Skip to comments.Top 10 Reasons To Swamp U.S.
Posted on 12/24/2006 12:10:18 PM PST by A. Pole
Among supporters of a more modern and moderate immigration policy, there is general agreement that the United States will eventually reduce legal immigration to traditional, sustainable levels and will end illegal immigration. We believe this because our arguments are correct, most people agree with us, and current policy is simply too opposed to everything we know about human nature.
Nevertheless, achieving our goal will be difficult because we immigration realists are fighting against a powerful array of meaningless cliches and unjustified assumptions that seem to have sunk deep into the collective American consciousness.
Here is our top ten list of these damaging myths and false assumptions, with our responses:
Reason number ten: there is plenty of room in the country for lots more people
There is plenty of room in Yosemite National Park for a whole slew of Wal-Marts and strip malls. But is that an argument for putting them there?
Last year, the United States grew at a faster rate than China. Yet, between 1998 and 1999, Wyoming lost population. In other words, overcrowding is not a function of overall population density of the country.
In China, too, there are vast areas that are very sparsely populated. Yet the Chinese are taking extreme measures to reduce their very serious overpopulation problem. No one in China would think very much of the argument that there is no overpopulation problem in China because Xinjiang province has lots of room.
As with any question of public policy, the deciding factor should be: Is it good for the country?
In almost every major city in America, over-immigration has taken its toll, in the form of increased traffic and pollution, higher crime rates, over-crowded schools, financially exhausted hospitals and medical centers--and the list goes on. Every major environmental group is fighting the specter of urban sprawl. Does it sound like we need more people?
Given that it takes less than four years for the world to add another United States in population (net), it can be safely assumed that if we do not put the brakes on, we will end up in the same overcrowded boat out of which China is trying so desperately to climb.
Regardless of the amount of physical space we appear to have, it cannot ultimately be good for our country to continue our present reckless immigration policies.
Reason number nine: immigration is good for the economy
Between the years 1925 and 1965, immigration to the United States was so low, the number of immigrants in the United States actually decreased. Yet during that time we Americans built the richest country the world has ever seen.
We can be rich without an endless flood of mass immigration.
But the debate continues to rage as to the various economic advantages and disadvantages of immigration.
But our basic position on the economic question is this:
1. If mass immigration is bad for the economy, we are merely stupid.
2. If mass immigration is good for the economy, then we are both stupid and base: We are saddling future generations with an overcrowded, polluted urban sprawl-land filled with balkanized factions
[Combined from other version:]
It's true that immigration grows the economy, but so what? If a half billion Chinese were to move from China to the United States tomorrow, the U.S. economy would grow (leaving aside the political upheaval) and China's would shrink, but is that a good thing necessarily? Lawrence Kudlow seems to think so.
Compare the total economic output of the countries listed in the chart at the rightfrom tiny Luxembourg, with an economic aggregate of just $27.3 billion, to the giant of the world, the United States, with $11.75 trillion.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce View
These are the same countries in the same order, except this time, we've calculated in the size of the population. When you look at it like thatin terms of total economic output per personit tells a far different story.
Little Luxembourg doesn't look so little anymore, Denmark and Nigeria are not the equals the first chart seemed to indicate, the U.S. is no longer the giant of the world, and while immigration fanatics like George W. Bush like to describe Mexican immigrants as fleeing starvation, that hardly appears to be the case.
So the next time Tamar Jacoby comes by and starts stroking your arm and cooing in your ear about how our economy needs immigration to grow, call her on her fraud: whose economy?
It's too bad Alan Greenspan wasn't exposed for the old fraud he is while he was the Fed chairman. When he started mumbling on during some senate testimony about how the United States must open the gates to immigration so we can keep "our" economy growing, it would have been great had we a senator on the committee with the intelligence and character to nail him.
The size of the overall economy is an economic statistic with no value outside its usefulness to frauds like Lawrence Kudlow, Tamar Jacoby, and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal as a means to hoodwink gullible and short-sighted Americans into acquiescing to the radical transformation of their country through mass immigration.
