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 ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
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
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
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


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

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Popular Culture Can Be Strange | Main | Prog-Rock Linkage by Barry Wood »

February 11, 2008

Populations

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

The Pew Center predicts that by 2050 ...


  • The population of the U.S. will pass 430 million people. That's almost three times the number of people the US had when I was born. Nothing like cramming 'em in, eh?

  • White people will be in the minority. That's a dramatic development. It might also prove to be a dangerous one. People who are fans of this kind of thing: Please tell me how many times in history ethnic upheavals on this scale have occurred with good results.

A reminder: All this is unecessary. It's happening entirely because of the zany 1965 Immigration Act, and because of lax enforcement of what immigration law we do have. Unprecedented levels of crowding ... Unwanted and potentially dangerous ethnic turnabouts ... That's quite a legacy Ted Kennedy will be leaving us. No doubt he had the noblest of intentions, though.

Steve Sailer asks a good question: "How is affirmative action going to work when the beneficiaries outnumber the benefactors?" The New York Times Sam Roberts takes a look at the study's numbers.


Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at February 11, 2008




Comments

The British experience in the Dark Ages suggests that if you are prepared to wait for a millenium and a half, things can work out quite well. Mind you, the Anglo-Saxon and Irish invaders probably amounted to only a few percent of the population.

Posted by: dearieme on February 12, 2008 4:37 AM



Whites are currently less than half the population of California, and that doesn't seem to have made it unlivable or sent it rocketing to the bottom of US states in economic terms, as Will Wilkinson has pointed out. It's hard to see this kind of hand-wringing as anything but plain old-fashioned racism when clearly blacks, Asians, and even Latinos who have been here for generations don't count as "us" and get lumped in with the invading non-white hordes. Correcting for that, and even if you count Latinos as the filthy other unto the fourth generation, according to the Pew study forty years out the US will still be two thirds "us."

Posted by: Joshua on February 12, 2008 8:04 AM



Of course, it's considered extremely poor taste to mention this, but it's those eeevil white people who create most of the wealth and jobs in this country, and it will continue to be so once they're in the minority.

As whites move out of areas that come to be dominated by minorities, primarily Hispanics, the jobs they create will go with them. This will create a following exodus of Hispanics seeking those jobs. Imagine an aerial-view map of the USA, with population shifts shown as an animation, but sped up. You would see population masses moving from one area to another, with a larger mass appearing to "chase" it from place to place, almost as if it was a cartoon.

Posted by: c.o. jones on February 12, 2008 9:33 AM



Steve Sailer has written extensively about the great movie "Idiocracy."

I suggest that everybody see this movie. It's a great movie that centers around the refusal of white intellectuals to produce children.

Michael, you've neglected the other side of this issue, which Mark Steyn covers in depth... the refusal of white intellectual culture to fulfill its most important responsibility... the responsibility to have children. In white liberal society, the ideal is for adults to remain children, and to never produce children.

The reason that whites are becoming a minority in the U.S. is precisely because white intellectual culture has become obsessed with the individual at the expense of its own survival.

I have absolutely no desire to tell other people how to live. What you do in your own personal life is your own damned business.

White liberal intellectual society is commiting suicide over a protracted period. The only real question left is: Why has white liberal intellectual society suffered this complete breakdown of will and a total disinterest in its own survival?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 12, 2008 10:34 AM



As I was writing my comment, Joshua's comment appeared, answering my question.

Joshua hauls out the usual "racism" idiot remark. We can rely on some fool shitting out this stupidity. I'll bet the moron is white, too.

So, here's the answer to my question. In white liberal society, wearing a halo has become so important as a status symbol that taking care of your own interests and survival is seen as backward, sinful and stupid. The stupidity of Joshua's remarks is staggering, but that idiocy can be heard every day in Manhattan. Uttering this puerile shit earns the idiot the title "enlightened."

