Multiculturalism: everybody seems to know it doesn’t work except Obama

coachisright.com ^ | April 3, 2011 | Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

[jmaroneps37]

The 60s campus chant of “Hey, Hey, Ho , Ho, Western Civ Has Got to Go, “ doesn’t sound so funny now as we see the inroads multiculturalism has made on our freedoms, our rule of law, our very way of life.

In the run up to the Chicago Islam Conference of June 15, 2010, one commenter said, “to re-establish the Khilafah (Caliphate) we need to build an overwhelmingly strong movement within our countries that will overthrow the corrupt rulers from their thrones and bring into place a Khalifah who will implement the Shariah and stand up for the affairs of the Mulsim Ummah (Many Identified in One, One Identified in Many). Join us in building this global movement.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a recent Potsdam conference “the multikulti concept where people of different backgrounds would live together happily doesn’t work in Germany. . .it has failed, utterly failed.”

Just this week French President Sarkozy said, “My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure….we have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him..”

David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, told the Munich Security Conference that “state multiculturalism had failed and pledged to cut funding for Muslim groups that failed to respect basic British values.”

Former Australian PM Howard Baker said “The Anglosphere–Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States–needed to take greater pride in its values and achievements.

So while other countries are waking up to the dangers of allowing foreign cultures to immigrate but refuse to assimilate, many in the U.S. blindly ignore the damage being done to our country.

Hippie throwbacks still alive and well in our liberal academic…..

[kabar]

As RealClearPolitics senior political analyst Sean Trende has written, Hispanics tend to vote 10 to 15 percent less Republican than whites of similar income and education levels. An increasingly Hispanic electorate puts Republicans at a disadvantage, but not an overwhelming one.

First of all, the 10 to 15 percent difference is significant if it applies to the fastest growing segment of our population. Hispanics will make up one in three in this country. This reminds me of the factory owner when told he was losing 5 cents a widget and responding, "Don't worry, we'll make it up in volume." California is the canary in the coal mine. Its demographics are similar to what the US will look like in 2050.

The operative phrase in this analysis is "whites of similar income and education levels." Most Hispanics don't have similar income and educational levels of whites. With 50% put of wedlock birthrates and similar school dropout rates, they will be part of the underclass. And data show irrefutably that minorities and immigrants vote Democratic.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest level in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

Currently, 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year; 350,000 immigrants leave each year, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. Since 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 203 million to 310 million, i.e., over 100 million. In the next 40 years, the population will increase by 130 million. Three-quarters of the increase in our population since 1970 and the projected increase will be the result of immigration. The U.S., the world’s third most populous nation, has the highest annual rate of population growth of any developed country in the world, i.e., 0.977% (2010 estimate), principally due to immigration.

[kabar]

Obviously, but the EXACT SAME THING happened with Italians 100 or so years ago. They kept their language and had NO INTEREST in leaving their enclaves. But the country, as a whole, thought differently. We cut off their immigration, forced them to learn English, and sure enough they integrated.

I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in the 1940s and 1950s. The parents wanted their children to be Americans. Many of them did not want their children to speak Italian.

The difference between current immigration and the past is the persistent and less diverse nature of our immigration. Hispanics make up about two thirds of our legal immigrants and Mexicans about two thirds of the Hispanics. And the numbers are far greater than ever before.

Immigrant groups will not assimilate on their own (other than Asians, and that’s only because they can beat whites at their own game)...they have to be FORCED to assimilate, and I don’t see why that can’t work for Hispanics

Numbers. There are nearly 50 million Hispanics in this country now. There numbers will almost triple in the next 40 years. Meanwhile, the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation's total population is projected to double, from 15 percent to 30 percent. Thus, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.

[BobL]

So what’s your solution? Panic, move to Australia, bunker-up.

We have a debt now that is more than 6 times the revenue we collect each year and growing like a rocket. In a sane world, our creditors would have already pulled the plug on us...but they’re just giving us some more time, hoping we will come to our senses.

We will not...and they will pull the plug - and that will be DECADES before our demographic winter hits. In fact, I’d be surprised if we make it through this year.

I have 4 years worth of every non-perishable that I can think of (including replacement water heaters), and 6 months worth of food, and multiple ways to purify water - I plan to ride this storm out as comfortably as possible...but it will still suck.

I pick my panics carefully, do you?

[kabar]

Sorry, don’t buy it. I agree Hispanics will never be as conservative as whites, but as long as they don’t vote 90/10 like blacks, their influence will be relatively small for a very long time.

Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. Facts are stubborn things.

An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury

The nation will be more racially and ethnically diverse, as well as much older, by midcentury, according to projections released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children.

The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.

Meanwhile, the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation's total population is projected to double, from 15 percent to 30 percent. Thus, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.

The black population is projected to increase from 41.1 million, or 14 percent of the population in 2008, to 65.7 million, or 15 percent in 2050.

The Asian population is projected to climb from 15.5 million to 40.6 million. Its share of the nation's population is expected to rise from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent.

[BobL]

“I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in the 1940s and 1950s. The parents wanted their children to be Americans. Many of them did not want their children to speak Italian.

