In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Whipped | Main | Lincoln and More »

January 30, 2008

Immigration Update

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Hibernia Girl turns up a remarkable statistic from Frankfurt.

* Randall Parker spells out how hard our immigration regime is on American blacks.

* A startling demographic projection from Vdare's Edwin Rubenstein: "If white births continue shrinking and minority births growing at the present rate, minorities will account for more than half of all births by 2011. By 2021 more than 60 percent of births will be to minorities." Nothing against "minorities," of course. Wish 'em well. Yet how often in history has drastic ethnic change proven to be a desirable -- as in peace-and-prosperity- promotin' -- development? So how did this risky (and largely disliked) state of affairs come about? Rubinstein: "This shift is essentially all caused by public policy -- specifically, the Immigration Act of 1965 and the simultaneous collapse of law enforcement against illegal immigration."

* My small point: You can't really understand America today without recognizing and acknowledging the importance (and the impact) of the 1965 Immigration Act.



posted by Michael at January 30, 2008


Can anyone tell this furriner who was behind the 1965 Act, and why?

Posted by: dearieme on January 30, 2008 12:59 PM

so ted kennedy may very well go down in history as the man singularly responsible for bringing america to her knees.

figures the anti-christ would be homegrown talent.

Posted by: roissy on January 30, 2008 1:37 PM

Dearieme -- It was proposed by Emanuel Cellar but Teddy Kennedy was the most prominent backer of it. It's generally considered a manifestation of the '60s, as in Civil Rights, welfare, etc. Fewer limitations, no bias towards people of Euro descent, greater respect for families ... Hey, a hilarious/tragic quote from Teddy-boy as he was selling the bill:

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

All would be fine, just a little fairer, you know? In fact of course it has led to tens of millions of immigrants, a heavy de facto bias towards Mexico and Central America, absurd "chain migration" (one person gets in and then pulls in family member after family member after him), and of course a huge change in the ethnic composition of the country: 90% white in 1965, the U.S. will be less than half white sometime this century. Weirdly this is all accepted by many people as an inevitable part of life -- they don't seem to realize that it's all, every bit of it, the result of government policy.

Yet another way in which we're 1) paying for the '60s, and 2) paying for the Kennedys ....

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on January 30, 2008 2:33 PM

I see nothing wrong with this and in fact welcome it. Then at least I'll be in the minority race and maybe finally reap some of the benefits and freebies for myself.

Posted by: susan on January 30, 2008 2:44 PM

Teddy's dear old dad, Joseph P. Kennedy, was a millionaire (his fortune partly acquired by running booze into the country from Canada during Prohibition). FDR rewarded him for political favors by appointing him ambassador to Britain before World War II, where he was widely loathed for anti-British, and possibly pro-German, sympathies.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Posted by: Rick Darby on January 30, 2008 3:01 PM

Teddy K is my nominee for the single most destructive politician the Democratic Party has produced in the last sixty years. Repubs have Nixon, of course, so Teddy doesn't win the overall crown, despite his best efforts.

Posted by: PatrickH on January 30, 2008 3:56 PM

The 1965 Immigration Act followed hard on the heels of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Connect the dots.

Posted by: Bob Grier on January 30, 2008 4:16 PM

dearieme - I favor Rick Darby's analysis. Teddy the Hutt is the godfather of the idiot branch of my co-ethnics - people who seem to think it imperative that the piddly 1-1/2 Anglo nations in the hemisphere be Latinized in order to provide just and proportionate redress for some (probably imagined) diss delivered by some Brahmin to their great-whatever grandfather 100 or 150 years ago. Why their aggrieved ancestors didn't just hie themselves to Latin America in the first place, as many Irish did, I do not know. (Yesterday I came across someone making the same claim about McCain - I'm not familiar with any evidence for this, nor even if McCain is of Irish descent - and "professionally Irish", like Ted).

PatrickH - you really think Nixon was overall more destructive than TK? (Nation or party?) Whatever you think of Nixon, at least he had the grace to shuffle it off. Ted is like Castro the Undead. I can't click on the news on any given day without shuddering "sweet merciful Jaysus, why is that sumbitch still here?" (Yeah, I know, Ted hasn't outlived Dick in terms of personal longevity, but Ted has been giving off "dissipated, raddled old carcass" vibes since his early middle-age. Guess it just seems like the fetid miasma emanating from that bloated carbuncle has been corrupting the land for ages.)

Posted by: Moira Breen on January 31, 2008 1:53 PM


RMN gets my nod simply because of the consequences of his presidency: the near-destruction of the prestige of his office, the paralysis that led to the Democrats betrayal and abandonment of Vietnam (orchestrated by, among others, guess who? Our friend Teddy!) with all the consequences of that debacle, the Carter presidency and the attendant fall of the Shah leading to the birth of the world's first radical Islamic regime, and so on.

He put it best himself: He gave his enemies a sword. And he didn't have to. Still, your point is fair. Nixon may have been the most disastrous in terms of consequences, but Teddy takes the cake (esp. the rum cake) for sheer wrongheaded let's-screw-this-country-but-good-ness.

So Teddy gets the nod after all. Move over Tricky One, there's a new (old) kid takin' yer spot!

Posted by: PatrickH on January 31, 2008 5:05 PM

Black-Hispanic hostility is the true dynamic underlying the race for the White House on the Dem side. True, Obama has the Black vote. But Billary are counting on Hispanic turnout against a Black candidate to put them over the top. Super Tuesday will tell if they have calculated correctly.

Posted by: ricpic on January 31, 2008 5:21 PM

If we keep intermarrying, we are unlikely to be able to tell one minority from another. I like the idea.

On the other hand, I would not allow my daughter to marry a Kennedy. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Posted by: Mitch on January 31, 2008 5:37 PM

Mitch, rates of intermarriage for Asians and Hispanics already peaked sometime last decade and are now declining. What happened was that the bigger their populations get, the less they have to search outside the race for mates. Immigration retards the rate of interracial marriage. I will try to find the Steve Sailer post where he puts forth the data.

Posted by: pjgoober on February 1, 2008 3:55 PM

Here is the Sailer article: "Continued Immigration Retards Growth of Interracial Marriage"

Here is the scholarly work where Sailer gets much of his data and arguments from: "Mixed Race and Ethnicity in California" by Sonya M. Tafoya of the Public Policy Institute of California

Posted by: pjgoober on February 1, 2008 4:02 PM

Dream on, susan. Those who get affirmative action benefits are defined by law and they aren't white folks and furthermore will never be. Anybody expecting the now favored "minorities" to extend the favor later when they are the majority is whistling in the dark past the graveyard.

I find it remarkable that laws initially passed to help bring the descendants of slaves, many of whose ancestors had been in the US longer than those of many white US citizens, out of the economic cellar are now used to give favor to people newly arrived in this country. And it will only get worse as the newest arrivals bring in their immediate families, their aged parents, their adult children, and their siblings.

Family reunification (aka chain migration) is the single largest source of legal immigration. Isn't it amazing that we allow people newly in the US more contol over who is admitted to the US than we do to folks whose ancestors have fought and died in our wars, paid taxes for generations, obeyed the laws and been good citizens?

Add to this the fact that many of the new-comers (Mexicans for one) are allowed to hold dual citizenship and you have a potential major problem. To which nation will these new citizens hold loyalty? The US or the original country? When they vote, whose intersts are they voting for? Not the sort of questions to make for a good night's sleep, I fear.

Posted by: D Flinchum on February 1, 2008 6:08 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?