How did our white intellectual class become so infuriatingly dumb? Why do these people take such pride in their base, incredible fart cloud of stupidity?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 12, 2008 10:41 AM



Cowardice. That's why it's inevitable. The horror of being labeled racist is so great that our representatives - congressmen of both parties, who should/could oppose the immigration abomination - are allowing the deconstruction of America to continue. Far more important to be seen as respectable than to stand against changing the country utterly into something that will bear no resemblance to what it was.

Posted by: ricpic on February 12, 2008 10:53 AM



Dearieme -- 20 or 30 lifetimes then for things to settle down ... Well, why not? What's a little time in the grand scheme of things?

Joshua -- The resort to "racism" is a little ... tired, isn't it? If you're an advocate of a dramatic population increase and a dramatic ethnic rewriting of the U.S.'s makeup, why not say so straightforwardly? And volunteer a couple of reasons why you think they're good policy?

ST -- "Fart cloud" is nice. I wish more policy arguments would show that kind of vividness. Anyway, I'm sympathetic to your point but diverge from it a bit. After all, if some people don't want to have kids, or want to stop after one or two kids, what business is it of mine? And it's not as if the elite-intellectual class is so big that its fecundity is going to affect the U.S.'s numbers dramatically anyway. Mormons and Red Staters go on breeding at a good clip ...

I focus on immigration because that seems to me key. The U.S. hit replacement level around 1970. I interpret that to mean "the then-current inhabitants of this country thought that the country was at about the right population level. They didn't want bigger numbers, let alone dramatic numbers-growth." We'd grown in terms of numbers until we didn't really want to grow any further. We were expressing happiness with the way things were. Which is fine by me, for numerous reasons -- why would I quarrel with people's freely-expressed preferences (unless I thought they were really-truly nuts) for one thing? For another, my personal pref is for a little more space and a little less crowding.

And we could have gone on with a population of around 200 mill forever, as far as I'm concerned. Hard-working, inventive -- we'd have been prosperous, we'd have worked hard to increase productivity, life would have been fine, etc. But the '65 immigration law (and the sleazy behavior of greedhead righties wanting cheapo labor and power-hungry lefties wanting voters) spoiled it all. We got told everything would be fine, and fair, and that we needed skillions of hard-driving new arrivals to support our retirement, etc. All of which were lies, of course. And the decades passed, and the population grew, and the ethnic balance started to teeter more and more ...

The problem (in my view, anyway) isn't that "we" aren't breeding fast enough -- we're breeding plenty fast, at least so far as general preferences are concerned. We weren't exactly on the road to extinction. It's that we're letting 'way too many people in. That's what's throwing balance and equilibrium off. Breeding faster is of crucial importance only if you take it as a given that we're stuck welcoming tens of millions of newbies. I don't take that as a given.

Which may of course just mean that I'm being petulant ...

Anyway, instead of competing in a sweepstakes most people don't have any interest in competing in, why not just shut the door and get on with life? And with a kind of life that most Americans have already shown a strong preference for?

If Central America chooses to increase their population to a zillion people and wind up with cities of 100 million people, why not? But there's no reason I can see why we need to let a one of them into our territory if we don't choose to. Why not shut the door (wishing outsiders well, of course), and enjoy our hard work, the good luck of our functioning racial makeup, and our relative spaciousness?

Ricpic -- Yeah, I think that's hypersmart. The fear of being labeled a racist explains an awful lot these days. Any hunches about how or whether it'll stop being a roadblock? I can't, alas, see any way out of the predicament. Will someone have to stand up and defy accusations of racism in order to talk frankly and make sense? Is it realistic to think that anyone is ever going to prove that ballsy?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 12, 2008 11:09 AM



The switcheroo on population growth through immigration by ecologists, conservationists, neo-Luddites and other former anti-growthers is puzzling. Sort of. After all, having tens of millions more people, with said increase due to in-migration, is going to mean a lot more cars on the road, a lot more dependence on foreign oil, a much greater burden on the ecologies of the US, massive increases in the demand for housing, for the wood to build that housing, for cheap industrially-produced meat, etc. etc.