The difference between current immigration and the past is the persistent and less diverse nature of our immigration. Hispanics make up about two thirds of our legal immigrants and Mexicans about two thirds of the Hispanics. And the numbers are far greater than ever before”

Look at your chart and read it right, please. In the 40s and 50s we were in the process of assimilating (i.e., no immigration), of course the parents wanted their kids to learn English. That was my earlier point.

Look at the 1900-1910 number, that was for a country of 76,000,000 people...one fourth of today’s population. It took until the 1920s on that graph for immigration to COME DOWN to the level of where it is today, when based on population.

But I agree that it is time for a timeout on it.

[BobL]

Extermination, Lynchings, Genocide? I still haven’t heard a single suggestion from you to deal with the problem - I’ve made other suggestions, you haven’t made any, so I’m opening up the trade space a bit.

If you just want me to panic, sorry, I’ve got better things to do with my Sunday.

[BobL]

Sorry, I just can’t figure out what you want me to do. I already vote Republican and am part of the Tea Party.

What’s your suggestion?

[kabar]

So what’s your solution? Panic, move to Australia, bunker-up.

No, change our immigration policies.

America must decide whether our immigration programs are to serve the long-term interests of all Americans or the short-term interests of corporate and special (often political, labor, religious and ethnic) interest groups. History is replete with the carcasses of empires, nations, and city-states that failed to “get it right” on the issue of immigration. After five decades of grossly misguided immigration policy, this may be our nation’s last chance to “get it right.”

We need a pro-immigrant, low immigration policy with the following elements:

 A merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;

 Reduced immigration levels based on need and more closely approximating 300,000 immigrants a year vice the current 1.2 million annually;

 Elimination of extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family;

 Enforcement of existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) secure the border and make mandatory such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;

 Elimination of birthright citizenship;

 Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;

 Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases; and

 Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.

We have a debt now that is more than 6 times the revenue we collect each year and growing like a rocket. In a sane world, our creditors would have already pulled the plug on us...but they’re just giving us some more time, hoping we will come to our senses.

How much of our fiscal problems have to do with our immigration policies? 53% of immigrant headed households are on welfare. We have 300,000 to 400,000 "anchor babies" born each year who automatically become US citizens entitled to benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, and other welfare programs. 25% of adult legal immigrants coming into this country each year don't have a high school diploma. We are importing poverty. Milton Friedman said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” We have both.

The latest data show 22.1 million immigrants holding jobs in the U.S. with an estimated 8 million being illegal aliens. By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.

The Bureau of Labor statistics for March 2011 show a national unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, including 15.5 percent for blacks and 11.3 percent for Hispanics. 22 million Americans are seeking full-time employment. Despite the economic downturn, the U.S. continues to bring in 125,000 new, legal foreign workers a month. This includes new permanent residents (Green Cards) and long-term temporary visas and others who are authorized to take a job. This makes no sense.

[BobL]

Good answer, and please accept my apologies for the earlier nasty post. I was about to give up on you.

[kabar]

Look at your chart and read it right, please. In the 40s and 50s we were in the process of assimilating (i.e., no immigration), of course the parents wanted their kids to learn English. That was my earlier point.

That's right. From 1925 to 1965 we had lower immigration numbers because we passed legislation in the 1920s to stop the flood of immigrants. I posted on this thread an analysis of the 1965 Immigration Act that abolished the national origins act (composition) and increased the numbers. When the history of the US is written, the Immigration Act of 1965 may well be listed as the most important event that caused the downfall of this country.

Today's immigrants, primarily Hispanic, don't want to learn English. I don't know if you read Professor Huntington's (Harvard) article entitled "The Hispanic Challenge" I linked to you in an earlier post. As you will see, what is going on now in terms of immigration is unprecedented in our history. The numbers and persistance of it make it far different. And notice that we did not have a welfare system in place during the other eras of mass immigration.

[Jim Noble]

Do you think Teddy was motivated by revenge for America killing his brother?

[Jim Noble]

The use of the term “Hispanics” to discuss this issue conceals as much as it reveals.

The crisis is caused by immigration of low IQ mestizo and amerindian peasants. They will never assimilate and, since most are lawbreakers by definition, they will cause enormous strains.

A secondary issue is whether or not the “other” Hispanics will have solidarity with the above subpopulation.

So far, it’s not clear.

[kabar]

Who knows what was in the mind of that boozing womanizer? I think the prevailing feeling at the time amidst the Civil Rights turmoil was that America had to start looking like the rest of the world and not just Europe. White guilt? And there may have been more craven interests like the fact that minorities and immigrants vote Democrat.

[Blind Eye Jones]

“They live for the present....have no knowledge of the past, nor care about their future. They just care about their pleasure of the moment.”

As John Lennon would say, “nothing to kill or die for, no religion too” and “all the people living for today.”

Easy-going nihilism in a solipsistic culture. But that culture can’t last. The eternal present that pop culture pines for is like a cocaine rush before the body shuts down. You can’t sustain that constant euphoric buzz of the present (as it focuses on the present), or the NOW (as it focuses on the NOW), without losing history and identity. A culture can’t exist without a sense of its history and purpose (ideals) — something to fight and die for.

