Top 10 Reasons To Swamp U.S.

ProjectUSA ^ | 2004

[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

Our response:

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

Our response:

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  thus proving ourselves too stupid to preserve our heritage and country and so base we are willing to sell it for a buck.

[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 right—from 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 that—in terms of total economic output per person—it tells a far different story.

Honest view

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

Our response:

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  the deterioration of a population into warring ethnically defined political groups  would be a bad thing.

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

Our response:

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  changes the majority of the people of this country don't even want.

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.
What is mean is leaving our children a country twice as populated as we found it for no good reason other than that we were too lazy, or too cringing, or too benighted, to defend our borders.

 

Reason number six: immigrants built this country

Our response:

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

Our response:

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?
Shouldn't we first resolve the racial problems we have instead of continuing with an immigration policy that will double our population and risk exacerbating an already increasing tendency in our country toward group identity politics??

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

Our response:

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

Our response:

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

Our response

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!

Our response:

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.

[kalee]

bump for after Christmas reading

[Rapscallion]

Bump to read after Christmas and try to figure out what is really going on with this President...I feel worse about him every week.

[raybbr]

Historically, when immigrants first arrive, they work low wage jobs and are still "old country". Definitely the case with the waves of Italian, Irish, German, Jewish, etc.

Not so fast.

Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on aver­age, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum.[2]

The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. In recent years, these factors have produced an inflow of some ten and a half million immigrants who lack a high school education. In terms of increased poverty and expanded government expenditure, this importation of poorly educated immigrants has had roughly the same effect as the addition of ten and a half million native-born high school drop-outs.From here.

Apparently your opinion is not defensible.

[ChildOfThe60s]

BTTT

[Popocatapetl]

And you seem to confuse education with intelligence, hard work, initiative, and entrepreneurship. There is a big difference between those who were offered opportunity and refused it, and those who have never been offered it.

So let's continue with the comparison. Take a large number of American high school dropouts. Put them in Mexico and tell them that to get back to the US, they need to cross 100 miles of rocky desert, will be refused at the border if they try to cross normally, and if they are seen by a policeman will be sent back.

I would give you high odds that most of the American dropouts would end up staying in Mexico, very few even leaving the neighborhood where they found themselves. In short order they would be derelicts, begging for food, and desperately asking other Americans to help them get home.

Is there any comparison with the vast number of Mexican who pass through those same obstacles in a tireless effort to find employment, any employment? Who will hold two and three jobs, networking to find better work, get papers and become legal, and while living in fear in an underground existence?

Yes, America has long recognized that things other than a paper education make good quality immigrants. And we still should. Worthless, lazy peasants should get a one-way ticket out of the country. But there should be a means in which hard working people who already have much at stake in the US, should have an opportunity to expediently get citizenship without having to leave the country and wait for their ten most profitable years while their application is allowed to mellow.

Hell, right now, if the US offered citizenship to foreigners living here in good standing, for $30,000 cash, that they speak fluent English, and can pass our other citizenship requirements, we would get so many applicants that they could easily pay for the entire border fence in a year.

They *want* to be here legally. If they are hard working, industrious, and have through their labor earned lots of money, we should be happy to take them. They are winners.

Losers we should send back to Mexico.

[Regulator]

Definitely the case with the waves of Italian, Irish, German, Jewish, etc.

Ah yes. The old "it's just like the Irish" argument.

Did Ireland have a centuries old claim on North America?

Did they lose it in a war against the same people they came to live with?

Did they come in such numbers that they literally outnumbered the people whose country they came to live in within 1 generation?

I could go on and on. But safe to say your analogies fall apart under even simple analysis. And for those of us who have had to live with the real effects of this hostile, vicious, hate filled invasion from a brutal and corrupt society - like having members of our families assaulted, kidnapped, almost murdered (like mine) - your soothing, cooing words ring ugly and empty like the cheap salesguy you are.

By the way...one of the first rights of any democracy is to decide who is part of that democracy, the right of free association. As far as "These are people who came here to stay", when did we vote to have them stay with us and ultimately demand to rule us?