In other words, more immigration is bad for America's portion of Mother Earth. Remember Zero Population Growth? That was lefty, that was eco-freak stuff. But now...

Any attempt to even CONSIDER the question of whether America needs more people brings out the Instant Joshes of the world...one quick intake of breath or cock of pen...and then the R-word. Always the R-word.

And yet, the Joshes are often lefty on issues like suburban sprawl, car culture, industrial food factory farms, pollution, Global Warming, etc. Nontheless, they choose to forget about those issues when it comes to immigration.

I wonder...could it be that they were never really sincere about their eco-freakness? Could it be that they were really interested in ZPG among, oh, white people? That cars are bad only when they're driven by...white suburbanites? That the ecology can only be damaged by the activities of those damned Red State flyover country...white people?

Which explains, perhaps, the switcheroo. Immigration is just the latest way to target the same old group. It's just another weapon in the leftist arsenal to get rid of those...you know! Them!

Posted by: PatrickH on February 12, 2008 3:10 PM



So worrying about how White the nation is isn't racism? Using Whiteness as a proxy for how hard-working, inventive, etc. some segment of the population is isn't racism? Maybe people who talk like that get racism thrown in their faces a lot because those are by definition examples of racism. I can understand, and even sympathize to a degree, with a worry over the ratio of established members of a community towards newcomers, though I'm sure I'm way more comfortable with new-comers than most of your commenters. But when you shift to talking about Whites vs. others....well, that's racism, plain and simple.

Sure, I'll defend dramatic growth in population and shift in ethnic make-up straight-up. It's worked so far, and made America the great nation it is today. Not just "great nation" in terms of lofty ideals and Fourth of July platitudes, but economically great. During the period from 2003-2006 the US economy grew 2.2 trillion dollars, an add-on roughly equivalent to the entire Chinese economy.

During the early part of this century, a huge influx of immigrants shifted the ethnic and religious makeup of the country dramatically--from 1850 to 1906 Catholics went from being 5% of the population to over 17% of the population and became the single largest denomination in the country. And the nativists of the time said the exact same things about the new immigrants that you're saying about our new immigrants, they're lazy and shiftless, they drive down wages and take jobs from us, they crowd into places and make them unlivable, they really owe their loyalty to their home countries and the Pope, they refuse to learn the language and assimilate, etc., etc. And even if you're crazy enough to think that somehow we were more prosperous and economically secure in the 70's than today, you can't really think that the nativists of the 1800's had the better of the argument and we'd ought to have acted to keep the Irish and the rest of the riff-raff out? Yes, things are different now than they were then--for one thing, previous waves of immigration have made us vastly, unimaginably more wealthy than when your ancestors first came to this land looking to take away jobs from honest hard-working real Americans.

Posted by: Joshua on February 12, 2008 3:28 PM



"And the nativists of the time said the exact same things about the new immigrants that you're saying about our new immigrants..."

Yes, they said those things in part because those things were true.

Posted by: Brett on February 12, 2008 4:26 PM



Let's banish Joshua to Mexico. Everyone is clearly equal, so he should have no problem there. I'm sure with some of that ol' white magic he can come up with a great country down there in no time -- or is that black magic, or brown magic -- no difference. (By the way, please, state what equality is, Josh? To make your claims of racism, you must believe in equality. How -besides being told -- did you come up with everyone being equal?

Posted by: s on February 12, 2008 7:08 PM



What's missing in Joshua's commentary is the opinion of the American citizens about all this immigration, legal and illegal. They don't like it at all. Eighty to 90% think that its bad and should stop. They don't like the cheap immigrant labor displacing them from their jobs (and not really creating as many jobs as they take) or lowering their wages, etc.