The economic indicator that matters is the one depicted in the second chart above; no one is emigrating from Luxembourg to Nigeria. Immigration is driving us down in terms of the second chart, yet because a few immigration lawyers and business special interests (and their lobbyists) find mass immigration profitable, the relentless flood of humanity continues unabated.
Reason number eight: immigration adds diversity
Immigration policy should not be decided on racial or ethnic grounds, or we will end up turning immigration into a tussle between the races.
Furthermore, whatever the benefits of ethnic or racial diversity, we are already one of the most diverse countries in the world. It is not clear we need more of it. (And besides, who decides how much is enough or too little diversity?)
Though we often hear the mantra "Diversity is our strength," polls show that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are less than convinced.
Almost everyone agrees that balkanization
Yet, even a cursory glance around can not fail to impress upon the observer that, as our country becomes more diverse, it is also becoming more politically balkanized. "Identity politics" is increasing not decreasing.
Why do we continue to pursue a policy that can only intensify this tendency to balkanization?
Reason number seven: immigrants just want a better life—saying "no" is mean
There are nearly five billion people in the world who live in countries poorer than Mexico. It can safely be assumed that many of those billions—like many Mexicans—would love to come to the United States in search of higher consumption levels.
Some Americans think that would be a great thing. But everybody else thinks it would be a terrible disaster. A 1998 Roper Poll found that only six percent of Americans think we don't have enough people in the country.
Since this is a democracy, subjective questions like this one are best decided by the majority, and since the people have not yet voted the borders out of existence, we have to operate from the position that our country still has them.
One of the characteristics of borders is that it divides the human race into those within the borders and those outside—just like the door to your apartment divides the human race into those within your apartment, and those on the outside. Borders, like doors and locks, are exclusionary by nature.
In the modern age, of course, this seems like a great sin, since a primary modern virtue is "inclusion." We moderns have a difficult time saying "us" and "them."
It goes against our modern sensibilities to say to someone born in Switzerland or Bangladesh, "I'm sorry. You are excluded." To us, it seems "mean."
But it is not mean. It is realistic and necessary and prudent.
Keep in mind one thing: our country is already taking in far more immigrants every year than any other country in the world. This extremely high rate of immigration is causing our nation to undergo massive changes
Yet for all the people we are taking in, we are still taking in only a little more than one percent of the births-over-deaths population growth of the world. If we are going to be "compassionate" to all the foreigners of the world and dismiss the best interests of our own people, what about that other 99 percent?
Again, it is not mean to control our borders. It is necessary and realistic.
Reason number six: immigrants built this country
At some point, maybe we should stop "building."
And immigrants didn't build this country anyway. Americans did.
Immigration averaged only 235,000 persons per year prior to the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act. That's only 47 million immigrants over the course of our nation's history. Compared to our current population of nearly 300 million, that's not much. And then, if we add all the people who have lived before in the United States, we are approaching a billion total Americans who live now or who have lived in this country—all of them, or at least most of them, busy "building" it.
Reason number five: Advocating a reduction in immigration is racist and xenophobic
Yes, there are those who hold their views on immigration for racial reasons—on both sides of the issue. (For every David Duke, there is a Congressman Gutierrez.)
This does not mean, however, that immigration is a racial issue.
And while the immigration issue does attract racists, it is our experience at ProjectUSA that most of these racists are to be found amongst our pro-mass immigration opponents—in particular, among the ethnic-identity pressure groups and politicians.
To those well-meaning but confused people who insist that immigration is a racial issue, we always ask: "Well, then, since you are absolutely certain one's position on immigration is all about race, what are your racial reasons for supporting this current flood?"
This question often causes confusion.
We believe that the confusion arises from our nation's unfortunate muddle-headedness on issues of race and culture. The current dogma of the "multi-cultural" ideology has convinced many Americans that "culture" and "race" are the same things. Just think of the endless paeans to multiculturalism in advertising, political speech, academia, etc: they are always illustrated by a photo of people of different races.
This is dangerous and wrong.
While a black American and a white American might be different colors, they are equally American, i.e., they share the same culture.
Modern "multi-culturalists" are the true racists when they elevate skin color to a place as primary as culture.
