ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The 10 blocks of immigration

Paul Collier has an excellent article in the New Statesman summarizing what should be the beginning point for any rational discussion on immigration. And you will note that NONE of the points of evidence are in harmony with the assumptions that are taken for granted by most pro-immigrationists, whereas many of them are in-line with anti-immigration policies.
Block 1 Around 40 per cent of the population of poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. There is evidence that suggests this figure is not a wild exaggeration of how people would behave. If migration happened on anything approaching this scale, the host societies would suffer substantial reductions in living standards. Hence, in attractive countries, immigration controls are essential.

Block 2 Diasporas accelerate migration. By “diasporas”, I mean those immigrants and their descendants who have retained strong links with their home societies, rather than cutting loose and integrating into their host societies. These links cut the costs of migration and so fuel it. As a result, while diasporas are growing, migration is accelerating. Diasporas continue to increase until immigration is matched by the rate at which immigrants and their offspring are absorbed into the general population. A crucial implication of this interconnection is that the policies for migration and diasporas must be compatible.

Block 3 Most immigrants prefer to retain their own culture and hence to cluster together. This reduces the speed at which diasporas are absorbed into the general population. The slower the rate at which they are absorbed, the lower the rate of immigration that is compatible with stable diasporas and migration. By design, absorption is slower with multicultural policies than with assimilative policies.

Block 4 Migration from poor countries to rich ones is driven by the wide gap in income between them. This gap is the moral horror story of our times. The difference in incomes is ultimately due to differences in political and social structures: poor countries have political and social systems that are less functional than those in rich ones. Their dysfunctional systems persist in part because they are embedded in the identities and narratives of local cultures. Migrants are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their culture with them.

Block 5 In economic terms, migrants are the principal beneficiaries of migration but many suffer a wrenching psychological shock. As far as can be judged from the net effect on happiness, the economic gains and psychological costs broadly offset each other, although the evidence on this is currently sketchy.

Block 6 Because migration is costly, migrants are not among the poorest people in their home countries. The effect on those left behind depends ultimately on whether emigrants speed political and social change back home or slow it down. A modest rate of emigration, as experienced by China and India, helps, especially if many migrants return home. However, an exodus of the young and skilled – as suffered by Haiti, for example – causes a haemorrhage that traps the society in poverty.

Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial. Economies are not damaged by immigration; nor do they need it. The distributional effects can be more substantial but they depend on the composition of immigration. In Australia, which permits only the immigration of the skilled, the working classes probably gain from having more skilled people to work with. In Europe, which attracts many low-skilled migrants, the indigenous poor probably lose out through competition for social housing, welfare, training and work. The clearest effect on the jobs market is that new migrants compete with existing migrants, who would consequently be substantial beneficiaries of tighter controls.

Block 8 The social effects of immigration outweigh the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy. These effects come from diversity. Diversity increases variety and this widening of choices and horizons is a social gain. Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and generosity. Co-operation rests on co-ordination games that support both the provision of public goods and myriad socially enforced conventions. Generosity rests on a widespread sense of mutual regard that supports welfare systems. Both public goods and welfare systems benefit the indigenous poor, which means they are the group most at risk of loss. As diversity increases, the additional benefits of variety get smaller, whereas the risks to co-operation and generosity get greater. Each host society has an ideal level of diversity and hence an ideal size of diasporas.

Block 9 The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. The right to control immigration is asserted by all societies. You do not have the automatic right to move to Kuwait; nor do the Chinese have the automatic right to move to Angola, although millions would if they could. Nor do Bangladeshis have the automatic right to move to Britain and claim a share of its social and economic capital. It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis. Thousands of French people want to live in Britain, while thousands of Britons want to live in France. Yet if flows become too unbalanced, rights derived from mutual advantage can be withdrawn: Australia, for instance, withdrew them from Britain. The expansion of the EU has created these unbalanced situations and the original reciprocal right may therefore need modification.

