Posted on 02/28/2017 4:14:54 PM PST by DeweyCA
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:
1. Vermont — where 95 percent of the population is one race (white).
2. Maine — where 95 percent of the population is one race (white).
3. Wyoming — where roughly 93 percent of the population is one race (white).
4. 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.
“A Nation of Immigrants — Only If They Assimilate”
And if they don’s assimilate ?
Then call them what they are - colonists.
Therein lies the problem, and the great fabrication.
It’s not about immigrants, or refugees - it’s about an attempt to colonize the United States of America.
Immigrants, meh.
Through our veins run the blood of ancestors who built a shining city upon the hill from a godless, heathen infested wilderness using their blood, toil and grit.
They didn’t simply move.
It’s not clear to me how anyone would enforce “assimilation” in the modern age. We don’t have a remote frontier anymore which forces new arrivals to give up their previous ties to “the old country” through sheer force of distance.
This is the problem I have always had with the idea of a “proposition nation” - what is the enforcement mechanism to expel people who reject the proposition? There is none. Better to err on the side of caution and limit immigration in accordance with specific public policy goals, especially the social stability of the US.
That would have made a great speech at the Oscars.
D'oh!
e pluribus unum, or "Out of many, one"...
Well argued Cap’n. I hadn’t identified that lack of modern communication and transportation was a powerful catalyst to assimilation at the time “e pluribus unum” meant something.
Only if they apply and enter legally. I have no problem with that; it’s those that come across our borders violating our laws and those sanctuary cities/churches that abet them.
Agreed!
“Through our veins run the blood of ancestors who built a shining city upon the hill”
There might not be agreement on exactly how America became such a great place, but it did. It has a lot to do with the culture of our ancestors. Our future has a lot to do with that culture being passed to new generations.
Our blood is not the same as that of the people of 3rd world countries. Flood our country with those people and we won’t be America any more.
I remember reading that T. Roosevelt was extremely concerned with assimilation
It’s not enforcement, but indoctrination. It begins with enforcing English only in all official matters including road signs, ballots, board meetings, etc. Then you sell assimilation from kindergarten through grad school, and in movies and TV, as it used to be. You ditch affirmative action, abolish groups like the congressional black caucus, dissolve diversity offices, etc. Eliminating all welfare would help too-get rid of the crutch that allows immigration.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote many years ago that the problem was more with assimilation than with immigration per se.
It looks like Cuckservative Dennis Prager is beginning to uncuck himself.
He still repeats the lies "nation of immigrants" and "melting pot."
Both are lies to justify unrestrained immigration. Do your research if you don't believe me.
The Dems are pushing the idea that “assimilation” simply means getting on the dole ASAP. It is no longer acceptable to state that assimilation means learning a common language or contributing anything at all (even for your own upkeep).
We’ve been losing the culture wars for decades; this is the result. Trump is too centrist for me to view his election as a monumental victory; it was an economic blow to Dems, not so much a cultural one. His pandering to women in terms of STEM fields and entrepreneurs is not good; they are already 60% of college classes and benefit from “minority” status in terms of access to business loans, education, and token hiring & promotions...
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.