Joshua doesn't really believe in democracy or the idea of a republic. But he's all for freedom, right?

And Joshua thinks about the plight of the poor immigrants and the terrible conditions of their place of origin, but he doesn't give a damn about national sovereignty or the situation of the citizens of this country. But remember, he cares about people, while we don't. Oh yes he does!

Joshua also thinks that affirmative action is okey-dokey as long as its whites who lose out, but he's not a racist--remember that! He thinks its great for race to be used for discrimination against whites in their own countries. He's okay with taking rights and opportunities away from people who have committed no crime and given to people who have never been victims, in the name of justice. That's what justice is--penalizing the innocent and redistrbuting their goods and opportunites to the unvictimized. That's very moral.

Joshua believes in affirmative action so much that he thinks it should be given without question to all non-whites who somehow cross the border, even if there has never been any discrimnation against their group by white Americans! Amazing! Do you think that fuels the immigration by non-whites into this country? But I digress.

Joshua is more moral than you, that's the main thing. He knows what justice is and believes in it, while you don't--remember that!

I wonder what Joshua thinks about the old white colonization and invasion of countries past and present. It must have been a good thing, according to his logic, because in "increased diversity and innovation", right guy? I mean, what's wrong with the invading population having special priviledges over the natives? I guess old India was RACIST! for not loving the whites from England lording over them and invading their country. I guess that they were RACIST! for not submitting eternally to the rule of monied interests and coporations who just wanted to suck them dry. Bastards, those Indians were, simply bastards and RACISTS!

Or is it a double standard? Hmmmm...

I wonder how ol' Joshua would feel if, say 600 million Chinese decided to flood into India and displace Indians from their jobs and land, and then demand preferential treatment, welfare and subsidies, and provisions to move all their relatives in later! I'm sure that Joshua would, with all his high falutin' moral talk, convince the Indians to submit and welcome the foreign invasion with open arms because its so non-RACIST! and morally superior! We all know how different races forced into the same space NEVER have any conflicts or problems. We all know the MORAL SUPERIORITY of a multi-racial, multi-cultural state over a mono-cultural and mono-racial state (think of Japan and China, or India and Pakistan). Diversity is much much better than unity. Oh yes, we know.

Joshua knows human nature, but you don't. joshua knows history, but you don't. Joshua is morally and intellectually superior to you, just you remember that!

Joshua doesn't really know much at all. He advocates tyranny, conflict, injustice, and the impoverishment of many millions, while thinking well of himself. The Land of Ideals! What a fine place that must be! I'll never see it though, and neither will you. Oh, the fantasies of another brainwashed college graduate! Somebody so smart that they paid a small fortune to be propagandized. Now that's an education!

And hey, one last thing, Joshua. Since you're so idealistic and truthful, why don't you tell us who put you up to this or whose interests you volunteered to represent here, because nobody is that naive about this immigration nonsense anymore. The internet debate was over last spring, and your side lost miserably. You're a bit slow on the uptake, eh? Tell us who you work for, please. I'm sure interested.

Posted by: BIOH on February 12, 2008 9:19 PM



Joshua -- OK, then, you're in favor of policies that a large majority of your fellow countrypeople dislike. Fair enough. But are you in favor of these policies prevailing over the preferences of a majority of your countrypeople?

As for the racism thing ... Other commenters will speak for themselves. But as for me, I've raised concerns about 1) crowding, ecology, and quality of lfie, and about 2) political consequences, both from the point of view of ethnic-mixture-upset and resentment on the part of current Americans. And the question about "whites" was raised by the articles I linked to, as well as the study they reported on.

So why not take me and my expressed concerns at their word? In any case, you're working pretty hard to find racism in any of this. If you're in the mood to go rooting for racism a far easier place to find it would be in the people who sponsor policies that have made American blacks lose considerable political power, as well lose as their traditional role in American society as the #2 ethnicity. Where's your outrage about how our immigration policies have been hard on American blacks? I'm outraged about it myself, but apparently that puts me under suspicion of racism.