Block 10 Migration is not an inevitable consequence of globalisation. The vast expansion in trade and capital flows among developed countries has coincided with a decline in migration between them.
Block 8 is partially incorrect, and even that quasi-error is mitigated by the fact that Collier points out that while the "widening of choices and horizons is a social gain", diversity itself is not. Block 7, of course, is completely wrong, as evidenced by American post-1973 wage stagnation.

The biggest falsehood concerning immigration is that it is good for the economy. I'll address this in a future post, but the TL;DR version can be understood by simply comparing GDP and immigration rates from 1900 to 2010.

Labels:

63 Comments:

Anonymous Stilicho January 15, 2014 9:37 AM  

Block 7 is wrong where it posits that immigration has no effect on average incomes in high income societies. Supply and demand will not be denied. High income societies may feel it only around the fringes to start (i.e. low wage industries) but it will have an effect. It appears that Collier is arguing that for every relatively low wage native who loses income as a result of immigration, there is a high income native whose income increases proportionally by paying lower wages. This ignores a myriad of other factors, but I can best illustrate it by reminding you of the old joke about economists: "assume a static model" or "assume a capitalist system". Obviously we have neither and there are economic costs to immigration that are undreamt of in Collier's philosophy.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2014 9:39 AM  

Only Block 8 is partially incorrect, and even that quasi-error is mitigated by the fact that Collier points out that while the "widening of choices and horizons is a social gain", diversity itself is not.

Oh come now, diversity is a huge win for everyone. For example, I love THAI food, Mexican food, and Brazilian steak!

Also, if anyone has the name of a good private security company, can you please let me know. Thanks.

OpenID 8to12 January 15, 2014 9:41 AM  

In America, everyone dances around the real reason that both major parties (Democrat & Republican) talk big on immigration, but never do anything.

The status quo--high numbers of illegal immigrants--suppresses wages.

There's a reason the Chamber of Commerce always works to undermine any immigration reform (one way or the other). The status quo benefits businesses. Even if a business never hires a single illegal immigrant, it benefits from the overall lower wage level produced by the larger pool of potential workers.

And those that do hire illegal workers are free to treat them however they want as to working conditions, payment levels, and benefits. They're her illegally; who are they going to complain to?

If anyone doesn't realize that both the Democrat and Republican parties are in the back pocket of business, they need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Until we start discussing who benefits from the current system, we'll be stuck with the status quo.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 9:44 AM  

Block 7 is wrong where it posits that immigration has no effect on average incomes in high income societies.

Yes, I mentioned it without identifying it. Corrected.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 9:47 AM  

Yes, block 7 is completely wrong, given any substantial amount of immigration. If immigration levels are kept low (less than 0.1% of the populations/year, say), then it may be valid.

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2014 9:49 AM  

There's a reason the Chamber of Commerce always works to undermine any immigration reform (one way or the other). The status quo benefits businesses. Even if a business never hires a single illegal immigrant, it benefits from the overall lower wage level produced by the larger pool of potential workers.

It only benefits from lowered wages as long as those wages are still high enough to enable customers to purchase their products. Once that tipping point is reached, credit substitutes wages until the that debt can no longer be serviced.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2014 10:02 AM  

Yes, block 7 is completely wrong, given any substantial amount of immigration. If immigration levels are kept low (less than 0.1% of the populations/year, say), then it may be valid.

I think pointing out Australia is the correct way to do this. For a country of 300 million+, like the US, it's hard to imagine we need to import anyone to do anything permanently. In a smaller country, with 20 million say, it's certainly plausible.

One of the most difficult placements I ever made was in New Zealand. It's a small island nation, but they have strict laws also. And there are a good many jobs where there is no local talent because it's for a very small niche field. In the US, it stretches the mind that would ever need to import anything.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 15, 2014 10:02 AM  

7 is so so wrong.

Australia doesn't need migrants at all. They exist only to fuel the property bubble and take on additional credit, and to undercut wages.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 15, 2014 10:03 AM  

Skilled migration is just an excuse for employers to not train the young or to give them entry level positions. It is cost shifting that onto society.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 15, 2014 10:12 AM  

You also better look at what qualifies as skilled.

