap about stuff related to power/partisanship. So for them, this is just a convenient vehicle. Those with legitimate fears/anxieties are really quite silent - surprisingly so since they probably are the majority of support on that side.

  • KevinP||

    Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers


    Quote (but read the whole article):
    ... it's not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers - the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans - sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

    Once we understand immigration this way, it's clear why the issue splits Americans - why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.
  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ec.....-s-economy

    A 2017 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found immigration "has an overall positive impact on the long-run economic growth in the U.S."

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    And it will cost at least $105 to confirm that rather than take PBS's word for it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Of course you would, racebaiterjeff, because you hate Americans.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Oh no.

    I don't blame the immigrants.

    I blame the Americans working to destroy America.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I blame the Americans working to destroy America.

    So you blame yourself?

    Creating a police state in order to keep out the scary brown people is going to lead to the destruction of the Republic. Just like creating a police state for everything else that the state has done.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Verminous racebaiterjeff race baiting again

  • M.L.||

    "It is false that immigrants decimate native jobs and wages."

    This is a lie. The Cato link does not prove the claim; it is only a blog post criticizing some particular paper. The reality is, Borjas and others have shown that while immigration brings GDP gains, those gains go to a small segment of the American economy (generally the rich and large corporations) and those gains are offset by taxpayer burdens (privatized gain, socialized losses). The bigger economic effect to Americans is that immigration results in a $500 billion annual wealth transfer among natives (generally from the poorer to the richer).

    "It is false that undocumented immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born."

    This is a lie. They do commit more crimes.

    "It is false that immigrants today don't assimilate."

    Subjective, but demonstrably misleading and false. Assimilation is way down. Our education system doesn't even "assimilate" natives, it tries to turn them into communists.

    "It is false that immigrants are welfare queens."

    Immigrants use welfare and government resources at higher rates than natives.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Borjas and others have shown...

    The closed-border crowd loves to cite Borjas, because he gives them the answer they want to hear. A more honest assessment would examine a wider range of evidence. For example:

    http://www.stlouisfed.org/publ.....or-markets

    "There have been many studies of the economic consequences of immigration, and they do not all agree. Findings are sometimes specific to the experiment at hand, as in the Mariel boatlift case, where it could be argued that the Miami labor market is not representative of the U.S. as a whole.

    Yet, it remains that many studies find little to no evidence of a connection between immigration and labor market outcomes.3 Since this may be more surprising, on the surface, than the opposite result, it deserves some explanations. One possible explanation is that some immigrants may have overall positive effects on the economy. This would be especially true of high-skilled immigrants who contribute ideas and innovations that drive productivity higher. Another explanation is that, even in the same skill group, immigrants and native workers may not be perfect substitutes. It was suggested in one study that immigrants do not so much compete directly with natives as they create conditions for increased specialization by which natives perform more communication-intensive work and immigrants do manual tasks.4"

  • M.L.||

    That may be the weakest link I've seen on the subject. A very short blog post poking around looking for some very narrowly defined correlations over very narrow time periods. Pure rubbish.

  • M.L.||

    That may be the weakest link I've seen on the subject. A very short blog post poking around looking for some very narrowly defined correlations over very narrow time periods. Pure rubbish.

  • JFree||

    it remains that many studies find little to no evidence of a connection between immigration and labor market outcomes

    Well that is because measuring empirical outcomes inevitably allows one to

    a)distort the significance of any results because of the way statistical analysis works

    b)ignore the effect on processes by taking those changes as givens

    Even one of those study results hints at the problem - It was suggested in one study that immigrants do not so much compete directly with natives as they create conditions for increased specialization by which natives perform more communication-intensive work and immigrants do manual tasks.

    What makes you think that that specialization is not harmful to a significant portion of the American population? A ton of people have always done physical manual labor and there is no reason to believe that just cuz someone's American that they can switch to a white/pink collar job. And yet - that is exactly what is being forced on them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Once again, throwing out the studies that you don't like and focusing on the ones that you do like is the very definition of cherry-picking.

    I am not, and have never, claimed that immigration will lead to totally awesome results for everyone. Of course there will be some people affected negatively, some people affected positively. But to hear the closed-border crowd talk, you'd think that the effects are almost uniformly negative for everyone except for a small elite which gets cheap nannies. The actual empirical evidence is more complex than that. Believe it or not, Borjas does not represent the end of the discussion.

    A ton of people have always done physical manual labor and there is no reason to believe that just cuz someone's American that they can switch to a white/pink collar job.

