Posted on 02/28/2017 4:16:28 AM PST by Kaslin
I am writing this column in Japan, a country whose crime rate is the lowest among countries with large populations. I asked my Japanese translator, a middle-aged woman, what she thought.
"Why is there is so little crime in Japan?" I asked.
Without taking a moment to reflect, she responded, "Because we don't allow immigration."
Anyone who visits Japan is struck by the ethnic homogeneity of the nation. If you meet a Caucasian, a black or a Hispanic in Japan, you can be all but certain that the person is visiting or studying there, not a citizen.
Likewise in the United States, there is direct correlation between ethnic homogeneity and low levels of violence. According to 2016-2017 data, the four states with the lowest percentages of violence are:
Vermont -- where 95 percent of the population is one race (white). Maine -- where 95 percent of the population is one race (white). Wyoming -- where roughly 93 percent of the population is one race (white). New Hampshire -- where roughly 94 percent of the population is one race (white).
Sweden, which for much of its modern history has had among the world's lowest rates of violent crime, was almost always as homogenous as Japan. Now that it has admitted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, it is no longer a homogenous country, and its levels of violence have increased dramatically.
All this leads to a particular rule, which is, in order to maintain a low crime rate and social stability, a country has only two choices: Do not allow immigrants into the country, or allow immigrants into the country, but be certain to assimilate them into the native population as quickly as possible.
The second choice has been America's choice throughout most of its history, and it has been uniquely successful in shaping people from all over the world and from every background into one nation known as Americans. One of America's three fundamental principles has been e pluribus unum, or "out of many" (the other two, as our coinage testifies, are liberty and In God We Trust). And that is precisely what America has done.
But since the 1960s, the left has supplanted e pluribus unum and its national American identity with the antithetical doctrines of diversity and multiculturalism.
Diversity and multiculturalism celebrate the national/ethnic identities of the nations from where American immigrants came instead of celebrating the American identity and traditional American values.
The result is the beginning of the end of the United States as we have known it since its inception.
The left constantly repeats "we are a nation of immigrants" without citing the other half of that fact -- "who assimilate into America." The left mocks the once-universally held American belief in the melting pot. But the melting pot is the only way for a country composed of immigrants to build a cohesive society.
America was never just "a nation of immigrants." America was always a nation of immigrants who sought to become -- or at least were taught by American public schools and by the general American culture to become -- Americans.
If America becomes a nation of nonassimilating immigrants, or a nation consisting of nonassimilating ethnic, racial and national groups who are already here, it will cease being a glorious idea and become just another nation torn by conflicting interest groups. These various groups will fight one another -- first verbally and then, perhaps, violently (and America will see more and more violence) -- just as France, Sweden and Germany have seen since they began taking in millions of immigrants, many of whom have no intention of becoming Frenchmen, Swedes or Germans.
Contrary to one of the left's more mendacious claims, diversity has not been America's great strength. America's great strength has been forging an American identity out of diversity.
But the left, with its identity politics and commitment to multiculturalism -- as expressed, for example, by ballots in dozens of languages, the proliferation of ethnic studies departments at universities and the allowance of all-black dorms and graduation ceremonies -- is undoing that.
If you want to understand the immigration crisis, just know that because the left has undone the second choice, it has made the first choice -- Japan's choice -- look tenable to many for the first time in American history.
It’s a combination—no immigration and starting with a population of Japanese people.
I’d like to correct the author just by title alone. We are NOT a nation of immigrants! We are a nation of citizens.
Donald J. Trunp became President just in the nick of time.
Indeed—I hate that phrase!
“””If you want to understand the immigration crisis, just know that because the left has undone the second choice, it has made the first choice — Japan’s choice — look tenable to many for the first time in American history.”””
The Leftist Multicultural Propaganda has led us to the point where the only solution is to restrict immigration.
Which is exactly what the title indicated - and the gist of the story was used to back up....from the middle of the article:
America was never just "a nation of immigrants." America was always a nation of immigrants who sought to become -- or at least were taught by American public schools and by the general American culture to become -- Americans.