Some will argue the NOW is all there is but that is simply wrong. The NOW or present is a platform to hold the ideas of future and past.

John Lennon had a religious side to him but it got twisted in a worse way than whatever sins he accused the Maharishi of having. Conventional religion never delivered for John — for him “God was a concept by which we can measure our pain.” Ecstasy means to be outside of oneself and for Lennon his new religion of “the brotherhood of man” was ecstatic in that it was similar to the narcotic effect of drugs: it helped forget the pain of past, forget the history of one’s sins, of ones divorce and the bad way he treated his wife. So the new religion was the high of “living for today,” for the eternal NOW. For those lesser people than pop stars it boils down to the constant stimulation of pop culture with no time for learning about and or remembering the past. It’s like heaven or a near substitute.

As a side note: John hanging out with radical communists certainly didn’t help reinforce anything positive about conventional religion and probably led to even more Utopian fervor.

[kabar]

The Democrats created the artificial category of “Hispanics” in the 1970s as a way to create another class of victims, which they could imbue with special rights and privileges, including affirmative action and minority business set asides. The result is another minority group that votes Democrat. It doesn’t matter that, according to the Census Bureau, 51 percent of Hispanics self-identify themselves as white. Note: Some blame Nixon and the Reps for creating "Hispanics" as a way to counter the black loyalty to the Democrats.

The Census Bureau has even created the phony category of “non-Hispanic whites,” which are now 66 percent of the population and will be 50 percent in 2042. The reality is that “whites” will still be more than 70 percent of the population in 2042.

The same holds true for "Asians," another made up category that really reflects nothing.

For example, the Virginia Department of Minority Business defines a minority individual as “an individual who is a citizen of the United States or a non-citizen who is in full compliance with United States immigration law and who satisfies one or more of the following definitions:”

1. “African American” means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Africa and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.

2. “Asian American” means a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands, including but not limited to Japan, China, Vietnam, Samoa, Laos, Cambodia, Taiwan, Northern Mariana, the Philippines, a U.S. territory of the Pacific, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.

3. “Hispanic American” means a person having origins in any of the Spanish-speaking peoples of Mexico, South or Central America, or the Caribbean Islands or other Spanish or Portuguese cultures and who is regarded as such by the community of which this person claims to be a part.

The Republicans need to expose the Democrats as the real racists and bigots who provide people, including newly arrived immigrants, with special rights and privileges based on race, ethnicity, and gender. The definitions of Hispanic and Asian under Virginia law are ludicrous. They make no sense. What do Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Filipinos have in common except being from the same geographic region of the globe? Similarly, “Hispanics” encompass all of Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., the former colonialists. These types of classifications are reminiscent of those under apartheid in South Africa, which had four main groups with a number of sub-groups and even “honorary whites.” Conservative Republicans should take the lead in abolishing these discriminatory programs in post-racial America and use immigration as an example of the unfairness of these laws.

Data suggest that the newly arrived Hispanic/Latino immigrants are more solidly in support of Democrats than others. Groups like La Raza and the Democrats are stongly supporting self-identification as Hispanics for obvious reasons.

[BobL]

“Today’s immigrants, primarily Hispanic, don’t want to learn English. I don’t know if you read Professor Huntington’s (Harvard) article entitled “The Hispanic Challenge” I linked to you in an earlier post. As you will see, what is going on now in terms of immigration is unprecedented in our history. “

I don’t really care what they want to learn, if they’re here, the language is English - and we need to FORCE that on them...and they will learn English and they WILL then join our mainstream (at least a lot of them), whether their ‘Leaders’ want them to or not.

[kabar]

I don’t really care what they want to learn, if they’re here, the language is English - and we need to FORCE that on them...and they will learn English and they WILL then join our mainstream (at least a lot of them), whether their ‘Leaders’ want them to or not.

Yeah, right. Wishing for something doesn't make it so. Even though 85% of the American people want English to be the official language of this country, Congress will not pass it. Do you realize how many official government sites are in Spanish, as well as in other languages? Our ballots must be in multiple languages. Here are some official sites:

Seguro Social

la Casa Blanca

State of California

So you and what army are going to FORCE THEM?

[BobL]

“So you and what army are going to FORCE THEM? “

...and what’s your plan?

[kabar]

I provided you with my immigration recommendations. The main problem is numbers. When you have huge numbers of Hispanic immigrants, they will not assimilate and don't need to. Instead, they want us to accommodate to them. Below is an organization that supports English as our official language. Many states have passed laws, but the reality is that unless we reduce immigration, legal and illegal, we will have a Balkanized nation along cultural and linguistic lines. Hispanic groups want to make Spanish one of the official languages of the US.

ProRnglish--The Nation's Leading Englsih Language advocates

When you have ESOL programs and the government makes linguistic accommodations, e.g., voting and driving tests, then you reduce the incentive to learn English. And in many cases, police, EMT, and fire personnel receive higher wages if they speak Spanish. Huntington pointed this out in his piece.

In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: “We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural.” By contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, “I hope very much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak Spanish.” And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.