    No, but Americans are better positioned to do that because Americans on balance have far more opportunities provided for them to develop careers beyond manual labor. If someone wants to be a manual laborer then go right ahead. But why should the government insulate manual laborers specifically against foreign competition?

    And yet - that is exactly what is being forced on them.

    How can it be that free choices made by free people, with no one's rights being violated, can constitute "force" being applied to anyone?

  • JFree||

    Americans on balance

    Sounds like a bit of anti-individualist utilitarian creep.

    But why should the government insulate manual laborers specifically against foreign competition?

    They are doing the reverse. Free trade agreements are designed to increase the amount of competition American workers face re PRODUCTS that are made in countries where the local labor is cheaper and more unskilled. And those free trade agreements all have VERY significant carveouts/exemptions/protections for those who own IP, invest capital, etc. So the harm is definitely far more aimed at the bottom not the top.

    Combine that with immigration policies which - through either design or discriminatory/arbitrary enforcement or even the 'natural' realities of migration (the poor tend to move, the rich don't) - hit the bottom the hardest.

    Seriously the notion that govt (and both parties) has been protecting/insulating anyone but the rich/elites for a couple generations now is completely laughable.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But you are arguing that the government should insulate manual laborers against foreign competition, no?

  • JFree||

    No. I'm saying the pendulum should swing back to neutral. Because in the long run, if a significant group of people sees that 'freedom' or 'liberty' means a rigged game where they always lose and someone else better off always wins - or where it becomes a mere abstraction bandied about while people struggle just to survive; then you can kiss goodbye to freedom and liberty.

    We're not there yet - but the trend of Will the next generation of Americans (or closer to home - your own kids) be better off than you and other economic mobility polls - eg from Pew - gives reason to worry. We need to restore the idea of economic mobility in America among Americans - before Americans will again feel ok extending that optimism to others via migration.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "You can't really be sure if the law of supply and demand applies to labor."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "It is false that immigrants today don't assimilate."

    Subjective, but demonstrably misleading and false. Assimilation is way down. Our education system doesn't even "assimilate" natives, it tries to turn them into communists.

    Oh good heavens. "Communists"?

    And how do you define assimilation? I define it broadly as "blending into the society in which they live". NOT, as many border restrictionist define it, as "blending into a fictional nostalgic view of America that no longer exists, if it ever did". Let's see, many immigrants take welfare and support Democrats. That doesn't mean lack of assimilation - many Americans do the exact same thing! That just means their preferences are different.

  • M.L.||

    Yes, our education system today is filled with many communists and socialists, and generally teaches the evils of the United States more than its virtues. Civic and community engagement has drastically declined (see e.g. Bowling Alone, R. Putnam). English proficiency has tanked. Etc.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Immigrants use welfare and government resources at higher rates than natives.

    When compared to native-born citizens at a similar education and income level, immigrants and natives consume welfare at close to the same rate. It is only *slightly* higher for immigrants. There is no huge gap. Immigrants are not this class of people inherently prone to take more welfare. They act like typical Americans in this regard based on their socioeconomic conditions.

  • M.L.||

    So, you just admitted I'm right and Shitka is wrong. Thanks.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "We to import foreign welfare cases, because we don't have enough of our own."

  • M.L.||

    "Literally every trope" that this author, Shikha Dalmia, employs in support of our mass immigration regime is false.

    This author is a willing dupe serving the open borders agenda.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Not a dupe.

    A Postmodernist.

    Every word she types is self conscious propaganda to manipulate the reader to support her Leftist agenda.

    There is no such thing as Truth, only Narrative by which groups compete for power.

  • Ecoli||

    The US should asylum to people who are being brutalized because of their race: White South Africans. They are ideal immigrants. They are generally well educated. They speak English. They have been through the grinder with a transition from capitalism to communism, so they have first hand knowledge of communism's failings and brutality.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It's so racist to save Whitey from genocide!"

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Is there any country in the world that thinks people crossing their borders illegally is OK?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Mexico thinks it's ok for people to illegally cross their border into the US.

  • Drumgroove||

    Nothing to do with Trump appeal, just observation; I put the microcosum disclaimer right up front.
    I'm am not referring to immigration where families are here long enough for a third generation. Did your parents go back to Germany (to stay) after ten years?
    What I mentioned came direct from coworkers who are here both legal and illegal.
    I live in central NJ; Most illegals live in NJ and have PA or Delaware license plates. Insurance, yes, the person that side-swiped my car did have insurance and it did pay for the damage. Yep, they break NJ's motor vehical laws, so what? You got me on the driving better cars; just a curiosity. I think it's great! I say good for them!