Also, last I checked, immigration was shut off in the '20s because much of the country felt it had gotten completely out of hand; and the Irish took around 100 years to assimilate. Anyway, the country has never had one constant attitude towards immigration policy. It has tended to take in a bunch of people, then shut the valve off and digest the intake, then open it back up, then repeat the process. We've had an open valve since 1965. It's hardly out of keeping with usual US ways of doing things to suggest that maybe the time has come to close the valve down and give the country a chance to digest what it's taken in.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 12, 2008 10:12 PM



Because America has a lot of immigrants, it's economy grew by 2 trillion between 2003-2006? Smells like a post hoc fallacy to me.

Posted by: William on February 13, 2008 5:32 AM



That "growth" between 2003 and 2006 was simply the Federal Reserve pumping liquidity into the economy. And we know how that turned out, don't we?

Posted by: Bob Grier on February 13, 2008 10:28 AM



For millennia, regardless of geography, culture or ethnicity, the pattern has been that the elite have fewer offspring while serfs have higher birthrates. One can look at the immigrant waves from European countries a century ago and see exactly the same phenomenon; families of recent immigrants seemed huge compared to those of the middle and upper class native (not in the Amerindian sense) population. Or just look at the birthrates for the poor and poorly educated, regardless whether they've been here for generations and have ancestral roots in the British Isles. As education, wealth, and lifespan goes up, birthrates go down. One might even posit this as being a biologic imperative.

While Shouting Thomas lives up to his reputation by ranting against Joshua's first comment, he does not deal with Joshua's main point regarding when (if ever) Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and others will be accepted as "us" ... as REAL Americans. Given that Shouting Thomas has a Philippine significant other, does he think she is somehow inferior or not deserving of the benefits of citizenship? His comments would seem to indicate that he has the highest regard for her and her culture and would support her participating as a full and equal citizen, as one of "us". If so, then why the vehement attack on Joshua for raising the point that it is, by definition, racist if it doesn't matter how many generations non-white people may have been here in the US because 'if they ain't white, they ain't right'. Also, who among those commenting here is a full-blooded Sioux or Micmac? Or is there a year (1799? 1823?) that is the cutoff for determining when one's ancestors need to have arrived here in order to determine whether or not one is a "real" American or a filthy immigrant? Or is it about skin color?

And, at the risk of being jumped on for stupid leftist myopia, since we roam the planet, sucking up the resources from everywhere else to create our wonderful paradise, why should we be surprised when the folks whose oil or minerals or crops are shipped here want to follow? I don't see anyone arguing that when we close the borders to immigrants we also close the borders to manufactured goods from Asia or oil from Mexico.

So, let me ask Michael, Shouting Thomas, BIOH, et al whether they'd be on board for closing the borders if that meant not only closing them to immigrants, but also closing them to goods and services? Independent America of, by and for Americans ... no computer parts from Asia, no Chinese made washing machines, no customer service assistance from India. If so, maybe you can count me on your side, until then it seems like you want to eat your cake and have it, too.

Posted by: Chris White on February 13, 2008 11:02 AM



Chris White: "For millennia, regardless of geography, culture or ethnicity, the pattern has been that the elite have fewer offspring while serfs have higher birthrates."

Apparently that's not true, at least not all the time. Brian Sykes, who's made painstaking studies of English historical demographics, suggests that for most of the medieval and early modern period the prosperous had more offspring and more surviving offspring than the poor. It's true that the aristocracy had relatively low fertility; we're talking about well-off merchants, farmers, and artisans. Part of the reason was cultural: men and women were expected to delay marriage until they afford their own households, and non-marital childbearing was discouraged.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on February 13, 2008 12:37 PM



Chris White,

I almost don't really know where to start with your post. As usual, you display a shocking ignorance of economics, which is one of the main reasons you have wholeheartedly accepted the socialist worldview. Let me help you out on this one.

