April 22, 2012

The déformation professionnelle of Jewish organizations on immigration

This 2010 article from The Jewish Week isn't new, but it's important.
Curve Ball For Jewish Leaders On Immigration 
In recent AJC poll, 52 percent of Jews favored Arizona’s tough immigration law, which focuses on an enforcement-only policy. 
Some wonder if American Jewry’s traditional empathy for all newcomers could be waning. 
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 
Doug Chandler Special To The Jewish Week 
One of the rare issues on which nearly all mainstream Jewish organizations agree — and on which they’ve always believed they had the backing of most American Jews — involves how the United States should treat immigrants, including those who are undocumented. 
More than a dozen national agencies, including the congregational arms of all four major branches of Judaism, have publicly announced their support for comprehensive immigration reform, which would go beyond an enforcement-only policy to offer unauthorized residents “a path to citizenship.” 
But this week some Jewish leaders are beginning to wonder if American Jewry’s traditional empathy for all newcomers is now waning. 
Their concern follows the Oct. 12 release of a survey by the American Jewish Committee that asked respondents if they supported or opposed Arizona’s controversial new law on illegal immigration. Fifty-two percent of the 800 respondents said they supported the law, while 46 percent opposed the measure and 2 percent said they weren’t sure. 
“It’s a reminder that Jews are part of America and are influenced by some of the same currents that influence other Americans,” said Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. At the same time, he noted that the 52-percent figure remains lower than the 65 percent of Americans, overall, who’ve told pollsters they favor the law. 
The query was among 29 questions in a survey that focused largely on the Obama administration, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the upcoming midterm elections. But it touched on a subject that has a special resonance for American Jews, confusing and dismaying some Jewish leaders because of the result. 
“That one took us by surprise,” said David Harris, AJC’s executive director. 
Noting that the result seems “to defy conventional wisdom” about the Jewish commitment to progressive social policy, Harris said he couldn’t explain, but could only guess, why respondents answered as they did.  
“When Americans, including Jews, see the words ‘illegal immigration,’ that helps define their answer,” he said, referring to a term used in the question. “But we don’t have enough data to tease that out, and we didn’t expect it.” 
Another AJC leader close to the issue also seemed taken aback by the result. 
“When I first heard about this, my first thought was, ‘Why this question?’” said Ann Schaffer, director of the organization’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism, who wasn’t alone among her colleagues in wondering why the question was asked. 
“I don’t know if we know what to make of this,” Schaffer said. 
As Harris suggested, one explanation for the result may rest with how the question is worded: “A new law in Arizona gives police the power to ask people they’ve stopped to verify their residency status,” it begins, simply enough. “Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?” 
“‘Racial profiling’ is not a term that people understand, but they do know that something illegal is wrong,” said Sammie Moshenberg, director of Washington operations for the National Council of Jewish Women.

In other words, according to professional Jewish Leaders, the people they claim to lead are complete morons who can't understand simple questions and are manipulated by wily media experts who use inflammatory terms like "illegal immigration." (Of course, the rest of the question is loaded with the hot button phrases "racial profiling" and the holy of holies of righteous indignation-generation: "violate civil rights.")

Are American Jews as dumb as their paid leaders insist they must be for engaging in crimethink on immigration? Razib recently went through the General Social Survey's 10 question vocabulary quiz for various groups. On most graphs, you get most groups having bell curves centering around getting six out of ten words right, with rapid falloffs above that. The religion graph, however, really stood out:
Granted, the Jewish advantage wouldn't be quite as huge if the other religions were restricted to just their white members, but still ...

So, the data suggests that average American Jews are relatively good at reading the newspaper. 

And their views on immigration are closer to those of their fellow citizens than to the groupthink of their self-proclaimed leaders. 
All that is nonsense to Stephen Steinlight, the lone figure who has advocated an anti-immigration stance in talks to Jewish groups and in the op-ed pages of Jewish newspapers. 
“What we’ve found is a gigantic gulf between the pulpit and the pew [on the issue], and this is true of every religion in America, including Jews,” said Steinlight, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies and a former staff member at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and AJC. “Not only is it a slam dunk that Americans don’t support illegal immigration or amnesty, but Jews are no different.” 
Steinlight’s contention is that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans during tough economic times, and their presence only benefits large companies looking for cheap labor. 
“When Jews talk about tikkun olam [repairing the world], they have to ask themselves a question: Tikkun olam for whom? The illegal immigrant who entered the country last night or their struggling neighbor?”

Ken Jacobson of the Anti-Defamation League responds:
“If you want to talk in terms of being overwhelmed demographically, Jews are already overwhelmed demographically,” Jacobson continued. “We’re something like 2 percent of the population.”

Obviously, Ken Jacobson makes his living by goading Jews to feel "overwhelmed demographically" by white gentiles. But the reality is that typical American Jews don't feel all that overwhelmed. Their view tends to be that America has been very, very good to them and that they've been good to America. They tend to identify with their neighbors, their fellow American citizens, their fellow whites, their fellow "historic Americans," white and black (e.g., Willie Mays is a hero to a lot of older Jewish guys), and so forth and so on. But, this healthy state of affairs is bad for the balance sheets of a few powerful organizations.

All this suggests that that fundamentalist frenzy of Ellis Island kitsch ethnocentrism that currently dominates acceptable thought about immigration has less to do with average Jewish-American citizens than it has to do with the déformation professionnelle of the leaders of explicitly Jewish organizations, of organizations such as the SPLC that are implicitly Jewish because, as Willie Sutton said about why he robbed banks, that's where the money is; and the media types who interact with them.

Hence, the key to understanding many of the reigning irrationalities in American thought is to understand that déformation professionnelle. Since those interest groups have declared themselves off-limits to critical analysis (literally, in the very name of the ADL), however, don't expect anybody to learn anything.

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fifteen years ago I decided that since Jews were going to try to overturn the US demographically, I would try to return the favor vis a vis Israel.

JJT said...

What is the relationship between Jewish ethnocentrism and support for mass-immigration? I suspect the more ethnocentric the more likely to support the destruc..um, er, diversification of the host society.

Anonymous said...

I know some Jews who are critical of blacks, conservative on some issues, and etc, but when push comes to shove, they all voted for Obama.

Anonymous said...

Sweet Jesus, I've been talking about this since forever, both based on massive anecdontal data among my family and friends as well as from various opinion polls done over the past couple of years. In fact, the only reason this particular poll showed *only* 52% support is because it asked about the Arizona bill particularly. Polls that have asked more generally about curtailing immigration or rejecting amnesty show even higher support among american jews.

For the record, a majority of american hispanics have been shown to favor curtailing immigration as well. We're ALL being led against our will by our elite a**hole leaders (as the masses have been since society began, one would have hoped that democracy would have fixed the problem though...)

Thrasymachus said...

"But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare." Jeremiah 29:7 ESV. In other words what's good for America is good for the Jews.

Latte Island says you can't assume what the Jewish leadership says reflects what Jews as a whole think.

Anonymous said...

Jews played a key role in creating the 1965 immigration disaster in America. They were also instrumental, albeit to a lesser degree, with Canada in 1967 and Australia in 1971 switching to "universal" immigration. In all cases they deliberately worked to promote their narrow ethnic interests against the best interests of the general population group inhabitating the countries in question. Of course, Jews have very non-universal immigration for Israel itself.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

High intelligence doesn't mean only vocabulary. Jews can also do arithmetic.

Harlow said...

Jews are sensing that the cost-benefit ledger on mass immigration has changed.

The disempowerment and dissolution of European America looks to be a fait accompli, so the marginal benefit of further immigration of non-Europeans is in decline. Meanwhile the marginal costs to Jews of further non-European immigration are arguably increasing from the factors of:

(1) Higher crime;
(2) Growing populations of people that tend to be more tribal/ethnocentric (and thus more suspicious of Jews) than Whites;
(3) Growing competition for higher end education and economic positions from the increasing number of Indians and Orientals.
(4) Resource scarcity generally (related to (3)).