  • ErinS||

    Duh! Smart immigrants are a no brainer. Another country pays for their upbringing and education and then they come to the US ready to work. We just need to change the laws so that we bring in educated immigrants and not someone's grandma that is never going to work and is never going to learn English and will need the help of social services.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Smart immigrants are a no brainer."

    Culture matters more than economics.

    We're wealthy because of our culture.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps the collective "we" should butt out of all nation-level immigration decisions whatsoever. Immigration is ultimately an expression of freedom of association between immigrants and natives who choose to associate with each other for whatever reason they deem meritorious. It is not up to the state, or to the executive branch, or to the majority, or to some bureaucrat, or to some court, to decide whether two free individuals ought to have the right to associate with each other. They do.

  • JFree||

    No it isn't. not in a world where nation-states actually do exist and where self-governance is an inevitable element of liberty in a world where individuals CANNOT exist in splendid isolation.

    Obviously you're a radical anarchist/individualist so both those two will just be ignored by you. But nevertheless - those two describe the world as it is - not the hypothetical world of anarchism which doesn't and cannot exist.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I am honestly not an anarchist. I believe in having a very limited state.

  • JFree||

    My apologies then for misstating your views

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No problem. I freely admit I am strident in my advocacy for liberty.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There is no 'immigration' at all if there is no state, Jeff. There are no 'natives' without some collective grouping or land holding they are all members of.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well then it's a good thing I don't support getting rid of the state entirely.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "muh anarchy"

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It is not up to the state, or to the executive branch, or to the majority, or to some bureaucrat, or to some court, to decide whether two free individuals ought to have the right to associate with each other.

    it does when they come to this country so I can pay to feed their kids.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano stroking out.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    What is wrong with you?

  • awildseaking||

    There's too much BS to unravel here, so I'll just focus on the one that gets me every time; this idea that illegal immigrants commit less crime, or on a more fundamental level, that people should be treated based on how they affect those with political power. There's no point in arguing over facts at this point because there's a study for everything, but the truth is that the illegal immigrant crime rate is irrelevant. These people AREN'T supposed to be here and any crime they commit SHOULDN'T have occurred. The notion that we should subject American citizens to illegal immigrant crime because said illegals don't commit much crime is absurd. Do people who say this even realize they're placing the benefits they receive from illegal immigration above the costs to the victims who are fellow US citizens? It's treasonous, to be blunt. Absolutely disgusting how many people think it's acceptable to sacrifice literal lives at the altar of multiculturalism and ancap meme tier ideology.

  • XM||

    It's actually perfectly true that illegal immigrants lower wages. It's just mostly in the field that Americans aren't interested in.

    Most Americans don't want to work in farms, which involve back breaking work and offers no long term security. It's seasonal work. But only a fraction of the immigration population work in farms. If they didn't work for cash, market forces would result in higher wages or more demands for foreign guest workers to fill in the gap. Canada does the latter without opening their border. And that place is one empty land.

    This is how the market works. If American companies could LEGALLY hire outside help at a cost lower than the prevailing market wage, then wages would drop. If typical retain or blue collar work did this, then it would drop across the board. The pro immigration crowd gets mad at the gig economy or Disneyland replacing workers with guest workers. But illegal labor accomplishes nearly the same objective.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Another Dumbfuck Hihnsano sockpuppet bites the dust.

  • Nardz||

    Much better thread, but some funny lines now that it's been dishihnfected

  • buybuydandavis||

    The usual bogus statistics from the Open Borders Uber Alles Propagandists.

    The table at Cato shows a bunch of petro states that import labor, tax havens, and tiny states within the EU.

    How many of these places are democracies? How many allow birthright citizenship?

    Go look at the UN Map of international migrants as a percentage of pupulation.
    https://goo.gl/jVKMJk

    The countries that show up are the Anglosphere - Ireland, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Norway, Sweden. Switzerland. The Saudi Arabian petro kingdoms. And Kazakhstan.

    I'm thinking that map wasn't by income, and I doubt Kazakhstan would qualify.

    Notice that it's pretty much only the evil Wypipo who allow immigration. Mainly just the Anglosphere.

    Of those, only the US and Canada allow birthright citizenship.

    Other things to notice. See the light green? That's all less that 2 percent, which is the lowest level they show.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Wikipedia: List of sovereign states and dependent territories by immigrant population
    https://goo.gl/Ff75SJ

    47 million foreign born in the US. 20% of the world population of immigrants. Notice that this leaves out birthright citizens to illegal aliens. The vast majorities of countries simply don't put up with that bullshit.