The United States lost its manufacturing base because we printed up so much money to pay for foreign wars and welfare that our labor prices became uncompetitive with the rest of the world. There are two ways to handle this situation. The first is to pass tariffs on foreign goods to protect our industries AND stop the overspending and printing of money for warfare and welfare. This would cause a major bout of inflation here for a while. Or, we can just ship the jobs and factories overseas, looking for the cheapest slave labor, and then ship the finished goods back here. Our economy would then become the infamous "service" economy, where we don't manufacture the goods, but we just sell them and run up debts. Eventually, our workers won't be able to afford even these cheap goods when all the jobs are gone. But more importantly, this second alternative is VERY attractive to corporations who make immense profits on this labor cost arbitrage.

You see, your love of the government leads to both warfare and welfare, bankruptcy, the loss of our manufacturing base,and the rise of a corporatocracy, but you just can't see it. The monied interests just lobby the government to wage wars for the sake of their business interests, hence the manufature of foreign enemies and war itself. And then the losers in the economic game, whose jobs have been shipped overseas, lobby the governmnet for wealth transfer schemes to make ends meet. It impoverishes and punishes everybody, as this vicous circle reinforces itself. Eventually we end up with a gigantic totalitarian government, and history tells us that these governments always turn against and oppress their own citizens.

The real solution to these problems is to try to develop all countries so that they are as independent as possible, and only trade for things that they need. It would even be better for businesses too. Think about this--if borders were basically far less open to trade and people than they are now, countries would HAVE to become more self-sufficient. A General Motors would make more money, because instead of making cars in one country with workers that can't even afford the cars they make, and selling them to another country, this restriction of trade would mean that GM would have to pay these workers enough to buy the cars in that country, or they would have no reason to be there.

The free movement of people is a corporatist and totalitarian government tactic to impoverish the people of one country and divide them along lines of race so that they can't topple the powers that be. In a free society/world this situation simply wouldn't happen.

The United States doesn't really need the production or peoples of the rest of the world here. And all those resources that foreigners send here would be better spent on developing their own countries. The US has no business poaching the most talented foreigners and bringing them here to undercut American labor. Its just another form of colonialism, as far as I'm concerned. Its also just a vicous form of pseudo-capitalism run amok.

Personally, I would be very happy if we would rebuild our manufacturing base, greatly shut down our borders, and stop a lot of the foreign trade. It would be the best thing to solve our welfare state and raise American wages.

I'm really tired of leftists calling white Americans and europeans racist. I can't thnk of any population that has been more tolerant of foreign peoples intheir midst than whites. But if somehow we don't want to lose our homelands to a foreign invasion of truly unimaginable proportions, we are somehow morally deficient.

Please stop this line of argumentation. Its insulting and false. You never apply that line of reasoning to non-white countries, just us. Stop it with the propaganda. Nobody is buying it anymore.

Posted by: BIOH on February 13, 2008 12:47 PM



I thank BIOH for offering a view that is at least somewhat consistent, namely calling for tighter borders not just in terms of immigration, but also trade. He is also willing to have our economy become more insulated and isolated and sees that corporate interests are not necessarily in synch with the interests of the people. If he more carefully read my comment he would see that I said that if those railing against immigration were also willing to call for tight borders in terms of trade and capital as well, then you might count me on board.

And if there are caveats to my understanding about the relationship between level of prosperity and family size, so be it. In general the poorer and less educated a family is, the more children they are likely to have.

Where I have difficulty is the way anti-immigration becomes anti-immigrant and the way so many immigration hawks seem to want to keep the lifestyle we've developed, which is based on global free trade, but don't like it when people want to move as freely as goods and capital.

Posted by: Chris White on February 13, 2008 5:53 PM



Chris White,

Very quickly--what the elites are trying to create with the free-trade/open borders tactic is called "neo-mercantilism". If you look it up, you'll get an eyeful.