If it was some machinist/fabricator or surgeon that had super specialist knowledge then you could say their high skills are legimately required.

But as it stands it is just donkey positions like hairdressers and IT workers. Things which there already exists a large labour supply.

Super specialist skilled labour can be a guest worker, like you would see in the Oil rich Arab peninsula. Work there for the money, then go back home, or on to the next place that needs your skills.

There is no need to permanently settle such people. So skilled migration doesn't hold true either.

Anonymous bob k. mando January 15, 2014 10:24 AM  

hail to the king, baby, hail to the king:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/philly/super-page/its-that-time-of-the-year-again-break-out-the-offensive-martin-luther-king-day-club-posters/

i love how offended the SWPL guys at barstoolsports are about these posters when it's clear that every single one of them was produced by blacks, for blacks, to promote black events.

that's RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

it's a tone deaf as Scalzi getting mad about Hunger Games covers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DelhLppPSxY

Anonymous Will Best January 15, 2014 10:36 AM  

Don't be silly. Of course immigration is good for the economy. With immigration labor becomes cheaper, and the economy ALWAYS benefits when a resource becomes cheaper.

If memory serves even with all the absurd assumptions the pols tell the CBO to make, they still had to admit that immigration would suppress real household income by 0.1%. Which should scare the crap out of anybody currently living here. Because if they can't even game the number into positive territory you are probably looking at a loss in the 5-10% range when it actually happens.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 15, 2014 10:46 AM  

Yeah, but does the "resource" always benefit when the resource becomes cheaper?

Lol ...

Anonymous Pete January 15, 2014 11:08 AM  

"The difference in incomes is ultimately due to differences in political and social structures: poor countries have political and social systems that are less functional than those in rich ones. Their dysfunctional systems persist in part because they are embedded in the identities and narratives of local cultures. Migrants are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their culture with them."

Das raciss!

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 11:16 AM  

Block 9 is supremely important. What happens if you move a million blacks onto an Indian reservation and orchestrate media messaging, education and laws to pressure the Indians to assimilate? That tribe will cease to exist; its genotype and culture will end. What happens if you move large populations of Javanese Muslims onto regions inhabited by Dayaks, and the government is determined to favor power and fertility for the Javanese Muslims in every way? The Dayaks have no future. What happens if you do the same thing in East Timor? The East Timorese kicked up all the fuss they could, because they understood that unless they did that and succeeded, the future was not going to include East Timorese.

Collective survival - which need not be about direct violence - is the one issue that over-rides all other issues.

Blogger Clint January 15, 2014 11:17 AM  

OT:
Mike Zimmer headed to Minnesota. I think that is a good hire. Good defensive mind. Still need a QB, though.

Anonymous LES January 15, 2014 11:25 AM  

Pro-immigration "reform" friends reluctantly agree that they do not want unlimited numbers of people immigrating to the US. I can't get them to be specific because that would mean they would have to admit they are for "reform" only because they want to be "politically correct".

Anonymous Molon Rouge January 15, 2014 11:26 AM  

All the points are rational and logical. HOWEVER, our Congress critters are anything but rational. They want the new immigrants not for the good of the country but the good of their own power and glory!

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2014 11:28 AM  

There's no economic case for immigration when the unemployment rate is above 2 or 3%.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 11:32 AM  

ScuzzaMan: "Yeah, but does the "resource" always benefit when the resource becomes cheaper?"

According to Ayn Rand, yes. You also benefit when you don't get a job you applied for (and presumably also when you get fired), because presumably someone better go it, and that benefits everyone, and you're one of the number that makes up "everyone".

Objectivism has a surprisingly "collectivist" and almost spiritual understanding of "benefit" when it switches from considering the concrete, personal benefits the elite ought to gain (and which they are free to organize collectively to secure) to the benefits the non-elites ought to have to make do with (and which they are not free to organize collectively to improve on).

