Summary: America is on the brink of radical changes resulting from decades of almost open borders. Only fast and effective policy action can prevent irreversible and ugly results. We successfully handled a similar situation in the past, and can do so again.
The Census 2010 American Community Survey (pdf here) found that 25% of children in America a foreign born parent (19% with two, 6% with one). That number is higher today. As of 2017, 13.4% of the US population is foreign-born. At these growth rates, their numbers will hit a record level sometime in the next ten years. See this Census report, and their headline graph …
Another 12.1% is second generation. Equally important, 21% of the population over five years of age speak a language other than English at home. Three-quarters of the US population grown comes from first generation migrants and children of the second generation. Of the foreign-born population …
- 15% entered the US in 2010 – 2017,
- 51% are from Latin America,
- 48% are naturalized US Citizens, and
- 17% had less than a 9th grade education (as of 2013).
As in the early 20th century, this massive flow of migrants is depressing wages and overwhelming our ability to assimilate them. It took four decades, but in the 1920’s immigration was slowed and then halted. This allowed our society’s powerful assimilation machinery to absorb the first and second generation of migrants – and wage growth to resume, producing (for the first time in American history) a large middle class.
Now we face the same situation, but with differences that will produce a different ending – unless we change course.
The previous wave of immigration was assimilated by often harsh public policies – rooted in effective schools – plus an economy that provided adequately paying jobs for low-skilled workers. Today we have public policy rooted in multiculturalism – actively discouraging assimilation – plus ineffective (often chaotic and gang-dominated) schools, with an economy providing falling wages for low-skilled workers. It is the recipe for building an even larger underclass.
This works for the rich, who get cheap workers. This works for the Left, who will harness these new voters into a block to reshape America by cultivating their hatreds and promising free stuff. It is mainlining poison for America.
The solutions are not even difficult, as such things go. They only require a national will, which we lack. We are receiving people from India, China, and Latin America. The first two are from very different cultures, but tend to have good educations and assimilate well. The people from Latin America are from more similar cultures, and if we work at it they will assimilate unless present in overwhelming numbers.
First, the flow of low-skill immigrants must be slowed. It is overwhelming our ability to assimilate. Worse, Latin American immigrants are forming self-sustaining communities (not just urban neighborhoods) in which their home culture becomes stable over time.
Second, we must reinstate the strong assimilationist policies that worked so well in our past.
Third, we must rebuild America’s schools. That means ejecting the current Leftist establishment whose feckless policies have slowly been wrecking them since the 1970s.
Warnings from experts, which we have ignored
For decades research has warned about the ugly consequences of our current policies. Leftist journalists hide this news. Libertarian (pro-open borders) conservatives cooperated. Now those warnings looks prescient. But it is not yet too late to listen.
Note that these papers focus on migrants from Mexico, their findings also apply to migrants from other Latin American nations.
“Culture and Language.”
By Edward P. Lazear in the Journal of Political Economy, December 1999.
“Common culture and common language facilitate trade between individuals. Individuals have incentives to learn the other languages and cultures so that they have a larger pool of potential trading partners. The value of assimilation is larger to an individual from a small minority than to one from a large minority group. When a society has a very large majority of individuals from one culture, individuals from minority groups will be assimilated more quickly. Assimilation is less likely when an immigrant’s native culture and language are broadly represented in his or her new country. Also, when governments protect minority interests directly, incentives to be assimilated into the majority culture are reduced. …
“The theory is tested and confirmed by examining U.S. census data, which reveal that the likelihood that an immigrant will learn English is inversely related to the proportion of the local population that speaks his or her native language.”
“Multiculturalism, or the tolerance by a society of many different cultures and languages, seems to be on the rise in the United States. This shows up in a number of ways. One of the most tangible of these is the recent growth of bilingual education. In the past, most immigrants insisted that their children be taught in English so that they could become ‘‘Americans.’’ The growth of multiculturalism, for good or bad, takes the view that Americans speak many languages and have many different cultures.
“In 1900, 85% of immigrants were fluent in English. Surprisingly, in 1990, the fluency rate among immigrants was only 68%, despite dramatic improvements in communication during the century. What accounts for the change over time? When do immigrants hold on to their native cultures and languages? Under which circumstances is assimilation most likely to occur? Given that society exists at a point in time with more than one culture, do the benefits from moving to a common culture outweigh the costs of the transition? How do government transfer policies affect assimilation? Is the localization of minorities into neighborhoods a natural outgrowth of maximizing behavior and is subsidized integration welfare enhancing? Is chauvinistic behavior by some societies socially beneficial or merely an emotional response without any social value? These questions are addressed below. The theory is confirmed by an empirical analysis based on U.S. census data from 1900 and 1990. …
Summary and Conclusion.