The benefits of mass immigration may no longer exceed the costs.

Harlow said...

And their views on immigration are closer to those of their fellow citizens than to the groupthink of their self-proclaimed leaders.

Yet 52 percent opposition to immigration is still a very long way from 65 percent among other Americans.

By the way, how is it possible that immigration restriction is not implemented in a democracy when it is favored by a large majority? Weird.

Ed said...

Though to a lesser degree, the difference between what "ordinary" Jews think and lobbyists of Jewish organizations are trying to push shows up on the Middle East as well.

Anonymous said...

This is all nice to know but its like polls showing how socially conservative many blacks are. Bottom line: the average Jew/Black is going to vote for liberals who support illegal immigration (or in case of blacks Gay rights) because they like them on every other issue. Its not a deal breaker. Jews will follow their leadership when it counts, at the ballot box.

And of course, all you need is 48% of the Jewish Billionaires and/or Millionaires supporting Pols who support illegal immigration and we're screwed.

john marzan said...

why wouldn't jews be against illegal immigration? weren't Israelis against offering amnesty ie "right of return" to the millions of palestinian refugees?

Propeller Island said...

The "No Religion" religion I expect is nearly all white. Also, there is a significant immigrant component to the the American Jewish population.

Anonymous said...

This is light years more informative than some of the reflex anti-semitism you get here.

Jews can either be assimilated, resist assimilation through religious commitment, or resist assimilation by advocating liberal policies that are hostile to America and Americans. What this study shows is that a number of Jews have not chosen the worst option.

-svaldo M.

Hail said...

Poll numbers can always be massaged.

A cold, hard fact that runs against the theory that the majority of Jews are actually White-populists led astray by nefarious leaders:

Jews voted for Obama by a ratio of 37 to 10 (78% to 21% from the AP exit poll).

This despite McCain being the most wildly-pro-Israel presidential candidate in history, despite Obama's known Islamic heritage, despite Obama's self-avowed Islamic sympathies ("I will stand with Muslims if the tide of opinion turns against them"; the Islamic call-to-prayer "the most beautiful sound in the world" -- both paraphrased from Obama's writings).

Whiskey said...

EXACTLY Steve. Hit it out of the park again.

And the biggest problem is all that money. Take a gander at both Selling LA and Selling New York (New York seems marginally more decadent).

LA's real estate agents are mostly young hot bimbos in short dresses dealing with "men in gold chains" and various baby moguls in entertainment, New York's agents seem all gay (even the older, and to my shock, married guy). Poor and middle class people have their own flaws, but decadence is not among them. THAT is a sin found only where there is too much money sloshing around, like a moral inflation.

If you want to kill these organizations, you need to kill their money supply. Which means their wealthy donors, foundations, and urban settings.

Anonymous said...

You don't need to do all that, Whiskey. Just end tax exemption for donations to non-profit organizations with a lobbying or political agenda and watch the flow of money stop. The mission of most of these groups is much more political than religious.

Anonymous said...

Hail, you're right to point out that jews vote heavily democratic despite the fact that the republicans are so ardent in their support for israel... But what does that mean? That jews aren't israel-firsters? That we ought to have estonian style direct democracy where we can vote on specific issues separately rather than as part of some massive package deal? That one of the only two parties in the US ought to support both a Living Wage and guarded borders?

Whatever it means I'm sure it's the jews fault. Sure wouldn't want one of them doing MY surgery!

Propeller Island said...

Steve, you must not read comments on your blog: this very article has been referred to at least twice over the last year or so. Or did you keep it in reserve for a slow news day?

By the way, many here like to say that Jewish leaders want more immigration for America but not for Israel. Actually, they are pretty consistent. Here is Abe Foxman coming to Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government to prevent deportation of foreign workers: "In the spirit of Jewish values, we will do all we can to ensure that you remain in Israel." (Israeli government caved and allowed them to stay.)

Anonymous said...

If they really identify with White Christians/Gentiles so much, why don't they ever say or do anything about the massive underrepresentation of White Christians/Gentiles at elite universities, positions, sectors, etc.?

Extropico said...

Steve, the Jewish position on immigration is one of the great issues of our time.

First, the Jewish MSM is as dishonest as the Gentile MSM on this matter. Big business wants more population to help sustain debt issuance and reduce wages.

Second, some of the MSM has taken the moral low road by essentially asseverating that gentile Whites don't have a right to a homeland in Europe or America, but that Jewish people have a right to maintain a racial or ethnic majority in their homeland of Israel.

I believe that the fight for a homeland in Israel and the invidious racism they face from many Muslims is forcing many Jews to reassess their immigration positions.

Does any ethnicity have the right of a majority homeland. If none for Gentiles, then none for Jews. This stark geopolitical reality will force an uncomfortable dialogue for years to come.

David said...

Why wouldn't jews be against illegal immigration? weren't Israelis against offering amnesty ie "right of return" to the millions of palestinian refugees?

They are against right of return for Christians and Muslims. But such return wouldn't have been "illegal immigration." In fact, it isn't immigration at all, but return.

Hail said...

Anon:
What it means is that Jewish opinion, on the whole, supports political Leftism. (Dog Bites Man). Yet, as we all know, the primary animating drive of modern Leftism is 'fighting racism', promoting tolerance, etc. (i.e., defending and expanding our peculiar institution of Multicultacracy).

Therefore any theory that proposes a groundswell of populist American nativism among Jews is on seriously shaky ground.

This is nothing new. A study of voting patterns by religiouys-affiliation found a majority of White-Protestants (outside the ex-CSA) voted against Franklin Roosevelt, with the higher in socioeconomic status the church with which one identified, the more Republican one tended to vote. 92% of Jews voted for FDR (See here), despite being the second-highest religious grouping in socioeconomic status at the time.

Anonymous said...

Jews can either be assimilated, resist assimilation through religious commitment, or resist assimilation by advocating liberal policies that are hostile to America and Americans.

How does the Jewish advocacy of polices that are hostile to America and Americans aid in countering assimilation?

Anonymous said...

Except none of these Jews will support assortive migration followed by border controls, freedom of association, etc. because it might mean there might be a group of Whites somewhere that Jews won't have access to.

Anonymous said...

http://forward.com/articles/124478/immigration-debate-prompts-growing-jewish-latino-t/

"The supposed divide between religious leaders of various stripes and their rank-and-file was the focus of a recent survey, sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that opposes granting illegal immigrants a path to legalization and instead argues that many will return to their home countries if immigration laws are better enforced. That poll, which was conducted online by Zogby International in December, found that Jews were roughly equally divided between those who prefer a stepped-up enforcement approach and those who prefer granting legal status with a path to citizenship.

Jewish immigration advocates have questioned the survey’s methodology, but they agree that there are diverse opinions within the community.

Yet the CIS poll also found that Jews were still considerably more likely than members of other religious groups to support granting legal status to illegal immigrants, a finding that immigration advocates say rings true."

Anonymous said...

They tend to identify with their neighbors, their fellow American citizens, their fellow whites, their fellow "historic Americans," white and black (e.g., Willie Mays is a hero to a lot of older Jewish guys), and so forth and so on.

The polling data suggest otherwise unless by "neighbors", "American citizens", "whites", and "historic Americans" here you mean Muslims and Mormons and not Christians:

Poll: American Jews Favor Muslims & Mormons Much More Than Conservative Evangelical Christians

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/poll-american-jews-favor-muslims-mormons-much-more-than-conservative-evangelical-christians/

Anonymous said...

I disagree that Jews identify with whites, Americans, traditional Americans, etc. They're way out of touch with them if they view Mormons and Muslims more favorably than evangelicals. Most Americans, especially traditional white Americans, are wary of Muslims and Mormons and favor evangelicals. The "Christian Right" IS white, traditional America. If they don't view them favorably, they don't identify with them.

http://forward.com/articles/154727/jews-cast-wary-eye-on-evangelicals/

"Only one in five Jewish Americans holds favorable views of those aligned with the Christian right, a category that includes most of Israel’s evangelical supporters. [...]

The survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute and published April 3, asked Jewish respondents to rate the favorability of several religious groups. Mormons received a 47% favorability rating, Muslims 41.4%; the group described as “Christian Right” was viewed in favorable terms by only 20.9% of Jewish Americans. In contrast, the general American population, as shown by other polling data, views evangelicals more favorably than Muslims and Mormons."

Anonymous said...

Why should Israel allow Arabs to return or even offer compensation when the Arab countries have never proposed allowing return or compensation for property to the millions of Mizrahi Jews currently residing in Israel? And surely the poster above who raised this issue knows that Arab return would swamp the state leading to its dissolution in short order. As destructive as illegal immigration or even third world legal immigration to the U.S. may be, it is of a different character.

Anonymous said...

The majority of American Jews don't want to live in a 3rd world country. This is not surprising.

One thing American Jews do have that gentiles don't is an escape hatch. They are all citizens of Israel due to their blood/lineage and when America becomes unbearable they can leave. Where the hell are we supposed to go?

Auntie Analogue said...

I'm waiting for someone here to cue the "Theme From 'Exodus'" - but played by a mariachi band.


Ow!

Paul Kirchner said...

“When I first heard about this, my first thought was, ‘Why this question?’” said Ann Schaffer, director of the organization’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism, who wasn’t alone among her colleagues in wondering why the question was asked.

Yes, why ask a question on a subject when we already know what Jews are supposed to believe? It's just asking for trouble. It reminds me of the fund-raising letters I used to get from the Republican Party, which often included a questionnaire that excluded all topics on which the party elite is opposed to views of the base--case no. 1 being immigration.

Anonymous said...

Here's an article on the poll:

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/10/12/2741251/political-points-david-harris-immigration-was-the-surprise-answer

"Here's how the question was phrased:

"A new law in Arizona gives police the power to ask people they’ve stopped to verify their residency status. Supporters say this will help crack down on illegal immigration. Opponents say it could violate civil rights and lead to racial profiling. On balance, do you support or oppose this law?""

So half the Jews responded that they were in favor of giving police the power to verify the residency status of people they stopped.

If we're going to take this result to mean that half of Jews are against immigration, then we have to be consistent and clear about it.

First of all, we couldn't say that half were against immigration, but that they were against illegal immigration. And that the other half aren't against it or may even support it. Also, presumably among the half that are against illegal immigration, a percentage of them aren't against legal immigration. Presumably the other half that isn't against illegal immigration or may even support it is not against legal immigration or may support it.

In summary, more than half i.e. the majority of Jews support immigration. About half of them aren't against illegal immigration and may even support it. The other half is against illegal immigration, and some of this half are for legal immigration and some are against legal immigration.

Daybreaker said...

Anonymous: "One thing American Jews do have that gentiles don't is an escape hatch. They are all citizens of Israel due to their blood/lineage and when America becomes unbearable they can leave. Where the hell are we supposed to go?"

Where does a fire go when it goes out?

Anonymous said...

The more perceptive Jews realise that the broad mass of gentile whites (who in Europe were always there most feared bugbear), are in the USA, at least, a spent force.
Cast-iron demographics tell us that whites are the declining power in the USA and will in a few generations' time dwindle to insignificance.
Now, geopoliticaly speaking, muslims are the jews hardest, toughest, most ruthless and ferocious enemy. Not only are muslim demographics sky rocketing , so is muslim power, influence and wealth. It is only a matter of time before Israel is either militarilly destroyed or overrun. Throughout the world muslims are murdering , maiming, harming, insulting and kidnapping jews. There has been a true sea- change in anti-semitism.
Furthermore, America's rising demographic powers iie hispanics and blacks are showing themselves to be generally distrustful and hostile to jews (they see jews as 'superwhites' who happen to own everything and give them nothing, superwhites who are morally worse than ordinary whites). Also due to open borders' policies (in no small measure forced by jewish interests), it is likely that mass muslim immigration to the USA will commence. Unlike Europe, the USA has not yet expeienced mass muslim immigration - and the prospect frightens jews.

Reg Cæsar said...

By the way, how is it possible that immigration restriction is not implemented in a democracy when it is favored by a large majority? --Harlow

Because the future of their country is of a lower priority than the future of their benefit check.

Cf. November 3, 1964. Or, for that matter, Pitirim Sorokin, who Wikipedia includes among the possible coiners of the term déformation professionelle. This is classic 'sensate' (vs. 'ideational') behavior.

They are against right of return for Christians and Muslims. But such return wouldn't have been "illegal immigration." In fact, it isn't immigration at all, but return. --David

Since when do Mohammedans have a "right of return" to sands-- excuse me, lands-- that they themselves stole at swordpoint in the seventh and eighth centuries? The real problem with 'anti-Semitism' is it ignores 95% of the Semites!

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

(2) Growing populations of people that tend to be more tribal/ethnocentric (and thus more suspicious of Jews) than Whites;
(3) Growing competition for higher end education and economic positions from the increasing number of Indians and Orientals.


I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I'd also add that a lot of the US<->China and US<->India business relationships that are so important these days goes to people who speak the language and know the turf.

I am Lugash.

Anonymous said...

The rabid, virulent anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as being in favor of mass immigration of 3rd worlders in order to make whites a minority in America and sweep away the historic American nation is, of course, a canard invented by "far-right" lunatics.

On the other hand, when American Jews are polled and their opinions apparently don't live up strongly enough to this rabid and virulent canard of reflexive support for white displacement, the alphabet soup of well funded Jewish pressure groups (ADL, AJC, etc.) is shocked!

Good one, guys...

-THRIPSHAW

Anonymous said...

The majority of American Jews don't want to live in a 3rd world country. This is not surprising.

One thing American Jews do have that gentiles don't is an escape hatch. They are all citizens of Israel due to their blood/lineage and when America becomes unbearable they can leave. Where the hell are we supposed to go?


When America becomes unbearable, Israel will have a rough time going it alone against 400m Arabs, 200m Pakistanis, 80m Iranians and 80m Turks. Sad to say, I think many are just delusional.

eh said...

“We’re something like 2 percent of the population.”

The situation is somewhat more favorable for Jews in Israel -- the 'Jewish state'. And since, as I understand it, all Jews have the right to live in Israel...

IHTG said...

The ADL and the antisemites are deeply troubled by this information. Strange bedfellows!

Anonymous said...


Yet 52 percent opposition to immigration is still a very long way from 65 percent among other Americans.

By the way, how is it possible that immigration restriction is not implemented in a democracy when it is favored by a large majority? Weird.


Thats probably 70% here in the UK amongst the white British population.

Yet we are often reminded how cynical politicians will say/do anything to get elected, here the mainstream parties have a vote winner, a guaranteed landslide election winner of an issue and yet they wont even talk about it.

Weird indeed. Almost as if there something else going on behind the scenes.

Anonymous said...

Jews will follow their leadership when it counts, at the ballot box.


Because they are so small in number it barely matters who they vote for, its who the back with cash etc that counts.

beowulf said...

"Except none of these Jews will support assortive migration followed by "

Ahh, border controls

"EILAT, Israel — A short drive north from this Red Sea resort town, a new reality is taking shape along Israel’s desert border with Egypt. A lonely frontier road flanked by a low, rusting fence is buzzing with earth-moving equipment and workmen erecting an imposing steel barrier encased in razor wire that is gradually snaking across the desolate landscape.
The new border fence, about 15 feet high, is the most tangible sign of Israel’s growing unease about the upheaval in Egypt..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/on-israels-uneasy-border-with-egypt-a-fence-rises/2011/11/28/gIQAZt19JO_story.html

Simon in London said...

"What we’ve found is a gigantic gulf between the pulpit and the pew [on the issue], and this is true of every religion in America, including Jews,” said Steinlight"

I think this is a very good point. The gulf between the elites and the masses is not a uniquely Jewish deformation. The Jewish elite is to the left even of other white elites - but then the Jewish general population is to the left of the white general population, too. And the extent of the left-shift looks fairly similar to what you would see if you surveyed Episcopalians, or even Baptists.

I was just commenting yesterday to my wife about the huge gap in US Internet media between the official stories and the comments posted below. In the UK, left-wing sites (The Guardian) have mostly left-wing comments, right-wing sites (The Daily Mail) have mostly right-wing comments. But with US sites like the AP feed on yahoo.com, or even the Huffington Post, the media line is very consistently left-liberal, while the comments below trend far more conservative, and usually hostile to the elites' views given in the article.

I think in all nations journalists trend more liberal and cosmopolitan than the general population, but the US has a truly vast gulf between elite and popular opinion, far greater than in other Western nations.

David said...

"'When I first heard about this, my first thought was, "Why this question?"' said Ann Schaffer, director of the organization’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism, who wasn't alone among her colleagues in wondering why the question was asked."

LOL. I treasure this paragraph.

Henry Canaday said...

The difference between 52% and 65% might be partially accounted for by the difference in average incomes, as higher-income people do not compete with, but employ and often sympathize with, unskilled labor. It would be interesting to see if, when adjusted for average incomes, there remains any difference between Jewish and non-Jewish sentiment on this sort of question.
My guess would be some, but not so much.


Of course, higher-income people should also be more intelligent people, who should be able to reason better about the indirect and general effects of massive illegal immigration on their society, if they seriously turn their minds to this question.

SFG said...

"I disagree that Jews identify with whites, Americans, traditional Americans, etc. They're way out of touch with them if they view Mormons and Muslims more favorably than evangelicals. Most Americans, especially traditional white Americans, are wary of Muslims and Mormons and favor evangelicals. The "Christian Right" IS white, traditional America. If they don't view them favorably, they don't identify with them"

Most Jews live in big cities or blue-state suburbs. They like America fine, just not the same parts of it you like.

There are plenty of other varieties of white people--WASPs, white ethnics like Italians and Irish--they feel more comfortable around. White evangelicals come from a specific substratum of general white American culture (itself a mix of various English and German folkways) they don't feel comfortable with.

Mr. Anon said...

"“When Jews talk about tikkun olam [repairing the world], they have to ask themselves a question: Tikkun olam for whom? The illegal immigrant who entered the country last night or their struggling neighbor?”"

Naturally, I agree with Mr. Steinlight and I'm all for what he's trying to do. Perhaps he should suggest to his co-ethnics who are concerned with "repairing the world", that they should instead concentrate on just not f**king it up. What's the Hebrew term for that?

David said...

OT (?)

Another Good Samaritan.

The earrings were ripped from her lobes.

"Police have not released a description of the suspects or vehicles that they used. If you have any information on this incident, please call"

Oh, Derb. We need you, buddy. Would you please get rest, slap a grin on, and take care of yourself? Thanks from out here in America.

Anonymous said...

An idea for rallying symbol/icon for the right. The Triorne. It adds style to cons,which they generally lack. Imagine the Tea Party rally where 1000s wear it. The Refounding. Money to be made for marketers too.

Marlowe said...

It could be backwash from Israel's own policy moves - The Guardian reports:

A vast detention complex is rising from the sandy grounds of Ktzi'ot prison in the Negev desert, close to Israel's border with Egypt, which will become the world's largest holding facility for asylum seekers and migrants.

When it is completed, at an initial cost of £58m to the Israeli government, it will be capable of holding up to 11,000 people.

Despite unprecedented protests at rising costs of living, and increased threats to national security in a volatile, post-Arab spring Middle East, immigration is of such paramount importance to Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition that it has skimmed a minimum of 2% from every ministry's budget to fund the construction and start-up costs of the building.

"We are a small country of 8 million. Last year we had more illegal immigrants than legal ones," said Mark Regev, the Israeli government's spokesman.

"We are currently the only first-world economy and the only democracy in the region. But for people coming from countries like Somalia and Sudan, we cannot be the solution."

Regev said the new detention centre, which should receive its first 3,000 detainees by the end of this year, was part of a multi-tiered strategy to tackle and deter economic migration. Other measures include a security fence that will run the length of Israel's southern border, aggressive implementation of employment laws and, ultimately, repatriation of the migrants.

pat said...

Smarter people often disagree with the less gifted by their time horizon reference. Many short run problems look different when viewed from a longer perspective.

So for example, if you were in Boston in the nineteenth century you would probably not think much of the Irish. They committed crimes, they drank and they were stupid. All of that changed over time such that now the Irish have the same IQ scores as the Americans from English and German stocks.

If you knew that history you might be inclined to make an analogy to current IQ deficits in blacks and Hispanics. Thomas Sowell indeed makes this exact argument. The short sighted public in old time Boston were wrong. Given the opportunity the Irish blossomed.

So the intelligent peoples (eg. Jews) viewed immigration as good because they were thinking of a time horizon of centuries, while the ignorant were stuck in the present.

But Sowell is wrong when he expects blacks to transform into regular Americans with IQs of 100. Fifty years after the Great Potato Famine the Irish in America who had been hated and suppressed all along the way were showing clear signs of progress. Concentrations of the Irish were living in pretty good neighborhoods. Concentrations of blacks are Detroit.

Mexican immigration wouldn't be so bad if we got the good Mexicans. Most of the illegals around here aren't even Mexicans. They are Mayans. The Mexican government doesn't want most of their own agricultural workers much less the damn Mayans. In the old days the Mexicans just ate their enemies. Today then send them north.

Sheila said...

This: "Except none of these Jews will support assortive migration followed by border controls, freedom of association, etc. because it might mean there might be a group of Whites somewhere that Jews won't have access to."

and this: "The polling data suggest otherwise unless by "neighbors", "American citizens", "whites", and "historic Americans" here you mean Muslims and Mormons and not Christians."

Also, when mentioning Jews played a key role on immigration in America, Canada, and Australia (anonymous 4/22 7:52), please add Ireland

Steve Johnson said...

I know it's pointless by now but (surprise surprise) Whiskey gets his facts completely wrong because he's learned everything he knows from watching television and reading comic books:

"Whiskey said...

LA's real estate agents are mostly young hot bimbos in short dresses dealing with "men in gold chains" and various baby moguls in entertainment, New York's agents seem all gay (even the older, and to my shock, married guy)."

Just no. Almost every single real estate agent in NYC is a middle aged Jewish woman.

If you want a good media picture of the profession watch Wall Street: the agent who sold Charlie Sheen's character his apartment ("nothing like this place") then unloaded it for him ("it's a buyer's market") is a good example.

Oliver Stone as more accurate than Whiskey. That's not even surprising by now.

Prof. Woland said...

In spite of all the practiced nonchalance Jews effuse regarding the benefits of immigration I suspect most are keenly aware of Muslim immigration and how that will affect future generations of Jews in the West. I also suspect most of them don’t like it. Unfortunately, they are just going to have to live with it.

Anonymous said...

The rabid, virulent anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as being in favor of mass immigration of 3rd worlders in order to make whites a minority in America and sweep away the historic American nation is, of course, a canard invented by "far-right" lunatics.

It's not a "canard" though.

Based on this poll, a majority of Jews support immigration. And around half of them aren't opposed to illegal immigration or support, or at least aren't against it enough to support this Arizona police enforcement against illegal immigration.

Anonymous said...

Since when do Mohammedans have a "right of return" to sands-- excuse me, lands-- that they themselves stole at swordpoint in the seventh and eighth centuries?

Uh, 7th and 8th centuries?!

Londoner said...

Thripshaw - the canard is also 'odious' and 'noxious', I believe. Such hate!

Anonymous said...

If Jews want the huddled masses from around the world to come to US, then they should call on all the victim races in the Deep South and SW states to come to blue states like NY. Save the oppressed around the world by welcoming them to America, and save the oppressed in Red State America by welcoming them to places like NY.
I guess huddled masses are okay but not hooded masses.

Anonymous said...

We'd be in better shape if the people could vote on issues than elect politicians(who say one thing but do another).

Also, when we elect politicians, we vote for a bundle of issues than on single issues. Suppose blacks oppose illegal immigration but support welfare. They can't have one and not the other cuz Democratic politicians they vote for(given where they get their money)are for both more immigration and more welfare. So, if they want more welfare, they are also forced to vote for more immigration.
Same with conservatives. If we want smaller government and no more wars, we can't have both because most GOP politicians are for both smaller government(at least relative to Dems) and more wars.

So, it may be that 50% of Jews are wary of immigration-out-of-control but when all the issues are bundled together, they are 80% Democratic and would be 90% Democratic if GOP weren't so insanely pro-Zionist.

Anonymous said...

"The rabid, virulent anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews..."

'Noxious and odious' is the new 'rabid and virulent'

Anonymous said...

"By the way, how is it possible that immigration restriction is not implemented in a democracy when it is favored by a large majority? Weird."

That something should be done does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees on what must be done. While people might support a generic candidate there is no such beast, they'd have to vote for a Tancredo to get immigration rolled back, or a Hunter for potentially effective reform(both got around 1-2% of the vote in the primary that should have been favorable to both of them). Or they could vote for the status quo, because it would be the worst thing ever if the other guy's open borders-globalist won and not ours.

Anonymous said...

I am not Lugash.

American Jews have a great deal of influence over American policy as it is. Perhaps, they are beginning to see the influx of Hispanic gangs as competition to Jewish influence. Perhaps, American Jews see Asian immigrants, who lack the cultural heritage that Jews and Christians share, as being largely immune to many of the levers of persuasion that Jews can use on Christians.

I am not Lugash.

Anonymous said...

The true Steve Sailer emerges. Why don't you just come out and say what you really think about Jews.

Quit hinting that Jews are responsible for this or that.

Beecher Asbury said...

Prof. Woland said...

In spite of all the practiced nonchalance Jews effuse regarding the benefits of immigration I suspect most are keenly aware of Muslim immigration and how that will affect future generations of Jews in the West. I also suspect most of them don’t like it. Unfortunately, they are just going to have to live with it


While there is definitely conflict between Jews and Muslims over the State of Israel, I don't think Jews and Muslims are natural enemies, especially when they live together in a Christian land.

Remember Muslims used Jews in taking over and running Islamic Spain. The Ottomans imported Jews into the Balkans for the same reasons.

Don't a lot of Jews still regard Islamic Spain and the Ottomans as high points in history due to their 'tolerance'?

The conflict over Israel is relatively recent and maybe a lot of Jews still look at Muslims as a better alternative than the Christians. Or at least it is better to have Jews and Muslims administer over Christian hordes.

Maybe for those on our side, the Israeli-Arab conflict is a good thing. Without that, there would be no Muslim-Jewish conflict and that might really blow the doors open on Muslim immigration into the West.

David said...

>In the old days the Mexicans just ate their enemies. Today the[y] send them north.<

You sound like a crazy old guy muttering to himself in a corner.

Anonymous said...

@svaldo wrote:

Jews can either be assimilated, resist assimilation through religious commitment, or resist assimilation by advocating liberal policies that are hostile to America and Americans.

This is a very interesting perspective. How does the advocacy of liberal policies that are hostile to America and Americans run counter to assimilation?

Is this a theory that anyone has written about?

bleach said...

pat,

"If you knew that history you might be inclined to make an analogy to current IQ deficits in blacks and Hispanics. Thomas Sowell indeed makes this exact argument. The short sighted public in old time Boston were wrong. Given the opportunity the Irish blossomed."

Who are you to say they were wrong? You don't know what America would be like today without the Irish. Look I don't have anything against them but IQ is not the only factor in making a good citizen. Things like having a shared heritage, culture, and loyalty to your country all matter at least as much.

"So the intelligent peoples (eg. Jews) viewed immigration as good because they were thinking of a time horizon of centuries, while the ignorant were stuck in the present.

"But Sowell is wrong when he expects blacks to transform into regular Americans with IQs of 100. Fifty years after the Great Potato Famine the Irish in America who had been hated and suppressed all along the way were showing clear signs of progress. Concentrations of the Irish were living in pretty good neighborhoods. Concentrations of blacks are Detroit."

So you basically just undermined your own argument here, why is it you can figure this out but all of those big-brained Jews can't it?

Anonymous said...

Quit hinting that Jews are responsible for this or that.

It's well-documented (you can even just go by the statements of these Jewish leaders) that Jews have been big advocates for mass immigration into the United States. Might have something to do with the documented hostility toward white Christians (see evidence in the study mentioned in this thread).

The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act was proposed by Emanuel Celler, a Jewish person Brooklyn. I don't think anybody here is "hinting" about anything.

Londoner said...

"Why don't you come out and say what you really think about Jews."

Hey anonyhasbara, why don't you start by coming out and saying what you really think about Steve and his views? Quit hinting that he thinks this or that.

Anonymous said...

So the intelligent peoples (eg. Jews) viewed immigration as good because they were thinking of a time horizon of centuries, while the ignorant were stuck in the present.

Good for whom? How has immigration turned out for the traditional American stock?

Who/whom.

Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia:

"The 1965 Immigration Act did change America's demographics, opening the doors to immigrants from Mediterranean Europe, Latin America and Asia. By the 1990s, America's population growth was more than one-third driven by legal immigration, as opposed to one-tenth before the act...The act increased illegal immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, since the unlimited legal 'bracero' system previously in-place was cut.

As a result of these changes in legal immigration among other factors, America is expected to become minority European by the year 2040."

It's gonna be much earlier than 2040.

Anonymous said...

I am not Lugash.

The interests of Catholics and the American Catholic Church in immigration policy can be discussed openly. For instance, Ted Kennedy, one of the Catholic communities most prominent political icons, is the author of much of today's immigration policy and the American Catholic Church is one of the strongest supporters of today's de facto open border policy with Mexico. Priests want more parisheners, afterall.

Why then, THRIPSHAW, is it "rabid", "virulent" and "anti-Semetic" to openly discuss ethnocentric Jewish interests wrt immigration policy? It makes sense that to increase Jewish influence at the expense of Protestant influence that Jews would encourage an immigration policy that watered down the demographic dominance of Protestant, but that that encouragement would slow and, eventually, reverse at the point when a new majority might be established. It is easier for a small minority to control a large population if that large population is subdivided.

I am not Lugash.

Anonymous said...

"So for example, if you were in Boston in the nineteenth century you would probably not think much of the Irish. They committed crimes, they drank and they were stupid. All of that changed over time such that now the Irish have the same IQ scores as the Americans from English and German stocks."

The Irish regressed to mean upwards and they did so during a period of no immigration which made sure that jobs/assimilation occurred. Sure is a good thing that the nativists were thinking on the long timeframe wasn't it?

By contrast, the mexicans are also regressing to their mean, just downards. We are getting the good ones, it is not everyone who will risk life and limb for a better life, we just can't keep them over the course of generations(or chain migration for that matter).

Scrutiny on the Bounty said...

In an unrelated development the Guardian across the pond opens their latest breathless story on the great phone-hacking apocalypse with this sentence: "Colin Myler's editorship of the New York Daily News, one of the most prominent newspapers in America, has come under renewed scrutiny"--you gotta be quite deep into the guild mentality to think of the Daily News among the "most prominent" organs of U.S. civic identity

David said...

>Why don't you just come out and say what you really think about Jews [as a group].<

Steve has repeatedly said that he admires and likes them as a group but that their big problem is that they are singularly resistant - reflexively very hostile - to criticism from gentiles. He considers that as self-defeating and sad. As a group they need more Steinlights - even gentile "Steinlights" - challenging them for their own good and the general good. Well, good luck with that! All peoples would rather jump off a house than hear any honest feedback, and the chosen peoples above all.

Anonymous said...

American Jewry’s traditional empathy for all newcomers



How odd that Israeli Jewry does not feel any similar "traditional empathy for all newcomers".

Anonymous said...

How does the advocacy of liberal policies that are hostile to America and Americans run counter to assimilation?

Liberals have promoted multi-culturalism, ethnic grievance mongering, retardation of the learning of English (bilingual education), identity politics, resentment of America and American influence, the highlighting of both real and imagined transgressions of America, the de-emphasis of the accomplishments of America, hatred of free market economics, the idea that much of American territory was stolen from Mexico and rightfully belongs to Latin Americans. Liberals also routinely suggest that American exceptionalism is a myth and that America is prosperous because it has taken the wealth of other countries. Liberals have encouraged Americans, immigrant and non-immigrant alike, to hate their own country, making wanting to be a part of America less desirable.

Is this a theory that anyone has written about?

Any rational person can see how liberal policies have retarded assimilation. It doesn't require a scholarly treatise to see that the celebration of any society besides American society and every civilisation except Western Civilisation and socialistic economic policies instead of the limited-government, capitalistic economic policies which is at the heart of the American system of political economy discourages integration into the mainstream of American society.

Anonymous said...

And surely the poster above who raised this issue knows that Arab return would swamp the state leading to its dissolution in short order. As destructive as illegal immigration or even third world legal immigration to the U.S. may be, it is of a different character.


Exhibit A in "Why America Is Dying".

Anonymous said...

if you were in Boston in the nineteenth century you would probably not think much of the Irish. They committed crimes, they drank and they were stupid. All of that changed over time such that now the Irish have the same IQ scores as the Americans from English and German stocks.


If you knew that history you might be inclined to make an analogy to current IQ deficits in blacks and Hispanics. Thomas Sowell indeed makes this exact argument.




If Thomas Sowell makes that argument then Thomas Sowell is dumb. So is Michael Barone, who made the same ridiculous claim. The neo-cons in general need to start paying attention to actual history and not to their beloved myths.

The Irish arrived in America at almost exactly the same time the slaves were freed. Of the two, the Irish were by far the worse off at the time. But fifty years later the Irish had moved into the American middle-class, while one hundred and fifty years later American blacks are still on the dole. (Or working for the government, which may be worse)

Anonymous said...

American Jewry’s traditional empathy for all newcomers...How odd that Israeli Jewry does not feel any similar "traditional empathy for all newcomers".

Is it even true that practicing Jewish Americans are all that welcoming to outsiders? Don't they often have their own de facto gated communities, schools, and organizations? Don't they discourage assimilation and intermarriage?

Anonymous said...

Almost every single real estate agent in NYC is a middle aged Jewish woman.


You're wrong, NYC real estate is dominated by gays. (Some of whom may well be middle-aged Jewish women)

NYC is run by cliques - small groups of people connected together by common heritage or common interests. It is probably the least meritocratic place in the entire US. Gay's are one such clique. Jews are another. Some people are part of two or more cliques.

danny boy said...

hey committed crimes, they drank and they were stupid"

The crimes were mostly drunkeness, brawling. They were rarely convicted of rape or murder. Not sure about armed robbery. If you are trying to make a comparison of their crime rate to blacks, there isn't a comparison. No where near. Stupid? Matter of opinion--where do you get that anyway? By the late 1800s, most Irish were 2nd and 3rd generation and were no more "stupid" than the generality of schoolchildren. There may have been Irish jokes, but do Polish jokes really mean Poles are stupid?

hector said...

"They committed crimes, they drank and they were stupid."

If you are trying to compare the Irish criminal rate to that of current day blacks or Hispanics, it doesn't work, however comforting it is for you to believe all those films and platitudes.
The crimes the Irish committed were mostly brawling and drunkeness, rarely murder and very rarely rape, committed by blacks (even among themselves and in Africa) on a scale unprecedented in history.
The Irish crime rate nowhere near approached the situation that has turned once great cities and safe suburbs into areas that now range from dicey to looking like a weapon of mass destruction hit them. The Irish may have brought cholera to Boston in the late 1840s, and increased the size of the slums for a while, but they did not destroy Boston or New York by their very presence and eventually became deeply invested contributors to the civilization within a couple generations.
As for "stupid" -- says who? But Do you actually believe Polish jokes, which took the place of Irish jokes? The Swiss have joke within Switzerland about the stupidity of people in catons other than their own. People know they're just silly, and the ethnicity attached doesn't matter too much as long as it's European or maybe Korean.
But do you get why we can't dare tell black/African American jokes?

TontoBubbaGoldstein said...

I ain' Lugash. 'Traditional American stock...' Cherokee? Choctaw? Creek? Iroquois? Apache? Lumbee (* ahhh Heather Locklear*)? I ain' Lugash.

Anonymous said...

Poll: American Jews Favor Muslims & Mormons Much More Than Conservative Evangelical Christians

What's so great about Conservative Evangelical Christians? Apart from them secretly building death camps / reform schools for homosexuals, muslims, junkies, satanists, and schizophrenics?

Times like this I miss the old Cold War Secular Right.

Anonymous said...

rarely murder and very rarely rape, committed by blacks (even among themselves and in Africa) on a scale unprecedented in history.

What is the evidence that blacks committed a lot of rapes?

Anonymous said...

'Traditional American stock...' Cherokee? Choctaw? Creek? Iroquois? Apache? Lumbee (* ahhh Heather Locklear*)?

How has mass immigration worked out for the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Iroquois, Apache?

How has it worked out for Palestinians? Very "good" - good for the Jews.

Peter A said...

The Irish also created the city political machines that have done so much to turn liberalism from a political ideology into a vehicle for channeling money directly to ethnic special interests. I'm not sure the US was better off in the long run taking large numbers of Irish and Italians. But certainly we are more vibrant.

pat said...

I must be particularly inarticulate today. I was trying to argue that present day immigration is not really comparable to immigration in the past because the peoples we are now importing are different. I was hardly trying to defame the Irish. Didn't it occur to anyone that someone commenting under the user name "pat" might himself be Irish? I suppose I should have used my former username Albertosaurus - the one I always used before I went away.

Let me try again. Smart people are likely to know more history. I think that accounts for some of these policy disputes. So a smart person - a Jew for example - might look at the history of the Irish in America and draw very different conclusions. He might disparage the notion that that we are lowering our national talent level by allowing in hordes of not very able Mexicans and Mayans. He might argue that the same thing was said about the Irish a century or so ago. And he would know that the Irish have been a huge success in America. From this knowledge he might then argue (and indeed many do) that in a little while these dumb Mexicans will also become smart and successful and make positive contributions to American civilization.

This is almost exactly the argument that Sowell makes in one of his books - I forget which. He says that the Irish had IQs of 85 when they first came here. He expects blacks and Hispanics IQs to similarly rise over time in America.

Now - pay attention - I reject this argument. I don't think the positive experience of the Irish will be replicated with the Mexicans (or the Africans).

I think illegal immigration from Mexico is a disaster and should be halted immediately and reversed.

This country was built (for simplicity's sake) by the English. And who are the English? Mankind did not evolve on the English islands. Indeed just a few thousand years ago there was no Ireland and almost no England. There was just ice. Then the ice retreated and various Northern Europeans got in their boats. There were Celts, Danes, Vikings, etc. The English and the Irish are blends of Northern European peoples - the same feed stocks - in slightly different proportions.

So when the English-American nativists had criticized the Irish they were basically criticizing themselves. Yorkshire was founded by Celts then Danes etc. Just like Ireland. There is not much difference between these peoples.

So the fact that today the Irish Americans are not very different from the English Americans in IQ and accomplisments should surprise no one. The haplotypes are close.

My liberal Jewish friends like to say that the immigration of Mexicans today is the just the same as Irish immigration was then. I think that's rot.

Smart Jews have made dumb arguments. But being smart, there is reason to hope that they will figure all this out. And this may be just what we are now seeing in changing Jewish attitudes toward immigration.

TGGP said...

What a surprise, the leaders of Jewish groups aren't aligned with the interests of members. Completely different from, say, the Republican party.

More seriously, they wouldn't have been so surprised if they bothered to check out the General Social Survey, as I did on this question (and others) in Half Sigma vs Kevin MacDonald.

S.Anonyia said...

"The Irish also created the city political machines that have done so much to turn liberalism from a political ideology into a vehicle for channeling money directly to ethnic special interests. I'm not sure the US was better off in the long run taking large numbers of Irish and Italians. But certainly we are more vibrant."

The Irish were really not that different than the English. They were poorer and mostly had a different religion, sure, but that's about it. The Irish and working class English had extremely similar cultures and shared many of the same folkways such as foods, children's stories, drinking songs etc.

Complaining about the Irish is the epitome of the narcissism of small differences.

S.Anonyia said...

"There are plenty of other varieties of white people--WASPs, white ethnics like Italians and Irish--they feel more comfortable around. White evangelicals come from a specific substratum of general white American culture (itself a mix of various English and German folkways) they don't feel comfortable with."

German-Americans are mostly mainline protestants. Nobody thinks of Minnesota, Ohio or Wisconsin as the hotbed of evangelism, do they?

Anonymous said...

Please notice that no non-Jews were consulted in the article. Why bother? Every spokesman knows it would be career suicide to get involved in this Family debate. If you're not one of them, you can't even say that they have an opinion which could be defined as a "group opinion."

Illegal advocates toss around "White People" without compunction; don't expect them ever to say "The Jews.". If they were asked to comment, they'd be forced to use the term.

Anonymous said...

@not Lugash: Why then, THRIPSHAW, is it "rabid", "virulent" and "anti-Semetic" to openly discuss ethnocentric Jewish interests wrt immigration policy?

Er, my comment was obviously a joke. The words 'rabid', 'virulent' and 'canard' are practically copyrighted by the ADL, along with 'noxious' and 'odious,' as other commenters pointed out.

Lemme spell it out for you, not Lugash: Well funded Organized Jewish lobby/pressure groups have supported mass immigration as a public policy in the US for many decades; in fact, they were some of the most vocal opponents of the very sensible immigration restriction acts of the 1920's.

The ADL also brags about being responsible for the 1965 immigration act which wrecked America and is still the greatest contributing factor in its ongoing decline.

How so? The ADL claims that it asked JFK (aka ghostwriter Ted Sorensen, whose mother was Ashkenazi) to write his pro-immigration book, which provided the blueprint for the 1965 disaster.

Yada, yada, yada. But if anyone points this out, they are supposedly a far-right loon deluded by an obvious 'canard.'

On the other hand, the leaders of well funded Jewish pressure groups are frankly embarrassed and appalled at the suggestion that the views of their fellow tribe members don't fit the supposedly anti-Semitic canard made up out of whole cloth.

Clear enough for you, not Lugash?

-THRIPSHAW

Anonymous said...

S. Anonyia

The Irish were really not that different than the English. They were poorer and mostly had a different religion, sure, but that's about it.

Modern (AD 2012) Irish-Americans and English-Americans are really not all that different. Nor to modern post-PC minds were the Irish and English of 1840 or 1940 all that different.

Even small differences in religion can be great, if they happen to be the right ones. Even Christianity and Islam are not all that different from each other. Try comparing both of them to Buddhism for something really different.

But guess what, Buddhists get along well better with Christians (and post-Christian secularists) - more so than Muslims do with Christians. So much for being closely related.

The Irish and working class English had extremely similar cultures and shared many of the same folkways such as foods, children's stories, drinking songs etc.

Foods, children's stories, and drinking songs are all superficial parts of folk culture - and can you honestly say that the working class Irish and English of 1840 told the same stories to their children, or sang the same drinking songs?

Complaining about the Irish is the epitome of the narcissism of small differences.

If so, then the English-Americans of times past were far more narcissistic than they are now.

Anonymous said...

My liberal Jewish friends like to say that the immigration of Mexicans today is the just the same as Irish immigration was then. I think that's rot.


Smart Jews have made dumb arguments.


I've noticed that "smart people" have a greater ability to lie to themselves. That is, to make dumb arguments.

Jews are the most parochial people in the world. They see humanity as divided in Jews and non-Jews. From that perspective of course the Irish and the Mexicans look alike, because everyone on Earth looks alike.

Anonymous said...

German-Americans are mostly mainline protestants.

Nope. About half of German-Americans are Catholics.

Anonymous said...

the English-Americans of times past were far more narcissistic than they are now



Some racism really is ignorant bigotry, while other racism is founded on a clear-eyed appreciation for genuine human differences.

The anti-Irish prejudice held by the English of times past (and to an extent, present) falls into the former category.

Anonymous said...

Asians have seen enough violence to not be too awed by the 6 million number. Hispanics feel no guilt about genocide or pogroms; Jews are just one of a variety of white people profiting on the sweat of their brows.

Jews thought immigration would fracture WASP elite unity, well it has. But it has also diluted the gravity of that event used to silence all criticism, The Holocaust. Twenty years ago, there was no need to be reminded to Never Forget. In 2045, one hundred years after the war, more reminders will be needed. Sorry, but Holocaust Museums will seem as eccentric as Civil War reenactments.

As long as Jews aren't subsumed by the general population, they will still be distinguished in every field, but AIPAC will be discussed the same way as AARP and the NRA are, without having to look over both shoulders. Welcome to the normal world.

Anonymous said...

Divide and Conquer. We are but the rabble of Rome as Nero burns it to the ground. Let's go to the circus,break some bread together, and enjoy the games for "domani never comes". Salvatore

Svigor said...

Hail, you're right to point out that jews vote heavily democratic despite the fact that the republicans are so ardent in their support for israel... But what does that mean? That jews aren't israel-firsters?

No, it means the Dems are Israel-first enough for them.

That we ought to have estonian style direct democracy where we can vote on specific issues separately rather than as part of some massive package deal?

I've always liked the idea of Plebiscites on straightforward issues.

Whatever it means I'm sure it's the jews fault. Sure wouldn't want one of them doing MY surgery!

I know, I know; you guys sure do have it rough. Poor you.

By the way, many here like to say that Jewish leaders want more immigration for America but not for Israel. Actually, they are pretty consistent. Here is Abe Foxman coming to Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government to prevent deportation of foreign workers: "In the spirit of Jewish values, we will do all we can to ensure that you remain in Israel." (Israeli government caved and allowed them to stay.)

That's not consistent, that's plausible deniability. "Consistent" would be dropping all efforts in America and working exclusively in Israel, where the "problem" is so much more acute. Let's keep our eye on results, not "attempts."

Except none of these Jews will support assortive migration followed by border controls, freedom of association, etc. because it might mean there might be a group of Whites somewhere that Jews won't have access to.

That last bit is like the Unholy Grail for Jews. Reciprocity - the unmitigated gall!

Why should Israel allow Arabs to return or even offer compensation when the Arab countries have never proposed allowing return or compensation for property to the millions of Mizrahi Jews currently residing in Israel? And surely the poster above who raised this issue knows that Arab return would swamp the state leading to its dissolution in short order. As destructive as illegal immigration or even third world legal immigration to the U.S. may be, it is of a different character.

Why should America allow Jews to immigrate when Israel has never proposed allowing Americans to immigrate? Why should White America support the Jewish ethno-state when the Jewish people are the world leaders of the fight against ethno-states for Whites?

Svigor said...

"Jews will follow their leadership when it counts, at the ballot box."

Because they are so small in number it barely matters who they vote for, its who the back with cash etc that counts.


Right. "Jewish vote" is a euphemism for Jewish cash. And these supposedly errant Jewish leaders are who consistently get that Jewish cash.

The difference between 52% and 65% might be partially accounted for by the difference in average incomes, as higher-income people do not compete with, but employ and often sympathize with, unskilled labor. It would be interesting to see if, when adjusted for average incomes, there remains any difference between Jewish and non-Jewish sentiment on this sort of question.

I'd like to see NAMs and Muslims removed from the equation, and see how much higher the percentage would go than 65.

If you knew that history you might be inclined to make an analogy to current IQ deficits in blacks and Hispanics. Thomas Sowell indeed makes this exact argument. The short sighted public in old time Boston were wrong. Given the opportunity the Irish blossomed.

Maybe Sowell is wrong. Maybe the Irish blossomed because the Americans from English and German stocks weren't having any of their bullshit. Maybe an atmosphere of "tolerance" would have stretched out Irish assimilation for centuries, even indefinitely. Maybe the best way for them to screw the pooch at the time would have been to listen to their Sowells.

If Jews want the huddled masses from around the world to come to US, then they should call on all the victim races in the Deep South and SW states to come to blue states like NY. Save the oppressed around the world by welcoming them to America, and save the oppressed in Red State America by welcoming them to places like NY.
I guess huddled masses are okay but not hooded masses.


Very well put. Act locally, and all that. I like it.

What is the evidence that blacks committed a lot of rapes?

Crime stats from 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, etc.

Anonymous said...

"Poll: American Jews Favor Muslims & Mormons Much More Than Conservative Evangelical Christians"

Jews do appreciate the Evangelical support of Israel, even if they (and a lot of other people) don't understand the motivation.

Missing from the list is Catholics, the sensibilities of whom they most enjoy trouncing on - ask Pat Buchanan. They are facing quite a quandary now, they will be demeaning the faith of a majority of NAMs.

Mr. Anon said...

"SFG said...

There are plenty of other varieties of white people--WASPs, white ethnics like Italians and Irish--they feel more comfortable around. White evangelicals come from a specific substratum of general white American culture (itself a mix of various English and German folkways) they don't feel comfortable with."

White evangelicals come from a stratum of American culture that hails from the British Isles - historically, the most judeo-phillic part of Europe. So why are they more comfortable with, say Lutherans, a denomination that originates in Germany, and whose founder was not very fond of jews?

danny boy said...

"What is the evidence that blacks committed a lot of rapes?"

Even prior to elimination of Jim Crow, they were known for higher rates of criminality. A French General during WWI was amazed at the rate of rape committed by the black American soldiers in France, since he was sure they had been so carefully selected (yes, there were some blacks serving during WWI in Europe.)
But mainly this is true now, and in the past 50 years. The FBI stats (apparently they won't release them after 2005) incidate tens of thousands of black on white rapes per year as compared to about 10 white on black. The black on black--must be in the millions. The black propensity for this crime is well known. Unless you are that Grant's Pass, Oregon, guy, that Sailer described so gob-smackingly in an earlier thread. The low rate of sexual assault among the Irish (relatively speaking, certainly it did occur) was noted by Hasia Diner in "Erin's Daughters."
Please check out "The Color of Crime." Do your own googling.

frame of reference said...

"Complaining about the Irish is the epitome of the narcissism of small differences."

"If so, then the English-Americans of times past were far more narcissistic than they are now."

Not really. They just had a more narrow frame of reference. Europe was divided into many "ethnic" groups that complained endlessly about each other, sometimes to the point of warring on them, or exiling them. Offhand, for some reason, the Germans in Russia come to mind. They'd been in the Volga region, as I recall, for centuries, maintaining their identity. During WWII they were exiled back to Germany. A Norwegian guy once told me that pulling the plugs to fix a recalcitrant computer was considered the "Norwegian" way by Swedes, who think of themselves as more savvy. Once a dramatically different group is introduced, naturally attention will be redirected.

Perfect said...

Jews are sensing that the cost-benefit ledger on mass immigration has changed.

The disempowerment and dissolution of European America looks to be a fait accompli, so the marginal benefit of further immigration of non-Europeans is in decline. Meanwhile the marginal costs to Jews of further non-European immigration are arguably increasing from the factors of:

(1) Higher crime;
(2) Growing populations of people that tend to be more tribal/ethnocentric (and thus more suspicious of Jews) than Whites;
(3) Growing competition for higher end education and economic positions from the increasing number of Indians and Orientals.
(4) Resource scarcity generally (related to (3)).

The benefits of mass immigration may no longer exceed the costs.


Excellent analysis!

Anonymous said...

You suppose some Jews are a bit nervous about Obama winning the re-election since he'll gain a free hand to do whatever? In his first term, he had to take the orders from his Jewish masters to win support for re-election. But once re-elected, he has nothing to lose since it's gonna be his last 4 yrs. Clinton too got bolder in his second term with his Israel-Palestinian policy.

Maybe some Zionist and Wall Street Jews fear that Obama can be dangerous in second term cuz, having nothing to lose, he'll come down harder on Israel and finance.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

"When America becomes unbearable, Israel will have a rough time going it alone against 400m Arabs, 200m Pakistanis, 80m Iranians and 80m Turks. Sad to say, I think many are just delusional."

Sad to say many dont learn from history.The "400 m" Arabs or whatever the number in 1948,1967,1973 failed utterly in defeating Israel.

As for Iran, it is in steady population decline and its educated young is increasingly at odds with the mullahs.While its not quite pro Israel as some neocons would have it,the Iranians in general tend to be indifferent.

Turkey is currently busy devastating its army by the purging its secular generals ala iran post 1979 thus ensuring a catastotrophic reduction in military standards and morale.
Also if current trends continue , Kurds will be the majority by 2050 which pretty much explains Erdogans increasingly desperate attempts at reviving the Caliphate.
Greece,Cyprus,Azerbaijan,Armenia and Kurds could cause a great deal of trouble for Turkey on Israels behalf.

Pakistan??Hahaha ,surely you jest,they are the running dogs of the Gulf States and would do nothing without their go ahead.Also I find it hard to imagine that India would sit idly while its stalwart ally is attacked by its historic enemy!

Look I know you paleos hate Israel and indulge in fantasies masquerading as analysis about its destruction, but Im sorry to disappoint you it is here to stay.

I will agree with you on one thing-they dont have any business getting financial aid.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

"But Sowell is wrong when he expects blacks to transform into regular Americans with IQs of 100. Fifty years after the Great Potato Famine the Irish in America who had been hated and suppressed all along the way were showing clear signs of progress. Concentrations of the Irish were living in pretty good neighborhoods. Concentrations of blacks are Detroit."

Actually Sowell doesnt argue that at all.Im not aware of Sowell making any excuses for the current state of blacks except for liberal policies such the Great Society ,War on Poverty and the sexual revolution.
Before that the rates of unemployment and marriage for blacks were comparable to whites.

Dr Van Nostrand said...

No better way to generate traffic(and donations) than posting something on Jews and immigration ,huh steve?