Posted by: BIOH on February 13, 2008 8:22 PM



Michael Blowhard: ...and the Irish took around 100 years to assimilate....

Sorry 'bout that!

If I were to guess, I'd say that a couple of important factors that affected Irish Catholic integration into American society were 1) the huge influx -- in the millions -- of Irish immigrants to the States -- it's just not possible to quickly assimilate such large groups of people (which is why, in my opinion, mass immigration can be such a big mistake!); and, 2) the Irish (like many peoples) have a tendency to inbreed too much -- I'm not talking so much about close inbreeding (cousin marriage, for instance), but just sticking to the practice of regularly marrying other Irish people. That certainly does not help integration!

Having said that, here are a couple of notes about all the recent Mexican immigrants to the U.S.

This consanguinity map on consang.net is a bit misleading because it makes it appear that Mexicans have a cousin-marriage rate similar to that of the U.S. (less than 1%). If you look at the data tables on that site, though, you’ll see that that figure is based on findings from two studies (which I guess were averaged out for the map?).

One study done in Mexico City in 1961/64 showed a 0.3% consanguinity rate (which is already higher than the States unless you’re looking at somewhere like W. Virginia) — the other study covers “all-Mexico” in 1956/57 found a 1.3% consanguinity rate (first- and second-cousin marriages). That’s what? — 1 in every 75 marriages at the time having been between cousins?

Further, a 1980 study of the Hispanic population of Abiquiu, New Mexico, showed significant levels of endogamy in that community. And from a 2001 study, this to me reads as though endogamy increased between 1980 and 1990 amongst Mexican immigrants in the States, although maybe I’m reading it wrong:

“An empirical extension further suggests that the relative endogamy odds among Mexican immigrants who migrated to the United States by 1980 increased during the next decade.”

I think that the fact that the U.S. has taken in (is taking in!) so many Mexican immigrants so quickly -- and the fact that they appear to "inbreed" or be more endogamous than the majority of U.S. citizens -- does not bode well for the prospects of Mexican integration into American society.

Posted by: Hibernia Girl on February 13, 2008 10:23 PM



Well, BIOH, I make no claims in terms of my knowledge of advanced economics. On your suggestion I did take a tour through Wikipedia beginning with "neo-mercantilism". It left me very confused as to what economic theory you subscribe to, which nations you see as practicing neo-mercantilism, what theory you think the US is currently following and what you would suggest as a better alternative.

The capsule definition of "neo-mercantilism" offered was "a policy regime which encourages exports, discourages imports, controls capital movement and centralizes currency decisions in the hands of a central government." This leads me to conclude that the most significant example of "neo-mercantilism" at work today is China.

Bouncing through links I see classical mercantilism offered as the dominant economic theory followed by European nations during the era of imperial expansion, which developed great wealth but ultimately led to the series of wars engaged in by European countries during the arc of time from the 18th to the 20th Centuries.

Adam Smith emerged with a different approach that provides the theoretical basis for "free trade" and the "invisible hand of the market" and many of the other hallmarks of the modern capitalist system. Smith in turn provided the basis for Keynes who would seem to be the economist most associated with the New Deal era, with government's hand on the economic tiller. He has in turn inspired critics who felt a more laissez-faire approach was better, most notably Milton Friedman whose theories seem to have dominated among conservatives and libertarians in the current period.

So, the question in terms of immigration remains; when goods, capital and services are following a laissez-faire free trade model but closed border protectionism is being called for in terms of people also moving freely, what are the results? And are tight borders consistent with laissez-faire free trade?

Posted by: Chris White on February 14, 2008 2:30 PM



Mercantilism, as defined on Wikipedia, is hard to understand, but its not really. The best way to describe it is in reference to the monarchies of Old Europe and how they tried to control their colonies.