“Individuals from minority groups are more likely to adopt the culture and language of the majority when the minority group accounts for a small proportion of the total population. The incentives are greater for any individual to learn the majority language when only a few persons in the country speak his or her native language. Thus slow and balanced immigration, where the flow of individuals from any one culture is small, results in more rapid assimilation than immigration that favors any one particular group. Individuals from the majority may learn the language or culture of one of the minorities. But it is less likely that the majority will learn a minority language than that a minority will learn the majority language.
“Empirical evidence from the 1900 and 1990 U.S. censuses demonstrates conclusively that immigrants are most likely to be fluent in English when they live in communities that have small proportions of individuals from their own native country. Individuals who are from poorly represented groups learn English quickly. Those from groups with large proportions in the local population learn English more slowly. This is a rational response to the differences in the value of learning English across groups. The finding holds up within cultural groups as well as across groups. Some additional points are summarized below.
“(1) Government transfers, which place a floor on consumption, reduce the incentives to adopt the majority culture and learn the majority language. …”
Mexican Immigration to the United States,
George Borjas (Editor).
Report of a conference in 2005, the fourth of a series sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research (2007).
Introduction and summary of papers.
by George Borjas (editor).
“There is a great deal of concern over the possibility that the Mexican immigrant influx, which is predominantly low-skill, adversely affects working conditions for low-skill workers already residing in the United States. Similarly, there is a heated debate over the possibility that Mexican immigrants and their descendants may assimilate slowly – relative to the experience of other immigrant waves – and this slow assimilation may lead to the creation of a new underclass.
Reflecting the increased interest on issues regarding the economic impact of immigration, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) has held four separate research conferences on immigration in the past two decades.
The empirical findings reported here summarize much of what is currently known about the economic impact of Mexican immigration to the United States. …A common theme runs through the essays: The sheer size and uniqueness of the Mexican immigrant population in the United States ensures that the economic impact of this immigrant influx is pervasive and will likely form an important part of the discussion over many aspects of social and economic policy for decades to come. …
The huge increase in the size of the immigrant influx in recent decades can be traced to changes in U.S. immigration policy. …
The size of the large Mexican immigrant influx of the past few decades is unique not only relative to current immigration, but also even relative to the very large migration of some European national origin groups at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1920, for example, the largest two immigrant populations were those of persons who originated in Germany or Italy, and together those two populations comprised about 23.7% of the foreign-born population at the time …. As noted in the preceding, in 2004 Mexican immigrants alone account for 28.3% of the foreign-born population. Put differently, the dominant position of Mexican immigration in determining the ethnic composition of the immigrant population represents an important outlier in the history of U.S. immigration. …
“The Evolution of the Mexican-Born Workforce in the United States.”
By George J. Borjas and Lawrence F. Katz.
The analysis of the economic performance of these immigrants throughout the twentieth century yields a number of interesting and potentially important findings:
- Mexican immigrants have much less educational attainment than either native-born workers or non-Mexican immigrants. These differences in human capital account for nearly three-quarters of the very large wage disadvantage suffered by Mexican immigrants in recent decades.
Although the earnings of non-Mexican immigrants converge to those of their native-born counterparts as the immigrants accumulate work experience in the U.S. labor market, this type of wage convergence has been much weaker on average for Mexican immigrants than for other immigrant groups.
Although native-born workers of Mexican ancestry have levels of human capital and earnings that far exceed those of Mexican immigrants, the economic performance of these native-born workers lags behind that of native workers who are not of Mexican ancestry. Much of the wage gap between the two groups of native-born workers can be explained by the large difference in educational attainment between the two groups.
The large Mexican influx in recent decades widened the U.S. wage structure by adversely affecting the earnings of less-educated native workers and improving the earnings of college graduates. …
We ignore these facts and the implications at our peril. An underclass is almost impossible to fix. We are building a new and larger one, a multicultural one with radically different values. It will radically and irreversibly change America for the worse.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See about immigration, and especially these…
- Essential reading: See the hidden history of immigration into America (it ruins the narrative).
- Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
- The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
- The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
- Prepare for mass migrants, the greatest challenge to America.
- The Left goes full open borders, changing America forever.
- Choose: open borders or the welfare State?
- William Lind explains how to defend against an invasion.
- Our rulers make a new people for America.