    Meanwhile, we're only 4.4% of the entire world. Seems like the rest of the world isn't pulling it's "fair share".

    The table is sortable by column. What you see is that the US has almost four times the next largest, Germany. If you look at German immigration, they include EU member states, where they all have their dandy agreement on free immigration.

    Why doesn't the US get to count the CA diaspora?

    It's interesting to flip the table on percentage. China at the bottom 0.1%. Whaddya know? India, at 0.4%. They don't seem that inviting.

    Lots of European states are in the low teens, but it's hard to say how much that means, given the EU internal open borders policy.

    The vast majority of the world's population tells immigrants to go fuck themselves with a rusty pipe. It's only Evil Whitey who takes in immigrants of any number.

    Yet it is only Evil Whitey who is relentlessly condemned as the evil racist.

    When is Shikha going to start ranting and raving about the evil racist Chinese? Japanese? Indonesians? Mexicans? Brazilians?

    No, it's only Americans, the people who let her into their country, who she relentlessly condemns as evil racists.

    Gratitude

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    She doesn't call anyone a racist in her article. You just want to play the victim card - playing the role of poor oppressed snowflake like all of those college crybabies who need safe spaces.

  • buybuydandavis||

    racebaiterjeff denies that racebaitershikha is a racebaiter

    Let the Reason readers who have read Shikha's articles decide whether she routinely slurs as racists those who reject her open borders agenda, just like racebaiterjeff routinely does.

    Don't deny racebaiting, racebaiterjeff. Be proud. Shout it to the heavens!

  • Nardz||

    The US used to be a melting pot. Different cultures come in and add ingredients to American identity. Key to this was the desire and willingness of the immigrant to become American. Key to that was the desire and willingness of Americans to be proud of being American. Fundamental to being proud is first acknowledging that there is an American identity.

    We are now multicultural. Multiculturalism is fundamentally different than a melting pot and in many ways inimical to it. A multicultural society is one with many cultures, rather than a culture with many flavors. Multiculturalism inherently segregates - "this is yours (it's cool!), this is theirs (it's cool!), this is mine (meh)."

    All ethnicities - black, Jewish, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Hispanic, etc - were mistreated outsiders in America at first. Gradually, through struggle and perseverance, they were assimilated and accepted. All make contributions to American identity along the way.

    It was a melting pot and it was damn good. Now, we're multicultural. Look at us now. Do we seem happy, well adjusted, unified… dare I say - proud? Or is there hatred calling itself tolerance and enlightenment which speaks of nothing but demographic labels? The latter is multiculturalism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    America has ALWAYS been both multicultural AND a melting pot. There has never, ever, in the history of the country, been one single "American culture" that all could identify with. Take a look at what America actually is, and actually was in the past, instead of relying on nostalgia and fantasy. When has the country EVER been "well adjusted" or "unified" or "proud" of their country, as a national whole? For a long time in this country, there was very little concept of patriotism towards the national state anyway, the patriotism was directed towards citizenship in a particular state. Even after the Civil War, there were always disagreements and differences and *major* sources of disunity and conflict. There were anarchists running around shooting the President. Woodrow Wilson rounded up dissenters and threw them in prison. There were actual honest-to-God socialists (not AOC dimbulbs, but real nationalize-all-the-things socialists) running for president and earning upwards of 10-15% of the popular vote. FDR so managed to politicize things that one year, when he suggested moving the date of Thanksgiving, the reaction was so fierce that that year, there was a "Democrat Thanksgiving" and "Republican Thanksgiving". If any of these things were to happen today, people like you would shit your pants about how fragmented and disunited we are. But we managed to get through all of those crises and the nation is still pretty grand, I would say.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Read about the ACTUAL history of America, not the romanticized nostalgic view that is taught in most highschools. America has NEVER been this type of united nation with a singular will. It has always consisted of people who constantly disagreed with each other but never let those disagreements get too far, except in rare cases (e.g. Civil War, sedition acts). We don't have some single culture, AND THAT'S TOTALLY OKAY. If anything represents the 'essence of America', I would say it is the ability of each person to forge their own identity. And that is what really makes America great.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    For a long time in this country, there was very little concept of patriotism towards the national state anyway, the patriotism was directed towards citizenship in a particular state.