If we have racial problems today how will our problems improve with a half a billion people thanks to over-immigration struggling to survive in an overpopulated country?
Those who fear racial conflict or the rise of fascism should support, as we do, an immigration time-out in order to take a breather, reassess what we are doing, and give the assimilation magic time to work.
Reason number four: Immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do
Prior to the disastrous immigration act of 1965, there was very little immigration.
In fact, between 1925 and 1965, immigration levels were so low the number of immigrants in the country actually declined. In fact, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States.
Yet, during that time, Americans invented computers, had a healthy labor movement, initiated the space program that put men on the moon, made great strides in civil rights and environmental legislation, built the largest economy the world has ever seen, and successfully prosecuted WWII against two great powers on two fronts simultaneously. We also got our grass cut, our meat packed. Our children were being watched, and our houses were being cleaned.
The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an endless supply of foreigners is absurd.
The falsehood repeated endlessly, that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't, is really tantamount to something like this: Imagine the owner of the local McDonald's puts a sign in the window that says: "Dishwasher wanted. $1.00 / hour." Suppose he leaves the sign in the window for a month, but no one comes in to apply for the dishwashing job. "See?" the McDonald's owner might say, "Dishwashing is a job Americans won't do. But there are a billion people in China who work for less than a dollar per hour. I need to import some cheap workers from China (or Bangladesh or Mexico)."
Then he or she will import the worker, undercut American wages, and, as a bonus, stick the taxpayer with the cost of the new worker's health care, of educating his children, and so on.
And politicians will talk about how our economy "depends" on immigrant labor.
A country should do its own work.
Reason number three: This is a nation of immigrants
If you are discussing immigration with a friend, you are likely to hear him reflexively blurt out the gem: "this is a nation of immigrants." When he does, simply point out to him that eighty-five percent of the residents of the United States were born here.
How could that preponderance of home-grown Americans justify us being called a "nation of immigrants"?
Certainly we are descendants of immigrants (as is everyone in the world), but that is not the same thing as being an immigrant.
Anyway, such a statement is no justification for continued mass immigration. The inference that "We are a nation of immigrants and, therefore, we must not limit immigration" is a classic example of circular argument.
What is says is this: Because we are a nation of immigrants, we have to allow for massive immigration which, in turn, makes us a nation of immigrants. Hence its circularity.
Circular arguments are invalid in the logical sense by virtue of how they are structured and not what do they mean. They lead to faulty (and, therefore, useless) reasoning in which the thesis (the very thing which is to be proved) is used as a premise in its proof.
And circular arguments certainly do not form a good basis on which to formulate sound public policy.
Reason number two: Only American Indians have the right to criticize immigration policy
The idea that only "Native American" have the right to oppose immigration to the United States ignores the concept of "nation." There was no such thing as the political entity known as the the United States until the Founding Fathers created it in 1776.
Furthermore, there are not grades of citizenship. One is either a citizen of this country, or one is not. We are not more or less citizens of the United States based on the number of generations preceding us on these shores.
And, particularly, we are not more or less citizens of this country based on our skin color or ethnicity.
Since everyone in the world has ancestors who immigrated from somewhere else, the immigration history of one's ancestors is probably not relevant to the formulation of wise public policy.
And the number one reason to overpopulate the country: Your ancestors were immigrants!
Yes, my ancestors came from somewhere other than North America. As did yours and everyone else's including those of the Native Americans. In fact, everyone in the world's ancestors came from somewhere other than the place they now call home.
In other words, every nation is a "nation of immigrants" and this meaningless slogan is useless as a basis for public policy. To redefine the world's boundaries according to ancestral wanderings would be a foolish and impossible task.
Furthermore, because a policy was appropriate in the past, does not mean it is necessarily eternally good. For example, if my ancestors were pioneers, I am not therefore constrained to advocate pioneering and expansionism as sound public policy forever.
If you are interested in getting $50 per hour jobs see the tagline.
BTTT Lots more thoughtful than I first thought by reading the headline. Thanks for posting.
Great one A. Ploe, thanks.
|We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.
Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.
For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.
George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)
An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.
How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform Americas ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nations interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. We are a nation of immigrants, we tell ourselves and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.