Three books about immigration, all well worth reading
See George Friedman’s (founder of Stratfor) prescient predictions about the American southwest in his 2009 book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. He describes where we’re going, facts too disturbing for most experts to say in public. This is a useful feature of such writing: since it is just guessing, we allow statements about the obvious that are politically or socially unacceptable (just as are, in a different way, statements by a court jester).
Europe is our future. We can watch them to avoid their mistakes, if we act quickly. These two books provide clear warnings.
Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West by Christopher Caldwell (2009). See this post about it: About Europe’s historic experiment with open borders.
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglass Murray (2017). See these posts with excerpts from the book: Martin van Creveld’s reaction to Europe’s rape epidemic. Warning of the “Strange Death of Europe”, and Strange perspectives on the challenges facing Europe.
16 thoughts on “Fast action now can solve the immigration crisis”
You wrote, “Third, we must rebuild America’s schools. That means ejecting the current Leftist establishment whose feckless policies have slowly been wrecking them since the 1970s.”
IMO….It will take blood in the streets for that to ever happen.
“It will take blood in the streets for that to ever happen.”
I find fascinating people’s fascination with violence. Pretty much any possible large change is said to require “blood in the streets.” That probably is related to our love of war, as in War On Poverty and War on Cancer and War on Drugs and etc.
I suggest looking at history. Massive reforms in the US and Britain have usually happened without large scale violence.
On the other hand, if we continue our feckless apathy and passivity – which is the other side of our bold rhetoric – then we might get violence as the bolts pop out of society. But probably not. I expect that we will make docile obedient peons. Much as the people of the Roman Republic became docile subjects of the Empire.
Sam Francis: “You cannot separate a culture from the genetic endowments of its founding people, nor can you transfer it to another people.”
Editor’s note: Richrard refers to white nationalist Samuel T. Francis (Wikipedia).
Do you have taxi drivers do heart surgery on your children? If not, why would you get information about genetics from a journalist?
In today’s political climate, your solutions are out of reach. In fact, they have been for quite a while, because of politics.
Trump is not a politician, the time to act would be now. I see him at least trying.
Every post about solutions gets the same response – preemptive surrender. Our forebears confronted far more difficult tasks at far greater odds. They would regard comments like yours as despicable. Worthy of peons. Perhaps that’s our destiny, to be pleasant peasants. Which would be OK if we didn’t whine so loudly.
But there is always a remnant, as Christians say. I believe there are enough to prove you wrong. Please either help or get out of the way.
“Trump is not a politician, the time to act would be now. I see him at least trying.”
That you think so is hilarious. Sad, but funny.
No surrender here. I’m not whining, just facing some facts. I don’t see you running for President, lead the way.
“No surrender here.”
To say that reform or victory is impossible is surrender. It is the essence of surrender. Atatürk built modern Turkey against unimaginable odds, beginning in WWI. When one of his Colonels said “Sir, your orders are impossible.” Atatürk replied “Nothing is impossible.”
“just facing some facts.”
Your guess is not a “fact.”
“I don’t see you running for President”
You believe that reform will come by everyone who seeks it running for President? That’s too stupid for reply.
“lead the way.”
I began writing in 2003 to help, in a small way, to help reignite the spirit of America. I’ve written or published 4700 posts. That’s well over 5 million words. To which people have posted 60 thousand comments, most of which I’ve replied to (plus thousands of email conversations). That’s an investment of over 15 thousand hours, most since 2007.
That does not include my even larger commitment over 15 years as a Boy Scout leader, plus more hours in local political organizing.
This does not make me Samuel Adams, but at least I’m trying. So save your attitude for someone else.
When you m
First let me say, I agree we must do something in the West generally, but it will be very difficult.
The percentage of people that are net tax contributor is only the top 20%, according to the reference below:
What then are the options
1. Increase the number of tax payers at the top end, International Students and give the brightest visas.
2. Increase the tax payers generally, allowing illegals to be contributors through VAT etc, while cutting the unit costs of schools, hospital and so on.
1. Reduce International Students, as it is mainly a middle class scam to get residency and dragging the University standards down, but University income will be hit hard and the elites like their researchers of Policy well funded.
2.Reduce immigration, cutting people to fill the low grade jobs and also see steady unrelenting wage growth for the remaining reduced working class.
The second set of option are best for the native population, the first for elites that pay tax in the net of transfer form.
These are such opposites, it will not be easy.
I am for reduce immigration, increased home production and a total revision to education (welfare, health etc), but there will be a huge amount of resistance, but if we are strong we can keep chipping away at it
This is a total re-adjustment of society, shifting a huge fortune from the top 20%, but mainly the top 1% to the bottom 60%, they will fight that tooth and nail.