England, Spain, France, Germany, etc. wanted to keep control of their colonies. They way they did this was militarily and economically. The military way we all know. But economically, they set up a system where the colonies would always be subservient and dependent on the ruling country.

The colonies would be allowed to produce raw materials only. Advanced manufacture was prohibited. These raw materials would be shipped to the ruling country (England, for instance), and then the English would create finished goods to be shipped back to the colony for purchase. In that way, the colony would always be running a trade deficit with the ruling country, since the raw materials cost much less than the finished goods. England would run a trade surplus, which would be made up with colonial payments of gold and silver to the royal treasury. And of course, the colony would have to buy its finished goods exclusively from the ruling country. Neat, huh? In this way, the colonies were kept in debt, dependent, and controlled by the ruling country. The American Revolution was waged to get out from under this type of tyranny.

Wikipedia only describes the ultimate aim of this system as accumulating gold and silver by running trade surpluses, but they leave out the colonialism part. That makes it hard to understand.

"Neo-colonialism" is a bit different. In order to understand neo-colonialism, you first have to understand that the elites of the world want to create a one-world government, run through the UN. If you don't believe that, well, that's okay, but it will be hard to understand what's going on if you don't.

The new neo-colonialist system is like the old colonialism, except that there will be no true ruling country. The countries of the world will be divided into raw material producers and industrial manufacturers, who will always be dependent on some other country for what they are not allowed to produce (raw materials or finished goods) so that they will never be able to be truly independent. If the country in question doesn't cooperate, the rest of the countries in the world can shut the rogue economy down, effectively crashing it.

The UN comes into play as the world government then. Already the UN is trying to become a real de facto government by having the ability to levy taxes. The taxes it wants are the global carbon tax and the Law of The Sea Treaty tax (at least for starters). Gordon Brown said today that the "world needs a global army". What he is saying is that the UN will actually have a real army with major offensive weapons, and not be "peacekeepers" anymore (I guess that seeing UN guys in uniforms softened people up for this). Only nation-states have the ability to levy taxes and raise armies. Not anymore!

The rogue states who want independence will be invaded and set straight by this "global army" for one reason or another (such as impeding the "free flow of peoples and goods" or for "environmental degradation", or some other made-up excuse). See, "global warming", "open borders", and "free trade" are just ways to undermine national sovereignty. Its all just made up junk to get us under their control and make us slaves. The elites don't say that, but its true.

The Unites States is under full assault by these people. Our ability to produce finished goods has been slowly shipped out to other countries for the last 50 years. And our natural resources have been capped and put out of producution through environmental laws, lawsuits, regulation, etc. I'm not saying these things are all bad, but the goal has been to make America weak and to crash our economy for good. Why? So that the global elite can merge the US wih Canada and Mexico. When they make a new country, they can rewrite the laws then, so goodbye Constitution! Then we all fall under the neo-colonialist global system.

I sympathize with people who come to America and want a better life. After all, this same game has been played on many of them too. But you have to realize that this giant influx is not meant to make anyone's life better, its meant to make it worse. Its meant to drive down wages, bankrupt the government through welfare wealth transfers, and create ethnic strife so Americans can't unite and will be fighting one another instead of the elites. I understand this, which is why I get so mad about this topic. A lot of the coverage on immigration hides this facet completely. And its hard to explain this to people because they don't have the economic background to understand it properly.

But that (in a nutshell) is what's going on. My take is that to fight it, we need to insist on the rule of law, and take the tactic of ethnic warfare off the table as much as possible, which means shutting down the border. We need to get rid of this welfare state which is designed to bankrupt us, and rebuild our manufacturing base. We need to be as self-sufficient as possible, and only trade for what we can't make ourselves. And so should the other countries of the world, if they want to keep national sovereignty and subamarine this hideous design of global enslavement once and for all.

I hope that explains it.

Posted by: BIOH on February 14, 2008 10:06 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?