This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of racism. The very manner in which the issue is framedas a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus racism on the othertends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity, what if they said: We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples. Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in Americas ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choiceas distinct from the theoretical choice between equality and racismthat our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.
Immigration restrictionists have all the arguments on our side.
We also have the overwhelming support from the majority of all cultures and races.
The bottom line for everyone is that a lot more people do not mean a better life for anyone, except a few.
And that few is running this country. We need to find a way to stop that.
Bump for later read.
The political establishment is completely out of touch with the populace on the issue of border security, and think that they know better than their constituants.
Very well put. The opposing side only wants to destroy America.
And to put money in their own pockets and attach their names to legendary status.
Top 5 reasons why the US won't be swamped, no matter what we do:
1) The Mexican birthrate has dropped to just slightly higher than typical western industrialized nation standards, about 2.3 children per family.
2) While the US has wide open borders, Mexico doesn't, and tries to keep out people from central and South America. If they can't get into Mexico, they can't get to the US.
3) Vincente Fox has created and sold the idea of the PPP to the two main parties of Mexico. The PPP, the Plan Puebla Panama, is a gigantic transportation and shipping hub over a large part of southern Mexico. In includes air travel, shipping, and an enormous railroad hub. While initially this has caused an uptick of emigration from the people who have been displaced; soon all the new jobs created will cause the region to attract immigrants looking for work.
4) Mexicans arriving in the US tend to adapt to the politics and social scheme of their final destination. If they arrive to large non-integrated Mexican communities in blue States, they don't integrate and vote democrat. If they *have* to integrate in their communities, they do so, and in red States vote republican.
5) As a group, however, Mexicans do integrate into the social fabric of the US, and actually, faster than most historical European waves of immigrants. Once they are here, as a rule, they rapidly lose their ties with "the old country", and it is not uncommon to see first generation grandparent illegals living in the same home with second generation children raised in the US, who are neither "here nor there", and third generation children who are fully integrated, often don't even speak Spanish, and know nothing of Mexico.
Now, the one proviso I must make to all of this, is that Mexico itself is showing signs of tremendous social disorder, based in many different reasons. Perhaps even civil war. And if that happens, several million of their people can be expected to try and head North to escape the chaos and bloodshed. It will be a trying time for both of us.
History teaches us the only way, and it ain't pretty.
Most of my ancestors were pioneers and colonists -- NOT immigrants.
"Furthermore, there are not grades of citizenship. One is either a citizen of this country, or one is not. We are not more or less citizens of the United States based on the number of generations preceding us on these shores."
If you are an American citizen, it doesn't matter in what state you were born, but live in one of the territories of the U.S., you are automatically a second-class citizen, where federal laws and jurisprudence and some taxes apply to you without representation in Congress nor the ability to vote in the Electoral College for the President that enforces these laws, and who appoints federal judges who rule over the subjects of the Congress.
"And, particularly, we are not more or less citizens of this country based on our skin color or ethnicity."
There are over four million American citizens that are less citizens by virtue of geographic location alone.
"In my opinion, Congress has no existence and can exercise no authority outside of the Constitution. Still less is it true that Congress can deal with new territories just as other nations have done or may do with their new territories. This nation is under the control of a written constitution, the supreme law of the land and the only source of the powers which our government, or any branch or officer of it, may exert at any time or at any place. Monarchical and despotic governments, unrestrained by written constitutions, may do with newly acquired territories what this government may not do consistently with our fundamental law. To say otherwise is to concede that Congress may, by action taken outside of the Constitution, engraft upon our republican institutions a colonial system such as exists under monarchical governments. Surely such a result was never contemplated by the fathers of the Constitution. If that instrument had contained a word suggesting the possibility of a result of that character it would never have been adopted by the people of the United States. The idea that this country may acquire territories anywhere upon the earth, by conquest or treaty, and hold them as mere colonies or provinces,the people inhabiting them to enjoy only such rights as Congress chooses to accord to them,is wholly inconsistent with the spirit and genius, as well as with the words, of the Constitution." - Justice John Harlan, dissenting in the Insular Cases, 1901