In what way are Americans free when Mexicans vote in their elections, occupy offices in our government, even become police because of sickening, un-Constitutional preferences for them over us?

You obviously have an agenda. And that agenda is, "don't worry little people, everything will be alright when we take over. You're gonna enjoy working for us, just get used to it...". So you're busted, pal. A liar with an agenda is all you are.

And as for this statement:

they tend to form mafias and street gangs

My family(s) have been here for going on 3 centuries and they are still, for the most part, the same Protestant, honorable rural people that they have always been since they stepped off the wooden boats that brought them. I know of no generation that went through this "phase" you claim is normal. They came from civilized societies and they remained and remain civilized.

It was only when we went weak and allowed in the un-Civilized that the phenomenon you speak of occurred.

[TheLion]

Excellent post!

Ping!

[Cronos]

The U.S. should stop illegal immigration and should restrict immigration to only highly qualified and productive folks. IIRC, you're a worthy immigrant -- technically qualified and produtive, exactly the type that should be encouraged to come in.

[Cronos]

Luxembourg has a huge amount of legal immigration as it is one of the centres of the EU, so tons of money pours in from THAT front. It's also a top-notch banking location (think Switzerland, only more secretive) and you have highly qualified bankers coming to L'bourg. Those are the kinds of people needed in the US.

[Cronos]

My English is not perfect but I am happy to use it every day. A while ago I went to a cafe owned by the Latin Americans in a center of old town in Greater Boston area.

Gotta agree with you on that. I went driving some months ago from D.C. to the Smithsonian Air museum near Dulles airport, and stopped somewhere south of D.C. to ask for directions. NO ONE SPOKE ENGLISH --> CArramba!

[Cronos]

That should read

Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new illegal immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of illegal immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population.

What about the numbers of East and South Asian and Eastern European/Russian immigrants? Most of the Chinese, Indian, Polish and Japanese immigrants hold advanced degrees and have average household incomes waaay more than the average household income in the USA.

Even among legal immigrants, the ones to avoid are those from Islamic countries (like the numbers of Sudanese gangs).

[WatchingInAmazement]

That's a nice list of your opinions there, I wish it was true.

As for this one:
"Mexico itself is showing signs of tremendous social disorder"

Showing signs? More Americans kidnapped by Mexico in 6 months than the 3 years in Iraq. Mexico is second only to murdered journalist. #1 is Iraq. They're right up there in beheadings as well.

[dennisw]

BTTT

[Popocatapetl]

It must be terribly hard to be so bitter.

So, you say that members of your family have been attacked, even murdered by Mexicans? Tragic. Lots of people feel the same way about black Americans. But if you assign individual acts of violence against an entire race, your injury is far deeper than a physical one.

And yet, onto your other arguments, history well establishes what I said as true. Indeed there have been Italian, Irish, German, and Jewish gangs and mafias, all related to waves of immigration. But over time, assimilation and integration has tempered much of that problem.

No reason to expect different from Mexicans. And, BTW, only a tiny fraction of those living in America join the Aztlan movement, embrace la raza as such, want part of America to return to Mexico or secede, or other such nonsense promulgated by nuts.

Teddy Kennedy, I might add, wanted the US to abandon Vietnam and invade northern Ireland to drive the British army out. You know these Irish immigrants, so hot headed.

[Fiddlstix]

Good Post!

[janetgreen]

Bookmark this important read.

BTTT

[Regulator]

So, you say that members of your family have been attacked, even murdered by Mexicans? Tragic

Yeah. That's the kind of smirking, sneering contempt I expected from someone like you.

No lie, Pinche, just fact.

And as far as "Mexican" being a race, that's a truly laughable conceit. I guess you and your buddies can use that to dress yourselves in victim's clothing. Every criminal has an excuse for his behavior, why not make it an excuse for a whole nation of criminals?

Your response to the reality of my post outs you. Why you're posting on a largely conservative website I can't fathom. Guess you're the ultimate troll. You think horrific crimes are no big deal? That's sort of the defining idea of liberalism.