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 11:46 AM  

LES: "I can't get them to be specific because that would mean they would have to admit they are for "reform" only because they want to be "politically correct"."

Experience says they won't change their mind till the calculus of personal status benefits to them of professing various opinions shifts.

It's monstrous, because they're really favoring white genocide as long as that's what the cool kids are for. There's no level of treachery (or short-sightedness) that could be worse.

Then again, the same kind of people favor slaughter for unborn babies (and in the right jurisdictions partial-birth abortion) as long as that's the fashionable opinion, so it's not as if their views on mass immigration could make their moral status worse.

If I could have three wishes, they might go like this:
1. Stop white genocide.
2. End abortion.
3. Re: item 1: not those traitors who were all for it as long as they thought it made them more acceptable to the elite. Let them fade away and let their names be lost.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 11:54 AM  

Molon Rouge: "All the points are rational and logical. HOWEVER, our Congress critters are anything but rational. They want the new immigrants not for the good of the country but the good of their own power and glory!"

It's not just your politicians, it's also politicians and members of the mass media in all white countries and only white countries, from Australia to Canada and England to Sweden, Local conditions are different, economic circumstances are different, history is different, cultures are different, the rationals are different (and often shift), but the endgame rationalized never varies: it must be non-white mass immigration, and pressure for assimilation.

Meanwhile people like Tim Wise, people who make a good living off official favor for their views, go around making it quite clear they want white people to be no more.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 12:24 PM  

"poor countries have political and social systems that are less functional than those in rich ones. Their dysfunctional systems persist in part because they are embedded in the identities and narratives of local cultures. Migrants are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their culture with them."

Cool story bro.

OpenID newrebeluniv January 15, 2014 12:37 PM  

The benefits and costs of immigration are also highly dependent on the need of the host country to have more residents of whatever quality. This, 1850-1900 America with unsettled wide open spaces and an insufficient number of robots to work in factories and farms could claim to "need" immigration. 2014 America cannot make the same claim. In any case, the policy of any country should always be based on what is good for the current citizens of the country. No other basis is moral.

--Hale

Blogger JDC January 15, 2014 12:44 PM  

Mike Zimmer headed to Minnesota. I think that is a good hire. Good defensive mind. Still need a QB, though.

Johnny football is just waiting to don the purple and gold.

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2014 12:50 PM  

Where is the white genocide?
There are more whites on the planner then at any other time in history.

You can't extrapolate data out to 40 years and scream that genocide is happening today.

Anonymous CMC January 15, 2014 1:03 PM  

From Block 8: [i]Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and generosity.[/i]

I did not like his adding the superfluous qualifier 'potentially,' but seems to have corrected it later. Maybe it's just a conditioned, knee-jerk-like habit of writing (and thinking?) on his part.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 15, 2014 1:07 PM  

You ask "Where is white genocide?"

I have been involved with a small town Little League org. for 35 years. Either on the board of directors, team manager, or coach. The league has dropped from a peak of 360 players all boys at the time, to 180 last season. At a current meeting the question as asked where are the kids. My answer is dead. I remember families with 3-5 boys in the league. Now seeing a family with two is unique. Mostly a set of twins. How many babies have we murdered in the womb. How many has been prevented? Prevented so mommy could have a career? To me the question is obvious.

HKC

Anonymous CMC January 15, 2014 1:11 PM  

Pardon.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 15, 2014 1:28 PM  

According to Ayn Rand, yes.

Oh, well. In THAT case ...

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 2:30 PM  

> (and which they are not free to organize collectively to improve on).

You know, I could make a lot of snide comments about Rand if I wanted to, but I can't think of anyplace she actually said that. She probably did object to union membership being required as a condition of employment or unions being granted special protections under the law, but those aren't the same thing.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 3:04 PM  

Oh, and on economic subjects, apparently the ogre of deflation is now a concern for the IMF.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2014 3:13 PM  

The benefits and costs of immigration are also highly dependent on the need of the host country to have more residents of whatever quality. This, 1850-1900 America with unsettled wide open spaces and an insufficient number of robots to work in factories and farms could claim to "need" immigration. 2014 America cannot make the same claim. In any case, the policy of any country should always be based on what is good for the current citizens of the country. No other basis is moral.