    Bullshit. The concept of patriotism towards the US as a nation was borne out of the Revolution. Andrew Jackson, who came of age during that period, was one of its biggest proponents. George Washington talks about his "beloved country" in the farewell address, not his "beloved Virginia," and is quoted thus,

    "The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

    The idea that patriotism towards the national state has barely been a ripple during most of the nation's past is ahistorical pap. It's not surprising to see an open-border fetishists, who think national identities are illegitimate to begin with, pimping it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And by the way. Modern immigrants do, by and large, assimilate into America. But they assimilate into the America that actually exists, not the romanticized version that never really existed.

  • Nardz||

    Jesus fucking christ, Jeff, you talking about someone else living in fantasy is rich.
    It's like you read what I wrote and didn't understand a word. You didn't understand it because you already have your narrative set and you can't process anything outside of it that you can't twist to fit your zealotry.
    My impression is that you've never been outside your little bubble and see everything as if it's a TV show.
    Guess what: Greece doesn't have one homogeneous culture, Turkey doesn't one homogeneous culture, Israel doesn't have one homogeneous culture, China doesn't have one homogeneous culture - no country does. That doesn't mean they lack a national character.
    Yes, the US has a culture and lots of subcultures- only somebody extremely insecure and ignorant would think this erases individuality.
    We share history, customs, perspectives, etc - in short, identity.
    If you can't see that, it's on you.

  • Nardz||

    And no, illegal immigrants tend not to assimilate. They live largely within ethnic enclaves for a few generations. Just because that's the natural pattern of immigrants for the first few years doesn't mean its desirable to make it permanent, as is now encouraged. That's what the post was about.
    Here's the thing - you dislike Americans because you think they're not good enough. Your entire concept is nothing but stereotypes of the progressive type, thus you fetishize the Other precisely because you don't have experience of them. But really it's just projection of your own insecurity- it's not Americans that aren't good enough, it's you. Not saying that's objectively true, but that it's what your psyche says.
    Take some self ownership, man, and get out in the world. Examine your predicates and see if you can move being an entirely abstract perspective. Maybe try reading history not written by Howard Zinn.

  • buybuydandavis||

    PEW Research on Hispanic Americans, breakdowns by immigration and foreign birth
    https://goo.gl/WBi1BV
    Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
    https://goo.gl/hxSJHi
    Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

  • INTJ||

    More legal immigrants, sure, if we can end the invasion by illegals.

  • Salero21||

    The worst argument I keep hearing is 'bout the so called "unskilled" immigrants.
    The historical fact is that there have always been, is, and will be a demand for Unskilled, Low-skilled, and Semi-skilled workers. Simply 'cause there are numerous positions in every business, factory, firm, commerce, and industry for these workers. Trump and others politicians of both Parties are always talking, and Parroting the narrative 'bout the preference for the Educated and Skilled immigrants. This is nothing more than political demagoguery.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The ruling class can't imagine people who don't have and don't want servants.

  • TJJ2000||

    "America needs more, not fewer, immigrants" -- Says an Immigrant who use to write for Detroit's News paper.

    Shikha IS a GREAT EXAMPLE of how/why we cannot accept mass-immigration BECAUSE after RUNNING from the consequences of their OWN ideology (i.e. DETROIT) they will KEEP their FAILED ideology and just keep destroying !!!-location after location-!! while running from one self-induced problem to the next.

    Immigrants come to America BECAUSE its historical Republic has created a better life than the one their "beliefs" have given them. The problem is their ideology usually DOESN'T CHANGE and so they and their "beliefs" cause the problems we see today.

    When all other countries move into the U.S. does anyone REALLY think the Republic will still be there? A country IS it's people and people with failed "beliefs" WILL destroy this country.

  • Piliage||

    "Literally every trope that restrictionists hurl against immigration is false"

    Like, we need more H1B visas for Stem grads? How about, according to this study, "Only 1 in 4 students graduating with a degree in science, technology, engineering or math find a job in a one of those fields". (US News and World Report, Beyond the headline, US census study on stem graduates)

    Turns out, all of those wonderful San Jose high-tech firms want foreign stem grads who will work on H1B visas at 45% of the wages of home grown stem grads and basically be indentured servants. Of course, this is illegal according to the federal law, but our feckless whores in congress bend over to the almighty campaign contributions of their overlords and NEVER follow the law.

    Then, of course, there is this quote,

    "There's no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border — a sense that what's happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before. Not all these fears are irrational...it...threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net."

    Who said this? Trump?

    No, Barack Obama in 2006, before he was president. Funny how that changed when he got into office and needed to bow down to his corporate overlords.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online