Truly nauseating. You and your buddies have good hunting in the coming year, OK? Lots of victims out there for you to prey on. Don't worry, the ACLU, MALDEF, LULAC - all your brigades - they'll be shilling for you. You should do well.

It's who you are.

[cll]

"I would prefer indepence myself for Puerto Rico"

Hello again. I promised to get back to you.

Less than 5% of the electorate vote for the Puerto Rico Independence Party in each election. In fact, that party lost its certification in the last election because they didn't raise enough votes. They had to go through a recertification process, in the nature of a signature drive, in order to restore their franchise.

Independence is not an option.

The rest of the votes are about equally divided between the status quo party and the statehood party (there's no Republican v. Democrat tradition here), so there's no overwhelming majority for either status. And that's our fault, not being able to raise an overwhelming majority in favor of statehood. Yet.

Please remember that aside from regular elections, the only way to measure support for either status has been through locally produced referenda. These votes have been mere beauty contests, where the status quo supporters have been able to insert an impossible version of "commonwealth" which in fact have resulted in a poison pill for the process.

Since in accordance with the Constitution Congress retains sovereignity over the non-state territories, and since through the Insular Cases the courts have given sort of permanence to this state of affairs, there exists a pretty serious deficit of democracy in the nation that bills itself as the champion of democracy around the world.

And that's the fundamental problem. There exists a significant portion of the population of the United States of America who enjoys only "those rights which Congress chooses to accord them".

And since only Congress can change this sad state of affairs, it is entirely responsible for mantaining a colonial and despotical regime in the United States. Congess has never made any significant steps towards changing this. This is not fair not only for over four million American citizens in the territories, but also for the rest of the American taxpayers.

My problem with the article subject of this thread is that it states that there are no more than one class of citizenship in America, when in fact there are.

I'll give you just one example:

You are an American citizen living in a state. You move to France tomorrow and you can still cast an absentee vote in the state you left behind. But if you move to Puerto Rico, a US territory whose citizens are born Americans, you automatically lose your right to vote in your state's and federal elections through an absentee vote. You would be in a political limbo, where Congress makes laws that apply to you but you cannot do anything about it through a representative or a senator. Your Commander in Chief can send you to war but you couldn't vote him in or out of office.

Hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas and best wishes for 2007.

[Popocatapetl]

Okay, let's cut to the chase. You are a racist. I tried to be nice about your obvious issues.

I truly doubt that, plural, members of your family have been attacked by Mexicans. Unless you see just their living near you to be an attack. You use the same language of racial hate that segregationists used to.

If you aren't, then you had better seriously reconsider how you say what you say.

I live in Phoenix. There are lots of ethnic Mexicans here. But, come to think of it, there are a lot of Vietnamese here. After the fall of Saigon, we got 30,000 Vietnamese in one month, and nobody noticed.

Yes, I am aware that as late as the 1940s, the Mexican government said that the difference between a Mexican and an Indian was that a Mexican wore shoes.

But out of a metro area of 2.5M people, 460 square miles, there are about 6, non-adjacent, one block square areas that are Mexican in character. All the other Mexicans are dispersed through our giant suburbs.

Some are cash workers. Some are minimum wage. Some are blue collar, and some are white collar. Some are just across the border, and some are offended if you call them Mexican, because they are Americans.

The only reason that they held a large march here was because they were seriously afraid that nutballs were going to convince the government to deport 14 Million people. The biggest ethnic cleansing since Stalin.

And yes, there are a lot of wackos out there that think that is a fine idea. Thank God, almost none of them are in the government, or are likely to be.

I have taught in a public high school where an entire room full of kids are ethnically Mexican. Most are Mormon. Many planned to go into the US military on graduation. Their families are conservative and republican.

If you feel threatened by such as them, you are sick in the head.

[Kimberly GG]

"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."

Tell it to Bush...he makes this statement constantly. I guess he thinks if he makes it often enough, we'll believe him.

TAKE BACK AMERICA...NOW