We are always told that the Constitution should not be followed to the T, or that Washington's Farewell Address about foreign entanglements should not be heeded because they are from a different time that no longer exists. Modern realities make them obsolete. Yet when it comes to immigration, the open borders crowd is always citing the period you reference as some sort of precedent that America must always take, take, take more and more immigrants. The same thing should be said to them, that America today is a completely different country and those old ideas about mass immigration being a necessity are obsolete.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2014 3:21 PM  

Where is the white genocide?
There are more whites on the planner then at any other time in history.

You can't extrapolate data out to 40 years and scream that genocide is happening today.


It's true there are no death camps, or mass starvation like the Holodmor. But if trends don't improve, European peoples will start to shrink not only in terms of the percentage of Earth's inhabitants, but in absolute numbers as well.

In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world’s population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent.

More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in real terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth — a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany — will vanish by 2060.

The Caucasian race is going the way of the Mohicans.

Arabic peoples, 94 million at the birth of Israel in 1948, outnumbered seven to one by Europeans, will rise to 743 million in 2060, a tenfold increase, and will be 75 percent of the white population.

Fleshing out the NPI picture is the U.N. population survey of mid-2007 that points to the 21st century disappearance of Western Man.

By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million. Such losses dwarf what Hitler and Stalin together did to these countries.


Blogger Res Ipsa January 15, 2014 3:54 PM  

Vox,

Well done.

The evidence clearly supports the "close the boarders and start kicking them out" crowd.

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2014 4:59 PM  

It's true there are no death camps, or mass starvation like the Holodmor. But if trends don't improve, European peoples will start to shrink not only in terms of the percentage of Earth's inhabitants, but in absolute numbers as well.

That's not genocide.

Demographics aren't static.

Blogger Nate January 15, 2014 5:01 PM  

"In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world’s population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent."

Whoever wrote this is an idiot.

in 1950 there were 30 black babies born for every 20 white babies.

Now there are 11.5 black babies born for every 10.7 white babies.

Once you account for life expectancy differences you realize the population ratio has actually reversed and the black population as a whole is now losing to whites.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2014 6:07 PM  

That's not genocide.

According to Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.

One could argue that mass immigration of new cultures into white nations, which then leads to demographic changes that bring about new languages, religions and cultures, is in fact genocide. That phrase about the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, is something that a sizable chunk of people in white nations believe is happening right now. If true, then that is in fact genocide.

If this were only a matter of white demographics declining that would be one thing. But we are looking at the deliberate replacement of Euro populations, or at the very least, the watering down of those populations. Other nations are having a demographic dip. For example, Japan is suffering a similar demographic fate as the white nations. But there is no effort to augment or replace Japanese citizens with non-Japanese through mass immigration, or even any immigration for that matter. Therefore, the situation of the peoples of white nations is different that just saying "demographics are not static". If and when the Japanese return to normal birth rates, the nation will still be Japanese. That is not going to be the case in white nations where new populations are being settled and subsidized to reproduce.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2014 6:12 PM  

Now there are 11.5 black babies born for every 10.7 white babies.

Where is this statistic from? Is this worldwide, or localized to some nation?

Blogger Nate January 15, 2014 6:47 PM  

"Where is this statistic from? Is this worldwide, or localized to some nation?"

United States.

Blogger TangoMan January 15, 2014 6:57 PM  

11B wrote: "In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world’s population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent."


Nate wrote: Whoever wrote this is an idiot.

in 1950 there were 30 black babies born for every 20 white babies.

Now there are 11.5 black babies born for every 10.7 white babies.