Trump and Brexit, would just be the beginning and there are a lot of ugly scenes.
I say this in all seriousness but I think the one solution to unite the country is to embrace a mild form of anti-semitism.
The simple fact is that America’s elite has shifted from a WASPy one to a Jewish one that is openly hostile to middle America. As an example, Zuckerberg/Sandberg are both globalist owners of a multi-national corporation and another Jew runs Zuckerberg’s immigration lobby group fwd.us. In the media, there are binders full of Jewish whites (e.g. Vox, The Atlantic, NYT, etc) that are calling for open borders. Ezra Klein has called for tripling the flows of immigration.
The solution therefore is to insist Jews as Jewish whites. Instead of the white-black wealth gap, it should be the gap between Jewish whites and blacks. Once this happens, Jews will either reap what they have sowed or will knock off the anti-white nonsense. Instead of white privilege, it should be Jewish white privilege.
In my opinion, this tweet from Kevin MacDonald shows the situation:
“IMO, Jews have always felt the downsides could be managed. Now it’s not so clear, with Omar, Tlaib, & many leftists bailing on Israel, diversity being imposed on upscale Jewish neighborhoods, Asian competition at universities, etc. But they’ll just leave if push comes to shove.”
I agree that it is imperative that Jews experience the diversity they insist is beneficial to middle America.
In addition, a mild form of anti-semitism would unite various factions within the country by giving a common enemy. The media will call any nationalist movement as anti-semitic so you might as well embrace it. Given the wealth and media power, Jews are not sympathetic and should be able to take the heat.
Antisemitism is endemic in western society, and has been for millennia. Perhaps longer.
It has been and remains a useful tool for our rulers, channeling energy that could be used against them against this time minority (few of whom are rich).
That we fall for this again and again makes we wonder if we are ready for self-government.
“It has been and remains a useful tool for our rulers, channeling energy that could be used against them against this time minority”
Not sure I agree with this – I think our rules call people anti-semitic when they hear something that goes against powerful interests and it’s quite effective at shutting down critics. Here are two examples:
Criticism of Goldman Sachs right after the financial crisis
ADL protecting Sheryl Sandberg
I’d argue a similar thing is happening with Jeremy Corbyn – they can never seem to prove he is anti-semitic but his policies don’t align with the interests of powerful Jews so we’ll call him anti-semitic.
May I recommed the book ‘National Populism’?
It has a quite a lot of rather tedious oversimplified potted summaries of recent history, which you have to wade through. But it also has factual observations joined to some sharp connected analysis about the nature of recent populist movements and concerns.
What we see in some of the comments is the confusion of concerns about cultural change due to immigration with racism about the immigrants, or some particular ethnic group.
The usual form this takes is to accuse anyone with doubts about open borders of being racist and motivated by racism. In these comments you interestingly see this reversed, the confusion is the other way, racism is being expressed in endorsement.
The interesting analysis in Radical Populism suggests that recent populism is not in fact motivated by racism, but is motivated by concerns about cultural identity which have risen as racism of the classic sort has fallen. So, for instance, as attitudes to marrying into different racial or ethnic groups become tolerant to the point of indifference, anxiety about the cultural effects of large scale immigration rise.
That, at least, is the argument. I am only part way through but am finding it so far quite thought provoking and interestingly evidence based.
“I’d argue a similar thing is happening with Jeremy Corbyn….”
You attend memorial ceremonies for Black September perpetrators. You endorse a mural depicting Jews with hooked noses trampling on the poor while clutching dollars. You share platforms with Holocaust deniers. You refer to Islamic terrorists as ‘our friends’. You write a foreword to a book by that early 20C maniacal anti-semite Hobson.
And no, the point is not the book ‘Imperialism’ which contains the poison in diluted summary form. The point is the book about the South Aftrican war where you find the thing neat. The two go together, endorsing the first is like endorsing a speech by Goebbels on health care while ignoring the passing references to the great Jewish conspiracy because they form only a couple of sentences. Yes, of that speech.
The only thing missing is for him to claim that some of his best friends are Jewish….
I am against this “You spoke with this person” type of guilt by association
Obama has a picture with Louis Farrakhan – does that make him an anti-Semite?
The fact is if you don’t paint Jews as these saintly people, you will be called an anti Semite (e.g. spike lee in mo better blues)
“I am against this “You spoke with this person” type of guilt by association”
I agree, this is the weakest kind of evidence. It is a core of the RussiaGate hysteria. Pretty dumb, in that our leaders should be speaking with Russia – the other major nuclear power. (Also, commercial transactions with Russia should be encouraged.)