Being critical can be a good thing - reading what you're criticizing is a better thing.
Being relevant by actually investing oneself is a better thing yet:
And back what you say with something of value.
Like it or not the United States is a nation of immigrants
I don’t like in any way the phrase period. It is a phrase often used and should never be used. When used no matter the context it’s used as a war cry that everyone belongs here. I agree with everything the writer states however I’d prefer we stop using the phrase altogether and stick to always using we are a nation of citizens
The United States is a Nation of Immigrants. Those that come or came here illegally are not immigrants, they are invaders.
I encounter immigrants who are inter U.S. tourists , everyday . I ask them where they are from and they tell you which U.S. city that currently live in . You have to ring it out of them , where they actually came from . Are they ashamed? What gets me is when I encounter immigrant people who live here that use their native language and not English . Especially speaking to their kids in the non-English language . Hello? This is America , we speak ENGLISH here . If you want to speak India , or Telagu , go back there .... It doesn’t help the kids at all. They are in America and what too be considered Americans but I will tell you what ; if you go around openly babbling in some other language , you will NEVER be American , nor seen as an American by any true Americans . They are self isolating themselves from the country they claim to want to be part of and also alienating their children from ever being real Americans . If they/you miss your home culture / language / traditions : Go back there .
There are a few hundred thousand professionals that came here legitimately to work, moved here with there Japanese wife/husband to continue or start a new career, got the visas, learned Japanese and assimilated. There are plenty of low life’s from North Africa and China that work with the yakuza, but since 10 years ago or so they are easily being rounded up and kicked out. Basically all long term residents and permanent residents are upstanding, well behaved, gainfullly employed people that chose to move here and enjoy it.
But LEGAL immigrants.
Melting pot
Not “diversity” Tower of Babel
My parents were immigrants. That means they came to the US legally. Applied for emigration. My mother was denied emigration for 3 years due to being blind in one eye (it was 1948). They had sponsors, a medical report, a TB xray. No social services for 5 years. Just about every adult I knew in Boston growing up was an immigrant.
There is a world of difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal alien. The liberals do not see the difference. The Democrats see future voters. The Republicans and the corporations that support them see low cost labor and more consumers. The only losers are the American people (citizens and legal immigrants).
Immigrants until granted citizenship (if legally here are H1b Green card) are immigrants. If not legally here are invaders. Once fully legalized they are citizens. The language the left like to use in order to qualify any illegal invader is the oft used argument that we are a nation of immigrants which is 100% wrong. This has been the language used by the left to justify invasion and soften American’s stances on illegal aliens.
We are a NATION of citizens and I stand by that statement
I became a citizen on June 12, 1977
Right... how are we going to import enough Japanese people to make a difference? Besides, most of them seem happy enough in Japan.
I’m not surprised that Mr. Prager can find statistics to support his contention that heterogeneity increases crime: numbers are fungible like that. However, one ought to be raising the same cries of, “Correlation does not equal causation!” that one would lift if one disagreed with the premise.
Violent crime is lowest, Mr. Prager observes, in several states with a very substantial majority of white residents. Is there a state with a concentration of other races for comparison on this point? No, there is not. However, there is Puerto Rico, where the vast majority of the population is Hispanic (not a race, but we’ll run with it), immigration is practically nil, and the violent crime rate is high. So that’s one data point against Mr. Prager’s premise. Other countries could be mentioned as well to contest the causation.
What other factors might correlate with low violent crime rates? What about age? Most violent crime is committed by men between 18 and 30 years old. Are the mostly-white populations of low-crime states also mostly old? Why, yes they are. Is the Japanese population of Japan mostly old? Why, yes it is.
I’m disappointed in Dennis Prager. He’s smarter than this, or I thought he was. Either I was wrong, or he’s just tossing cheap talking points to the uncritical reader, which is tacky.
I listened to Anne Coulter, on the View, argue that she came from settlers. At first I thought she was loopy, then I realized she was saying the same thing you are( of which I agree ) but differently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.