11B's quote makes clear reference to global population dynamics and is easily verifiable by checking African population statistics and comparing them to Western demographic growth. For instance, the population of Ethiopia in 1960 was 22 million and in 2010 it was 87 million, a nearly 300% increase over 50 years. The United Kingdom had a population of 52 million in 1960 and a population of 62 million in 2010, a 19% increase in 50 years. (Let's ignore the contribution that immigration and births to immigrants in, ahem, both nations.)

The idiot here is not 11B.

Anonymous 11B January 15, 2014 7:05 PM  

"Where is this statistic from? Is this worldwide, or localized to some nation?"

United States.

Nate, you wrote that there are 11.5 black babies born for every 10.7 white babies today. I don't see this. The black population was around 10 percent of the US total in 1965. Today it is closer to 13 percent, while the white share has fallen from around 85% to somewhere in the high 60s. The black share is actually increasing.

Add to this the increasing number of white women having black kids. Are those kids included in the white baby total or the black baby total? Unless black birthrates have cratered, I'd think they are holding their own and then some in the US. Obviously worldwide, they are exploding. But in America blacks are increasing in percentages while whites are declining. The increasing racial mixing is only accelerating this trend.

Blogger TangoMan January 15, 2014 7:07 PM  

in 1950 there were 30 black babies born for every 20 white babies.

Now there are 11.5 black babies born for every 10.7 white babies.


It's important to note that the crucial factor here is not the white:black ratio but the carrying capacity of the white population.

When there were 7 whites for every black, then the white population could afford to extend outreach efforts and set-asides and a whole assortment of other wealth transfer mechanisms in order to try to equalize outcomes between the white and black populations.

When Asians, Hispanics, South Asians, Middle Easterners, etc also get the same outreach and set-aside efforts, which come out of the hides of whites, then the carrying capacity of the white population drops from a 7:1 ratio to a ratio approaching parity with the rising generation, 1:1, (50% of children enrolled in kindergarten were non-white)

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 7:22 PM  

newrebeluniv: "The benefits and costs of immigration are also highly dependent on the need of the host country to have more residents of whatever quality."

That makes sense.

Which raises the question: why does Australia need Sudanese? And why does it need more and more sub-Saharan Africans in general? And why does Sweden need Somalis? And why does Minnesota need... (etc.)

Why is "diversity" only imposed on white countries?

What's going on is a global pattern that has nothing to do with the individual needs of different countries.

That's just a rationale - one of many - for imposing non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries and only in white countries.

The common thread would be elimination of the Indo-European genotype, in whole or in part. The common thread is not "need for low-cost, high-quality labor" or something like that.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 7:32 PM  

Josh: "Where is the white genocide?"

Everywhere policies of non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries and only white countries are pushed.

Josh: "There are more whites on the planner then at any other time in history."

Old, dying people whose children, when they weren't aborted in the first place, are now being crowded out of their habitat don't count.

Josh: "You can't extrapolate data out to 40 years and scream that genocide is happening today."

The argument that non-white mass immigration and forced assimilation in all white countries and only white countries is the key to a program of genocide doesn't depend on extrapolating data out to forty years. A set of policies targeted against a particular group and calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, for example by suppressing births within the group (and not necessarily by violence) is the crime of genocide (or attempted genocide) even if it doesn't work. The crime is the attempt. The attempt is right now and for decades past.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 7:37 PM  

aaaaturkey: "Australia doesn't need migrants at all."

I agree.

aaaaturkey: "They exist only to fuel the property bubble and take on additional credit, and to undercut wages."

If that's what this is really about, then why is the same sort of mass immigration happening in other white countries (and only white countries) where there is no property bubble, where the local conditions and the local history are different, and different rationales are used?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 9:29 PM  

James Dixon: "You know, I could make a lot of snide comments about Rand if I wanted to, but I can't think of anyplace she actually said that."

