Posted On: Wednesday - January 16th 2019 7:00PM MST
In Topics:   Immigration Stupidity
(cropped from graph in Friday's post to eliminate projected numbers)
I'm not a big fan of "projected" numbers for areas that are not very scientific. For the example of the graph from Friday, on the percentage of foreigners in the US population, I think the red bars in the graph in Friday's post could be drastically lowered with some willpower. However, the light blue you see here is bad enough, and as of yet, I don't see that willpower anyway. People are still scared of being called names.
What the big deal is here, is that you don't have much of a unified country when 1 in 7 inhabitants are people who have no family ties to Americans. As Peak Stupidity discussed long ago in Immigration invasion, assimilation, and refugees, small number like 1 or 2% of individuals from all over, an not placed together as with the Cubans in Miami or Moslems in Dearbornistan, can be a positive thing for the nation, or at least not seriously negative.
Well, you may say, it's not quite as bad today as with the almost 15% foreign-born a hundred years ago. History rhymes, right, you heard it right here? Let me tell you, it was no picnic for white, mostly British-descended, America to absorb the large masses (smaller numbers than today, but let's think relatively) of Italians, Irish, and eastern European Poles and Jews that came in the period from the late 1870's to when people got fed up, by the year 1924. Interestingly, that was the year of the great Silent Cal's election as President, after a year of serving already due to Harding's death. Good times, good times... There are no Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans today, sure, unless they go retro (with the names like Meghan, etc!), but there were tons of problems from having masses of like people, amidst that past era's Americans who were not like them at that time.
OK, then, give it 30-40 years then, as with the period mid-1920's to mid '50's or '60's when the country was very unified demographically at least. Yeah, well, then we'd really need a major curtailment in immigration, as the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act*, passed by a good margin in the US House and Senate, entailed. The proof is in the pudding:
(The numbers are in immigrant entries per DECADE - but do not, obviously, count illegal entry.)
The window has been open wider, and for just as long, during the period 1965 to 2019, people are probably even more fed up (the problem was mostly an urban thing in the previous period), so is it not high time to do a Johnson-Reed again? Otherwise, those deep red bars from Friday's graph's projections WILL be there, and the country will be truly fucked. The problem I see, is that the Legislative branch of today's US Feral Gov't is full of crazies and cucks, nothing like the Congress of a century ago. The Lyin' Press of today is nothing but a branch of the D-squad of The Party, as opposed to having a shred of integrity a century ago. Would the current US President, listening to his Beltway advisors, even sign a bill like that, were it magically to come across his desk, as President Calvin Coolidge did a century ago? I don't think there's any chance of our finding out without serious effort by the only ones who care - about 1/2 of the American people.
In the meantime, I think there's less loyalty by the masses of immigrants than there was in the non-welfare era of 100 years back. Steve Sailer, in his post Shamelessness yesterday, displayed a tweet of his:
How many opeds have we read by people with names like "Shikha Dalmia" that basically boil down to: America needs more immigration because not all my extended family have arrived yet!Hell, maybe there was some of that last go around too. I will end with the entire comment under Sailer's thread by a good commenter named "iSteveReader", with the most-indented blocks of quotes being from this Shikha Dalmia:
Indeed! There you have it, it's not just the quantity but the quality, yet quantity has a quality all its own... if that all makes any sense. Good luck to us.In America, by contrast, there are about 44 million foreign-born people who now constitute about 13.7 percent of the population, according to the Pew Research Foundation. This is close to the historic high of 15 percent at the turn of the 20th century.Some things to point out. First, there are 44 million foreign-born people WHO ARE ALIVE in the USA right now. This is not the same as the number of people who have come since 1965, about 60 million in total, because some have already lived their lives and died.
Second, this sum of 44 million foreign-born who are alive, and the 60 million or so who have come since 1965, does NOT include their descendants.
Third, the notion that since the foreign-born population is ONLY at 13.7%, shy of the record high 15%, we still have room for more is the wrong way to look at it. The population of the USA in 1900 was 76 million. Today it is over 325 million. So obviously a larger number of foreign-born people would account for a smaller percentage today since our population is so much larger.
But, here is where that is a bad metric. Given that our population is ever increasing and is expected to climb from the current level of 325M to 400 M, will people 30 years in the future sit around saying that since our foreign-born population is only 52 million and only represents 13%, that we have room for more since it is still shy of the 15% in 1900?
We will always be chasing a higher number because as the population rises someone will always point out that what we think is a huge number is really a small number because percentage-wise it is actually smaller than it was in 1900. Of course if you were to go back to 1607 Jamestown, 100 percent of our population was foreign-born. Do we want that?
By any reasonable metric, “mass” immigration is a myth.A myth that will have changed the third most populous nation in the world from being 88% European to being under 50% in about 80 years time. We aren’t talking about changing the demographics of a small nation like Switzerland where perhaps you could flood a couple of million people to water down a population of 5 million. We are talking about flipping a nation that had almost 200 million people in 1965. Think about that. Demographically altering a nation of 200 million people to the point it is unrecognizable.
That is the definition of mass immigration. It is not fu*king myth. It’s harsh reality.
* It's a damn shame when, even with duckduckgo, after 15 minutes of checking out sites, I can't find one less biased against the bill in defense of Johnson-Reed than wiki!