Fair enough. But I also can't think of anything unions could actually do that she approved of. You could have a "labor union" that workers could pay fees to if they wanted, but for it to actually be a labor union it would have to engage in collective bargaining, with a credible (and preferably legal) threat to strike, exclude scabs and so on if it didn't get what it wanted. Ayn Rand's attitude to all of that was not friendly.

At the other end of the socio-economic hierarchy, the elite (or some presumably cohesive fraction of the elite) can certainly assemble to protect its interests. This leads to the Free To Lose problem. It's a problem with Randian thinking and Libertarian thinking in general.

Anonymous William Tell January 15, 2014 9:30 PM  

"Add to this the increasing number of white women having black kids."

Shaming won't work. A constitutional amendment is the best solution for this "national tragedy".

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 9:42 PM  

> You could have a "labor union" that workers could pay fees to if they wanted, but for it to actually be a labor union it would have to engage in collective bargaining, with a credible (and preferably legal) threat to strike, exclude scabs and so on if it didn't get what it wanted.

You're fine up to the "exclude scabs" part. :) That's where she and most libertarians would draw the line. You don't want to work for the benefits offered, that's fine. You can all walk off the job and even picket the site. You can even organize a boycott of the company's products. But you don't have the right to deny others who want to work the right to do so.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 9:43 PM  

You forgot your paraphrase of Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 9:50 PM  

James Dixon, OK.

In any case, I stand by my point that in Randian thinking, the benefits that are supposed to accrue to the economic elite come with a "don't take any wooden nickels" attitude that is very much lacking when we look at the bottom of the scale and see the collective, ethereal "benefits to everybody" that are supposed to satisfy those who didn't get a job they wanted or that lost a job they had, or those who constitute a commodity that just got cheaper and more easily dispensed with.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 10:00 PM  

> YIn any case, I stand by my point that in Randian thinking,...

Oh, I agree with the general gist of your analysis. I apologize if I gave the impression I didn't. Rand and libertarians tend very much to laissez faire capitalism, and it does have a dark side if corporate greed is not counterbalanced in some way.

The best counterbalance to corporate greed is an informed marketplace and competition for employees, of course, but historically both of those have been lacking much of the time.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 10:14 PM  

In the real world, job-seeking commonly fails to conform to Objectivist dogma, and that was always the case. What actually happens is that parents and friends from one's social circle arrange jobs for young people who can't yet prove they merit them but are seen as "the right sort".

That system has substantially broken down for white males, specifically Christian and heterosexual males, with no "diversity" cred to satisfy Human Relations. Lots find a way to thrive regardless, but many others that could have been useful performers don't.

That's not a good thing.

And the systematic anti-whitism propagated by the mass media and the political / legal system is part of that, but non-white mass immigration into all white countries and only white countries is also part of that.

This is not a "murder and jaywalking" argument. Obviously if you think mass non-white immigration into all white countries and only white countries plus forced assimilation is genocide, then that's the big issue, and disruption of the hiring market for young white males (who ought to be getting an assisted start, because the will be the ones building white nations and keeping them going) is not the main issue.

But it is a preemptive reply to the arguments that policy-makers should be pushing mass non-white immigration because of all these social and economic benefits. No they shouldn't. And that is not what is going on.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 15, 2014 10:29 PM  

James Dixon: "The best counterbalance to corporate greed is an informed marketplace and competition for employees, of course, but historically both of those have been lacking much of the time."

OK.

And on my side, I shouldn't overstate the desirability of informal networks hiring the right sort of mostly normal young white males. That can be overdone, and a widely held view in America and Australia was that it was over-done in England, bolstering an excessively stratified class system, one that stifled talent and cosseted twits.

But on the whole, in white countries, the mix of an informed marketplace and competition for employee (very imperfect but real) plus benevolent hegemonic networking was open enough most of the time.

If anything, in retrospect, it was seeing "employees" in key institutions only as individuals and being very open to "all talents" that proved dangerous. You hire Asians or Jews until they can kick out the non-Asians or all the non-Jews but a few front-men (or women) and then they do. And if the institution where whites just lost power turns out to be important for the future direction of the culture and laws, that's not good for the whites.

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp January 15, 2014 10:39 PM  

"Ayn Rand's attitude to all of that was not friendly."

Oh for pete's sake, why on earth does any intelligent person still give a rat's arse about what that megalomaniacal blowhard's attitude was about anything, anything at all?

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp January 15, 2014 10:48 PM  

"The 10 Blocks of Immigration"

On the tenth block of Immigration,
USG gave to me,
Ten Muslims bombing,
Nine ninos bawling,
Eight Chinese cheating,
Seven Somalis raping,
Six Persians fleecing,
Five Is-rael-is!
Four welfare frauds,
Free ER visits,
Two new slums.
And Obama was very happy.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 16, 2014 12:55 AM  

A Plate of Shrimp: "The 10 Blocks of Immigration"

(cick in vain ... click in vain ...) There appears to be no way to give a "+1" on this blog.

Anonymous aaaaturkey January 16, 2014 6:35 AM  

Other countries may be different Titus. Sure there are some who encourage immigration to Australia for perverse diversity ideals. But we get plenty of British, South Africans and other Europeans also (I love the french and german ones usually, they fit the best)

The primary objective here is to fuel the credit bubble, undercut wages, and in the case of the British subvert management and institutions to remain very much a financial colony of the City of London.

In Australia itself they really need to start enforcing minimum quotas of local aussies and not let asian (chinese are bad but indians are much worse) and english people into positions because they hire people just like themselves.

Post War British are nothing like Australians, the two cultures diverged greatly, and yet there are many British fleeing the UK like rats on a sinking ship.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 16, 2014 8:04 AM  

Well if "other countries are different" and that's what's really happening this is the biggest policy coincidence in history, because white country after white country after white country has opened the floodgates on massive non-white immigration and set up anti-white policies radically to the detriment of its own citizens and started pushing the whites to "mix it up" and this has been going on for decades, only in white countries and completely regardless of all the differences between them. The problems are different, but coincidentally the solution driven by purely local factors is both radically counter-intuitive and always the same.

That's too big a coincidence, so that's not what is happening.

Now in every white country there will be powerful, wealthy people who are not for white genocide, who have no inkling of a concept of white genocide, but who for their own reasons are all for some particular part of the program. The cheap labor open borders lobby are the biggest example. Gerry Harvey (a totally greed-crazed Australian businessman who has lobbied the federal government to let him bring in unlimited Asians to replace all his white workers and wants the government to let him pay Asians much less than whites so he can get the maximum profit from replacing all his white workers with Asians) is a prime example. Nobody suspects Gerry Harvey of anything but having pledged his soul to mammon. His indifference to integration, assimilation, white privilege etc. is complete.

So you bind a lot of people like that together, and in every country eventually you stitch together a winning coalition, such that most of the people in it think it's really about them and their local (and usually very selfish) agendas. Fine, that's just good politics.

But that it's just a coincidence that people are building these coalitions - and winning with them - pervasively in white countries and nowhere in non-white countries, decade after decade after decade (since 1965 in America) ... without it being really about the one, obvious and inevitable outcome, frequently-stated as a desirable objective by people like Tim Wise? No that's not on.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 16, 2014 8:10 AM  

Titus Didius Tacitus:
And the systematic anti-whitism propagated by the mass media and the political / legal system is part of that, but non-white mass immigration into all white countries and only white countries is also part of that.


Check out the prison statistics in the US of A, and tell me you didn't really write this.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus January 16, 2014 9:16 AM  

Given that everybody who reads here will already have read the numbers on race and crime - several times, because disingenuous leftists keep trying to exploit the weary reluctance people have developed to go back to the same numbers again and again - you don't even have a point, ScuzzaMan.

Blogger Baloo January 16, 2014 11:20 AM  

Good stuff. I've reblogged it here.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster of Immigration

Blogger eds prasad January 22, 2014 4:45 AM  

It’s a nice experience to visit your site.educate

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts