November 22, 2012

Which countries are most resistant to immigration?

A reader writes [By the way, this is just the reader's rough draft, so don't blame him for anywhere that it's not fully developed.]
Sword here again.

Every so often, propulation replacement in the USA is lamented/castigated by the iSteve commentators. The most recent time that happened, that got me thinking:

Which country is the most resitant to population replacement?

Of course, there are a lot of poor hellholes that do not attract anyone except those who have a specific reason to be in just that country (miners, diplomats, criminals in need of a failed state, etc) but that is not what we are looking for. Instead, we should limit the question to only those countries which are so well-run so that there are significant numbers of people from other ethnic groups that would be interested in living there, if they could. In order to make the discussion more productive, it is best to limit it to countries those in the top of some statistical league.

I choose the 47 countries that are in the top quartile of the wikipedia list on Human Development Index (HDI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

These countries are:
classified as possessing a "Very high human development".[12]
Europe:
Norway, Netherlands, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, France, Slovenia, Finland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Greece, Cyprus, Andorra, Estonia, Slovakia, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Portugal, Latvia.

Oceania:
Australia, New Zealand

North America:
United States, Canada

Asia:
Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Israel, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Quatar, Bahrain,

Latin America and the Carribbean:
Chile, Argentina, Barbados

There were no African countries in this august list, the top one - Seychelles - coming in at #53.

So, what characteristics of a country would be protective against population replacement?

First, I classify borders into 4 categories:
1. Easily walkable - to pass the border requires walking, but no special outdoor skills, nor skills in evading border patrol. Many borders in Europe fit into this category.
2. Trekkable - to pass this border, one has to walk in harsh terrain, but it is doable for the average healthy adult. Mexico-USA border is in many places an example of this.
3. Transportable - no private person can walk, swim or boat past this border with vehicles commonly owned by usual people. Getting past it requires paying costly air or boat tickets, or being a stowaway. Iceland is surrounded by these borders.
4. Blocked borders - these borders are staffed with border patrol units tasked with apprehending or killing anyone attempting to pass except in designated chokepoints, and the borders are fortified with man-made hindrances that are intended to stop, impede, or make obvious any attempt at non-authorized border crossing. Examples include the border between East and West Germany, borders around the Spanish exclaves in North Africa, and the borders surrounding Israel.

Secondly, there are 3 major types of political system in these countries:
1. Two-party democracy with single-seat constituiences - USA is a prominent example. Duverger´s Law dictates that there will be 2 parties in such a system, and that makes it very difficult for an immigration restriction party to thrive and survive.
2. Multi-party democracy with proportional representation - Most of Europe follows this model. Most countries also have a restrictionist party, which is linked to the fact that the hindrances to market entry is much lower in such a political system.
3. Non-democracies - applies to some asian countries.

Division according to founding history of the country
1. Founded by recent immigration into a land inhabited by pre-industrial tribes - USA and NZ fit into this category. NZ is much better off, since it was only colonized by one major overseas group, and the native population is both more cohesive and less afflicted by social ills than the minority groups of USA. The founding myth/ethos/whathaveyou of immigration as a nation-creater makes it more difficult to get acceptance for a immigration stop.
2. Traditionally monoethnic countries - do not have any ethnic minorities of any significant size, or have been like that until fairly recently. This is obviously the best case.
3. Duoethnic countries - two relatively large ethnic groups that completely dominate over any 3rd groups. The relation between the 2 major groups can be friendly (Finland) or more hostile (Belgium) or something in between (Canada).
4. Truly multiethnic countries, with the Austrian Empire as probably the best example.

In some cases, countries move from one category to another, either as a result of a friendly split (Czechslovakia, going 3->2), or war splitting a country into many pieces (Austrian Empire, post-WWI), or a war shaving off the outer minority fringes of a country so that only the monoethnic core is left (Hungary, post-Trianon), or various mixed cases.

Division according to popularity of language
1. National language is widely spoken outside the borders of the county - USA is a good example. This makes it much easier for an illegal immigrant to keep his head down, while at the same time getting hired.
2. National language is uncommon outside the country - Iceland is probably the best example. This makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to find a job, and minimally function in a society.

What other factors are there that act as protectors against population replacement? Which if those will be still there even if the political class is OK with importing people?

This could be put into a Excel project, but one should probably have defined all other factors before doing that.

My hunch as to which countries are most resistant, in order:
1. Japan
2. South Korea
3. Iceland
4. Finland
5. Liechstenstein
6. New Zealand
7. Norway
8. Sweden

What is your bet/ordering?

I'm wondering if Germany isn't surreptitiously creeping up onto this list? And what about Israel? Until this century, Italy was strong on "move 'em on."

123 comments:

LemmusLemmus said...

Maybe I'm missing something, but an aspect that seems to be completely overlooked is laws. Most notably, there is free movement within the EU, which should probably result in all EU countries being classified as pretty welcoming overall.

Anonymous said...

National language is uncommon outside the country - Iceland is probably the best example. This makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to find a job, and minimally function in a society.

What is the point of this "rule?" Only 1 illegal needs to speak the language. The rest work through the chieftain.

Sublime Oblivion said...

Sweden?? They're a poster child of population replacement!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like an interesting project for a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) or something similar.

2Degrees said...

You're wrong about New Zealand which has follwed much the same trajectory as the US. 90% white in 1965. Today 1/2 of all newborns are non-white.

2Degrees said...

I lived in Japn from 1994-5 and 2002-4 and speak the language tolerably well. They despise multiculturalism and after a beer or two will say so quite freely.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Most notably, there is free movement within the EU, which should probably result in all EU countries being classified as pretty welcoming overall."

Most EU countries are part of the Schengen Area, and a few non-EU countries are part of it too (e.g., Iceland). Ironically, the UK isn't part of Schengen, but probably has more immigrants than most other EU countries, due to its own laws regarding members of its Commonwealth.

"National language is uncommon outside the country - Iceland is probably the best example. This makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to find a job, and minimally function in a society."

I think pretty much everyone in Iceland speaks English in addition to Icelandic. Speaking a major language is common in small first world countries with unique languages, and English is the global language of commerce.

Icelander said...

Almost all Icelanders speak passable English so you can mostly function in Icelandic society without learning Icelandic.

I don't know how much immigration we've had - no-one seems eager to publish numbers. But I do know that when I go to a fast food joint, a bakery, a supermarket and so on the odds are high (>50%, I'd say) that I will need to use English to communicate with the cashier. I also need to speak English to one of my daughter's preschool teachers.

We do have a multiparty democracy but we don't (yet) have an immigration restrictionist party.

Icelander said...

Correction: I overstated the cashier bit. The odds are high that the cashier is an immigrant but they will usually understand routine phrases like "one bag, please" in Icelandic.

Anonymous said...

Germany is highly restrictionist towards non-European migration, but they're fairly open to migration from within the continent.

Italy started going soft this decade.

Felix M said...

I once heard that someone arrived in Papua New Guinea and applied for refugee status.

I was told that the relevant agency was so bewildered that it "lost" the file.

Icelander said...

All right, the numbers aren't that hard to find. In 2011, first generation immigrants were 8.1% of the population of Iceland. Second generation immigrants were 0.8%. An additional 6.1% have "some foreign background", which mostly means that they have one non-Icelandic parent.

Simon in London said...

I don't think any Scandinavian countries belong on this list. Denmark may now be the least welcoming, Sweden the most, but all are easy targets.

Anonymous said...

English as a world language really has its downsides. Same thing happened to the Romans with Latin. Their tribe was a victim of their own success.

Podsnap said...

I know Sword has put a lot of effort into this but.....

Lot of missed factors - law (as Lemmus pointed out), existence of a social security system, demand for immigrant labour, proportion of university educated no-nothings ready to lend a hand in the 'helping professions', what does he even mean by immigration (full citizens, work visa, slave camp ?) etc etc

Easier to get stats on proportion of foreign born.

Or don't even bother - just use common sense -
1. first tier stupid Anglo countries (NZ, Aust, USA, Canada)
2. next tier foolish Europeans
3. next tier - who cares ? The immigrants are just passing through to get to the stupid fools above

eah said...

I'm wondering if Germany isn't surreptitiously creeping up onto this list?

Nein.

Zahl der Asylbewerber stark gestiegen

Spaniens verlorene Generation zieht nach Deutschland

usw

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid that Sublime Oblivion is absolutely right about Sweden - there's an ongoing absolute disaster here. Switzerland should definitely make the list of immigration resistant countries though.

The Migrant Immigration Policy Index (MIPEX III) may be of some help in classifying countries:

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/migrant-integration-policy-index-mipex-iii

(Although, of course everything there is spun as pro-immigration = GOOD)

Tim Howells

Anonymous said...

Stike New Zealand. Asians are a growing minority, and Hinduism is the fastest growing religion.

slumber_j said...

Switzerland.

Skeptical Economist said...

Sublime Oblivion is correct. Sweden is a failed state when it comes to immigration. Norway is moving in that direction.

Conversely, Denmark and the Netherlands are the two most restrictionist nations in Europe.

See the Super Economy blog for discussions of immigration in Sweden. The issues are quite similar to the U.S.

Rasputin said...

Yeah, unless we do something drastic soon Sweden is definitely not a good example of country resistant to immigration. Currently we're importing roughly 100k a year of the least productive (that is, needy) immigrants we can find. And this in a country of 10 million (of which something like only 8-9 million are actual ethnic swedes.

Orthodox said...

Factors from looking at the list: assertive cultures face less threats. South Korea, Japan, Iceland and Finland.

Cold. Most people want to move south, not north. I propose a two factor model: generosity of the welfare state and average annual temperature. Alaska gives out free money and jobs pay well, but people aren't rushing to live there.

Distance/isolation. A country like New Zealand is one of the few remaining remote locations.

Anonymous said...

I'd question the placing of Japan before Korea.

South Korea is more of the
immigration, a smart, populist democratic government who are educated about the perils of multiculturalism and has a legitimate plan for preventing immigration. Koreans have a strong, concrete sense of a on-blood pure-race identity, which differs significantly from the vague, "spiritual" Japanese identitym and are very very hostile to IR marriage.

SK also have a sane policy towards the foreign minorities it has, compared to the bizzare "you're not allowed to be foreign, but you're not allowed to be one of us" policies post-war Japan has for its large Korean and Chinese populations (which Vdare writers like to pretend are irrelavent, but are pretty big problems)

Japan is ruled untested by a corrupt centralized buerocracy whose politics revolve around behind-the-scenes bribing and expensive public projects.

They are notoriously ignorant about foreigners and immigration, and, like all Japanese, refuse to be realistic about anything involving "identity".

This is worsened by the fact that they are old Japanese men, which are the most stubborn, racist, chauvinist and elitist people in Japan, which is reflected in the absurd reasons they give for blocking laws that improve human rights conditions, challenge the yakuza, deregulate business, or provide maternal leave laws which would significantly improve the birthrate.

Japan's government has no idea what do about its population and has failed plans. Among them, letting in ethincally Japanese Brazilian workers with limited background checks, a revolving-door guest worker policy(which doesn't widen the tax base at all, since short-term stayers don't invest in anything),and running illegal immigrant sweatshops (unreported in the Japanese News).

Japan's government is stupid, corrupt, ineffective and contradicts pretty much any paleo-con fantasies about an "immigration smart" Japan. Its only prevented immigration as much as it has is because its governing elite's knee-jerk xenophobia.

PS. Unlike what you might like to believe, super-powered robot nannies are simply not gonna happen. Most would much prefer foreign humans.

Anonymous said...

A monoethnic population and a language rarely spoken beyond the borders are probably the most determinative factors.

CG said...

Liechtenstein? Wikipedia has 2.4% Muslim in 1990, 4.8% in 2000. Could be even worse now. No idea of the place's internal politics but interesting that somewhere with an old-style ruling monarch still has population replacement.

Reg Cæsar said...

When I once complained about our lax laws, an African-- Eritrean, if memory serves me, but it doesn't matter-- claimed there were no significant immigration hurdles to my getting into his country.

I stopped to think about this. He may have been right. Why bother to pass laws, if no one is coming anyway?

However, the more prosperous African countries-- by African benchmarks-- do have their own Rio Grande problems with poorer neighbors. So the laws may be different for them.

Hey, isn't that disparate impact?

(BTW, Eritrea is one of those prosperous countries. But you have to cross Sudan, Ethiopia or Djibouti/Somalia to get there, so good luck. Now that's border control-- a basket case buffer state!)

Anonymous said...

Basically any nation that is not 'White and western' severely restricts immigration and follows the old-fashioned policy of 'blood and soil'.
Believe it or not, it's extremely difficult for anyone who doesn't carry Indian blood to get Indian citizenship (whilst it is automatically conferred to any descendant of overseas Indians). Why anyone would want Indian citizenship is another matter.
Likewise, if your not chinese, the Chinese don't want you and will tell you, in so many words, to f*ck off.
Same is true of virtually every Asiatic nation. Thailand lets in rich Whites if and only if they have money, and still they are never allowed naturaliztion.
Black African nations regularly turn on foreigners and drive them out at gunpoint.
The rich Arabs of the oil states let in foreigners to do he hard work, but once the job's finished a very hard and firm boot is applied to their asses - and they go home. All of them. Absolutely no exceptions whatsoever.
Perhaps Latin Americans might be a bit looser - if you have money that is.
East Europe still has avestige of conservatism and nationalism, but that's bound to change due to the 'liberal' jackboot of the EUSSR.

Anonymous said...

Well, South Koreans come here in the thousands, since they don't let anyone here we should not lead them in. They want to come and get a tract house but they live in La, Orange, and back east in New Jereesey expensive hoousing. New Jeresey houisng is cheaper but the worst property taxes.

Anonymous said...

My theory on Mexico is that the Mexican government which is our second largest oil parnter demands that we take in some of its people in order to shipped money back home. The Mexican government use the communists scare on Ronald Reagan if you don't allow illegal immirgants in then a communists will tak over Mexico and there was a communist running this time. Also, these countries don't have another country like Mexico demanding to take in about 10 million or 12 million people in.

aaron said...

NZ probably does not belong there. Check demographics. Many, many Asian people. Also many white immigrants from South Africa and Britain. Also NZ is English speaking. (Maori is really only spoken ceremonially. There will be many more Korean, Chinese etc speakers there.)

Anonymous said...

How to control immirgation in the long term. People here and many democratics should encouraged President Obama to send money for birthcontrol to Mexico dropped brithrates futther to 2.0 or better to 1.9 percent. Obama wants non-wesetern countries with more birth control.

Anonymous said...

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1113sm.html

LBD said...

Finland and Hungary share the characteristic of being in the Finno-Ugric language group, which is nearly impossible for a foreigner to learn to speak fluently. It is a significant barrier to incomers.

Rohan Swee said...

Iceland? I don't know the stats, but I did have an interesting chat with a nice Icelandic lady on an airline flight recently. Out of the blue she started talking, with obvious distress, about the "refugees" in Iceland. She clearly understood that this mania for "helping" was going to destroy the unique Icelandic culture if it wasn't curtailed. ("There are only 300,00 of us, and we'll be quickly swamped!".)

Nearing retirement age, she had had extensive travel experience in her youth in Scandinavia and a good bit of Europe. During the conversation she kept repeating mournful comments about how much the world had changed, how unsafe Europe now was, in contrast to her youth, when she and her friends could racket around Europe with little fear. She also went on about how naïve Scandinavians were in the face of this "change", and how some were finally "wising up" to the new threats around them. (Unfortunately, by "wising up", I think she may have just meant "are now installing security systems".)

Now, hearing some nice Scando type pony up some completely unprompted realtalk to a total stranger was most interesting (and cheering), but - and you knew there was a "but" coming - despite my sympathetic and encouraging participation, she capped her extensive and remarkably un-euphemized distress-dump with a whiplash turn into goodspeak (while never losing the distressed tone). She "believed passionately in inclusiveness" (yes, she used that word), and "we had an obligation to share our nice lifestyle with those who are not so fortunate". (Mustering all my self-control, I did not leap out of my seat shouting "WTF?! Iceland!? ICELAND?! Did God hand Icelanders their "nice lifestyle" on a platter? Iceland doesn't owe those buggers a damned thing!")

All this after explicitly and at length describing how much things had deteriorated in Europe, predicting the destruction of her own country, and naming exactly what (and who) was and would be the cause.

On the bright side, she definitely did give off vibes that she was desperately hoping for some (nice, socially approved) authority figure to stand up and say, "Enough! We have no moral obligation to destroy our societies for these ungrateful incompatible others!"

Christ, white people are some crazy-ass sheep.

Roger said...

When I visited Germany I was pleasantly surprised about how "German" their cities (I went to Berlin and Dresden) still remained. Sure there were plenty of immigrants in some neighbourhoods but not enough to endanger the status of the natives. This made me think that perhaps the German elite is not really part of that often lamented "suicide pact" of the West. They may publicly claim to be on the side of egalitarism and diversity, and all that jazz but deep down I think they are just biding their time, until the moment they won't find as many of their traditional rivals in their way.

Just a hunch though.

Peter the Shark said...

Isn't there a strong correlation between an aging population and willingness to allow immigrants? Younger people are the ones most directly threatened by immigrants - older people mostly benefit from cheaper service labor and a larger labor pool that can be taxed to provide social security to the elderly.

Certainly it's no secret that Western Europe and the US are so pro-immigrant partly (maybe largely) because immigrants take pressure off politicians to face up to underfunded retirement and pensions. On the flip side, I suspect Japan is more succesful at resisting immigration because the population was encouraged to save, and the elderly can pay for themselves.

Anonymous said...

The recipient countries don't have to be absolutely rich, merely relatively so. That's why there is a lot of immigration into the Dominican Republic (from Haiti) and South Africa (from all over Africa, with a large chunk of that being blacks from Zimbabwe).

Anonymous said...

I seem to remember reading somewhere that 7% of the current population of Iceland is foreign born, and includes not just Europeans but people from places like Vietnam. Iceland would have a relatively easy time restricting immigration if it wanted to, but it's not clear that it (or it's ruling elite actually) wants to.

Anonymous said...

I applaud this work. I think you may be confounding two separate types of immigration.

Let's for a moment divide immigrants in to two categories - immigrants who are genetically higher in IQ than the average IQ of the nation that they are relocating to, and immigrants who are genetically lower in IQ than the average IQ of the nation that they are relocating to.

I think you have to analyze the two types of immigration separately.

For example, Australia has truly massive immigration, but the immigrants are economically productive and actually have higher IQ than white Australians and get good paying jobs and pay high australian taxes. Immigration of this sort is welcomed as far as I can tell by all political parties, and is welcomed by almost all people who are not ethno nationalist.

Sweden is at the opposite end of the spectrum. In Sweden, it is government policy to move large numbers of immigrants to the country with genetically lower IQ than the IQ of the native Swedes. These immigrants earn much less money than native Swedes and are of course a massive drain on the national treasury.

A mostly white political elite exists in both Australia and Sweden..

Steve I think this is an important distinction... I think you have to divide the 50 wealthy countries in to four relevant categories... ones that invite massive immigration with a focus on genetically high iq immigrants, ones that invite massive immigration with a focus on genetically low IQ immigrants, ones that invite both high and low IQ immigrants, and ones that essentially forbid mass immigration

The room must listen to me said...

Re: South Korean homogeneity - maybe once, but these two pieces are about the loss of that. Their movers and shakers have been educated in the West and they've brought back the idea of multiculturalism:

South Korea abolishes itself - 2011-09

Reflections on revolution in South Korea - 2012-04

Now Belarus is nowhere near the top I'm sure, but, anecdotally, a co-worker from there expressed surprise that we didn't shoot Mexicans coming here illegally. Apparently they do, or did, in Belarus. But he may just have been talking out his a**.

Mark Caplan said...

It's virtually impossible for an outsider to immigrate into a Native American nation.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, I don't think Sweden will make that list. It seems determined to destroy itself via population replacement as quickly as possible.

Small countries go out of their way to protect the cultures of immigrant groups, but it is their own culture that needs protection. Fewer than ten million Swedes (and fewer than five million Norwegians) are playing host to people arriving from ethnic populations in the hundreds of millions.

Ddraig Verdd said...

As a recent imigrant (to the Czech Republic) I used a similar list before deciding on where to move. But I have to say that this list is deeply flawed. You can clearly see this by the fact that Sweden is in the top. A very big element is missing - Elite Ideology. It doesn't matter if you have a population that that does not like foreigners as long as the ruling classes are for multiculturalism (see the UK). Also all the Nordic countries have a big disadvantage, the people there have to much trust in strangers. While this is great for social cohesion it makes them totally unprepared for people from clannish societies.
This why I recommend the former Communist countries (I'm originally from another country in the region). Nothing makes you more cynical and more resistant to leftist blabler then a couple of decades of Communism and poverty (of course the younger generation are starting to be more like the others due to mass media) Even now there is still a lot of resentment for the West because Eastern Europe is the Appalachia of Europe. You will not here anything in the papers about Somali gangs in the UK but only about the Polish, Bulgarian and Romanian invasion.
The fact that Iceland has a difficult language doesn't mean anything. It's only spoken by 300 000 people and so everybody knows English. Plus for a lot of lower jobs you don't need to know the language (you can pick strawberries in Andalucia without knowing Spanish) By the way Czech is a lot more difficult but still there are a lot of Americans and Australians here because Prague is cool. Most don't speak the language.
One of the best criteria is how parochial is the country. How much do average people care about the status of the country in the eyes of the world? Take for example Swizerland. Or Slovenia. Slovenia with 2 million people manages to have 40 dialects. Why? Because nobody is interested in beeing like their neighbour.

Anonymous said...

What's in it for the governing classes?

In America, the Democrats benefit from a large pool of suitably abject clients for their ward heelers- a semi-legal helot class of illegal immigrants works great for that.

Republicans benefit from low wages. A semi-legal helot class of illegal immigrants works great as workers, plus they keep blue-collar wages in general low. A twofer!

Peter Frost said...

South Korea is a poor choice. Officially, it had a "foreign" population of only 2.8% in 2010, but this figure excludes (1) immigrants who have acquired citizenship; (2) Korean-born children of immigrants; and (3) illegal immigrants, who are estimated to be as numerous as legal immigrants.

Koreans of immigrant origin probably make up around 10% of the population. By mid-century, this figure will have risen to over a third. Ethnic Koreans from China and the former Soviet Union currently account for about a third of all immigrants, but this proportion is declining. Immigrants are increasingly from southeast Asia, south Asia, and elsewhere.

These points are discussed in my blog post:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2011/09/south-korea-abolishes-itself.html

Few countries are truly resistant to immigration because the globalist meme is now dominant throughout the world, particularly among the elites. I would argue that resistance is strongest where (1) most people do not easily understand English; (2) most cultural products (news, entertainment, TV, etc.) are produced locally; and (3) most of the elites are educated locally.

Cho said...

There is a significant portion of Hispanics who speak English poorly, if at all in the US. Language may be an impediment, but it still can be overcome if the drive is strong enough.

Anonymous said...

If you can get to Iceland, you can get somewhere closer. I doubt then that there's anybody wanting to immigrate there.

Jefferson said...

The average Swede thinks their country is too White and needs more racial diversity from countries with vastly different cultures than Swedes, like Pakistanis and Somalis for example.

The average Swede suffers big time from the disease that is White guilt.

Anonymous said...

Yeah I don't get Sweden either. Maybe just as a combination of factors they should rank highly, but in fact they are committed to immigration. My top 5 in no order would be:

Japan
Israel
Iceland
Denmark
Italy

Anonymous said...

Ireland is shamefully bad on this. Yes, we avoided the Schengen Area disaster. Yes, our Justice Dept keeps the borders as closed as it can with cowardly politicians who don't want to touch the topic. Yes, they're allowing as few possible to become citizens.

But immigrants are still coming. And the Irish take any criticism of immigration as a personal insult. People hear immigration patriotism and they hear insults being hurled at all their family members and friends who left.

And maybe they're right. Ireland used places like the UK, the US and Australia as toilets. If we admit that letting immigrants in is a bad idea (and it is), then we might have to apologise for the mayhem we caused in other countries. (And we did.)

So, from an Irish person: I, for one, am sorry about the Irish immigrants. Please don't think we have anything to do with Irish Americans - or, as some like to call them, Walking Wallets With Notions.

Anonymous said...

Israel strongly encourages Jews to immigrate into it.

Anonymous said...

South Korea used to be immigration resistant. Let me rephrase. South Koreans are resistant to immigration, but their government and big business... well that's another matter.

The government/big business isn't as "open door" as, say, most countries in the west, but they recently passed a national anti-racism/anti-hate speech law.

Also, there are many double standards that favor immigrants (ie easier welfare qualification, better basic/free health care, military conscription, leniency in criminal sentences, etc)

Children of immigrants are not required/permitted to serve in the military with potential for racial incidents cited as the reason. I guess no one educated them on compounding problems that arise from multiculturalism. I'm certain that within 10 years they'll have a "separate but equal/segregation/equal opportunity" lawsuit.

There is growing resentment amongst the Korean working class.

Immigrants usually fill the 3D jobs (dangerous, dirty, difficult) It's obvious why big business would be in favor of immigration. As for the gov, I think a part of it has to do with following in the West's footsteps. They might just believe that accepting immigration makes them more generous and admirable.

I suppose they'll learn the hard way.

JI said...

Can't include Sweden in that list. Sweden is a "blue-eyed utopia", as Steve puts it. And as such, it's a liberal's dreamland and must, by definition, want to be diverse.

Anonymous said...

AKAHorace

My guess is that the key indicators are:
-traditional white majority.
-on the west side of the iron curtain during the cold war.

Support for mass immigration is some kind of psychosis that happened in the west in the post war period.

Simon in London said...

Ddraig Verdd:
" You will not here anything in the papers about Somali gangs in the UK but only about the Polish, Bulgarian and Romanian invasion."

If we talk about the Somali gangs we can be arrested for racism. So instead we talk about Poles drinking in public, or Bulgarians peeing in the street. We can talk about "Romanians" as long as we don't mention that the Romanian criminals are always gypsies.

Ddraig Verdd said...

I saw once a couple of episodes of a reality type show about British border control. It was unbelievable. In one episode they find about 10 Pakistanis or Afghans (they had no papers at all and they were claiming that they are minors although the youngest looked around 35). One guy, an Afgan acted as the interpreter. Anyway the guy in charge was saying that is a major success and the employer (they were working for some warehouse) would face a fine of about 60 000 pounds and all the guys will be deported. But at the end of the show they would present the outcome. So in the end, the employer got a 4000 pounds fine, the Afghan translator got a visa for good behavior, all of the Pakistanis were sent to trial but released until there status was determined. All of them never appeared in court and were never seen again.
Or they got a Bangladeshi guy with a student visa to a known diploma mill university. They had a 2 hours interview with him. The guy had no idea about what he was supposed to be studding ( he was just repeating Informatics). So the border control agent goes with the report to he's boss saying that this is suspicious. The boss doesn't agree and claims that the guy is inoccent, a victim of fraud. The "student" was released The boss was also Bangladeshi. The only times when somebody was actually deported was a Moldavian girl who was working as a cleaner and a Candian (black) who had no money and was lying about meeting some one but the names and address were fake.

Anonymous said...

Liechtenstein? Wikipedia has 2.4% Muslim in 1990, 4.8% in 2000. Could be even worse now. No idea of the place's internal politics but interesting that somewhere with an old-style ruling monarch still has population replacement

How much of a nation's acceptance of migration is a product of their leaders' desire for population change versus a requirement by the US, EU and other big time guys to play ball on the world economic stage? I remember mangan or someone blogging about the the wikileaks memos that showed US State Department folks were pushing muliticulturalism to Finland or some nation like that. I wonder how much pressure is exerted by the US for these nations to take refugees and nonwhite immigrants as part of the price to gain access to trade markets?

I know this theory has holes because Japan and S. Korea aren't doing this. But maybe their economies are big enough where they don't have to acquiesce to those demands. And being they are nonwhite, there is probably not the sense of urgency among the US and EU types to swamp them with third worlders.

desert lady said...

small and homogeneous means greater democracy, which means the majority has more control of their government. Theory and data agree. But you lot don't want to go there, do you? Might upset your plutocrat masters, eh?

desert lady said...

for those above who say that swedes and other white nations want to import diversity, have they always felt this way? You know that is not the case.

So what prompted the change? Why the shift toward immigrant-minority worship among white developed nations?

The edu-propaganda system molds young minds. But liberals are not the cause of hatred of whites and adulation of the sacred immigrant-minority, but instead the EFFECT. Cause and effect.

The plutocrats are the cause. They have the wealth and the power. THey started false-leftism, multiculti, cult of the sacred minority/immigrant. Why?

Because fakeleftism serves their interests.

But all you lot want to do is have "two-minute hates" demonizing liberals, while you ignore the plutocrats behind the curtain that created fakeleftism.

Just as the liberals have two minute hates over on Democraticunderground, Kos and HuffPo.

You two meat puppet brigades are of the same mold--pumped full of propaganda talking points and no more capable of an original thought than a pet dog.

I will leave you to your two minute hate.

over and out...

Anonymous said...

"The government/big business isn't as "open door" as, say, most countries in the west, but they recently passed a national anti-racism/anti-hate speech law."

Asian see, Asian do.

Silver said...

Where the hell is Israel on this list? I'd say they're easily the top restrictionist country (unless you count the Jews it tries to attract).

Doesn't surprise me to hear NZ is on the way out. I thought Australians were appalling self-abnegators (and they are) but NZers are even worse. For instance, they seem to sincerely look up to Maoris, whereas in Australia pretty much everyone considers the Abos a joke.

Anonymous said...

Japan's government has no idea what do about its population and has failed plans. Among them, letting in ethincally Japanese Brazilian workers with limited background checks,

Germany in the 1990s did the same thing with ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, perhaps hoping they would displace Turkish gasterbeiters.

Anonymous said...

Plus for a lot of lower jobs you don't need to know the language (you can pick strawberries in Andalucia without knowing Spanish)

Would knowing Mexican Spanish help?

Skeptical Economist said...

"National language is uncommon outside the country - Iceland is probably the best example. This makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to find a job, and minimally function in a society"

Virtually everyone in Iceland speaks English reasonably well. Anyone who has been to Iceland knows this.

Iceland doesn't have too many illegals so far. Immigration (legal and illegal) is largely a chain process and it appears to have never started in Iceland.

Anonymous said...

Finland and Hungary share the characteristic of being in the Finno-Ugric language group, which is nearly impossible for a foreigner to learn to speak fluently. It is a significant barrier to incomers.

Other than Hungarian, Finnish, and Estonian - there are many other Finno-Ugric languages still spoken by a few thousand people in parts of Russia. The closest "major" language is Turkish, and even that is not too close, being Altaic rather than Finno-Ugric. Strangely enough, Turkish is only moderately difficult.

Anonymous said...

I know this theory has holes because Japan and S. Korea aren't doing this. But maybe their economies are big enough where they don't have to acquiesce to those demands. And being they are nonwhite, there is probably not the sense of urgency among the US and EU types to swamp them with third worlders.

But they are also First World, and therefore subject to First World economic guilt despite being non-white.

Seattle said...

"So, from an Irish person: I, for one, am sorry about the Irish immigrants. Please don't think we have anything to do with Irish Americans - or, as some like to call them, Walking Wallets With Notions."

grovel, grovel, cluck, cluck.
Please, do tell us about the "mayhem" Irish immigrants have caused, and how similar it is to illiterate third worlders, fundies, mueslies and all the rest. Let's compare Malmo to Butte, Montana- strikingly similar! Why NZ after Ward is like Detroit after Kilpatrick! Ran the whole place into the ground, he did. It's funny you think Ireland used the Anglo-sphere as a toilet when what was flushed down ended up better educated and wealthier than what wasn't. You have it the wrong way round, boyo, the shite stayed behind. Are you Donald Clarke? I have a U-boat to sell you. Listen to yourself complaining- 'people are coming to my debt-ridden country and spending money, heaps of it- the audacity! Tis tirrible, thim bein' the dregs of us anyways, shur. Illogical begrudgery at it's finest.

And, no, they are not "allowing as few as possible to become citizens". Alan Shatter just made 4,000 'new' Irish last August- with more to come, each one less likely to be complicit in the Holocaust than those horrible nationalists of old(always looking out for their own interests, i.e. doing exactly what this blog recommends the US do).

Why apologize for people you clearly don't believe are your own?

DaveinHackensack said...

Folks, click on the Schengen area link I included above. Switzerland is part if it, as is Germany.

And Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Anonymous said...

Re the Irish anon above - this highlights the insanity of the situation. Britain must have immigration because of having an empire. Ireland must have immigration because its had lots of emigration. Sweden must have immigration because its horribly white.

Im guessing that there is no get out clause for any white country.

Sword said...

I am the reader who posted that thing to Steve.

I intended it as something that would be extensievly fleshed out before posting, since I only spent maybe 45 minutes on it. Especially, I was expecting the various parameters that could correlate with population replacement resistance to be checked with some sort of correlation.

So, the commenter who wrote that some factors are missing is not fully informed - I had expected the piece to go through a few back-and-forth before any posting.

I must say that I am flattered that Steve could think that the piece was anywhere near postable quality - that was a surprise!

About the relative placements, and countries included, in the top list: I put that list down right off the bat, with maybe 3 minutes total time spent thinking about it. If you object, no one would be happier than me to see your list, with motivations.

A lot of posters have objected to the inclusion of Sweden. However, sweden has some things motivating its inclusion, especially when compared to several other high-HDI countries:
1. A immigration restrictionist party in the parliament, and no other group of parties being able to form a majority without that party. This party is doing better and better in the Gallup polls
2. An unwalkable border. Half of the border is coast, far away from poor countries. The rest is a mountain border to a richer country (Norway) and a river border in Alaska-like climate to a country of similar GDP/person level (Finland). Any immigrant who wants to walk to Sweden from a poor country must also walk through thousands of kilometers of Russian countryside.
3. Relative lack of Scotch-Irish people, they constitute 0.16% of the population. They are heavily concentrated in a few larger cities. There are 290 counties in the country, of which 5 host one of the 8 synagogues of the country. Even if they want to run the place in a liberal way, there are simply too few of them to have as much consequence as they do in USA. Ironically, while they have pushed for more immigration, the most immigration-affected big city is one where they have a relative numerical stronghold. Now the muslims in that city outnumber the S-I by maybe 2 orders of magnitude, and there are several reports of beat-ups scaring away the S-I.
4. An almost complete lack of religious people who can be manipulated into feeling bad for the "Holy Land". The local religious people emigrated to Minnesota 100 years ago.
5. A complete lack of "disparate impact" and other such nonsense in the political discourse. University admission is only by SAT/GPA grades - no legacies, sport admissions, "holistic approach", "overcoming adversity", or any such fudge factors. All parliamentary parties are in favor of this, even those one the left.
6. Strong voter ID laws - supported by all parties, including those on the left.
7. Very small agricultural sector of the type that can use immigrant picking labor. Fewer companies who want to subverse for that reason.
8. No colonial history or recent slave history that can be used for sob stories.

Anonymous said...

Sword: re. Sweden

8. No colonial history or recent slave history that can be used for sob stories.

Sweden did have a pan-Baltic colonial history in the 18th century. But very few of its immigrants are from that neighbouring region.

irishman said...

"Anonymous said...
Re the Irish anon above - this highlights the insanity of the situation. Britain must have immigration because of having an empire. Ireland must have immigration because its had lots of emigration. Sweden must have immigration because its horribly white.

Im guessing that there is no get out clause for any white country.

11/22/12 5:32 PM"

The reason Ireland is so dreadful on immigration is that it has been a prime directive of Irish policy that under no circumstances are there to be border controls with the North. This means in effect that Irish immigration policies are controlled by the UK.

The other big issue when it comes to immigration is refugees. The main problem here is the Roman Catholic church who run and fund many of the nice white lady organisations who bring em over and protect them. One favourite tactic is to endlessly appeal and then say that such and such person has been in the country so long that it would be inhumane to kick them out. They've started using the undocmented label too. Thanks for that America.

The reason we have no restrictionist party is because Sinn Féin take all the nationalist votes.

When it comes to resistance to immigration. Let's face it folks, I agree with John Derbyshire, white people are pussies. Including Eastern Europeans. See how they tolerate the invasion of central asians into Moscow and St. Petersburg.

At the end of they day folks, capital gets what capital wants. Can't be anti-immigration without being anti-capitalist.

haddox said...

One thing such countries would *never* have is the magnet of birthright citizenship. United States and Canada are the outliers among first world countries.

Something like 350K births per year - like 1 in 10 U.S. births. A slow motion, under the radar amnesty.

Anonymous said...

The USA was founded by "recent" immigration?

The Pilgrims were settlers, not "immigrants", and they arrived almost 400 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Reply to anonymous at 3:40 pm;

The Japanese don't feel guilty about anything. It's not part of their pyschological makeup. Whereas the Germans beat themselves up for their bad behaviour during the war, Japanese feel no such way over their terrible crimes from 1931-45. Or during the period of Korean occupation.

Anonymous said...

Ah, desert lady. What happened to Chloe?

desert lady said...

i see steve is censoring me again...on a whim...right!

The Wobbly Guy said...

@Sword,

Huh? Scotch-Irish? You mean jews? I don't think the Scots-Irish have synagogues. I could be wrong though.

You were speaking in code, right?

Anonymous said...

Reply to anonymous at 3:40 pm;

"The Japanese don't feel guilty about anything. It's not part of their pyschological makeup. Whereas the Germans beat themselves up for their bad behaviour during the war, Japanese feel no such way over their terrible crimes from 1931-45. Or during the period of Korean occupation."

Not completely true.

I lived in Japan, speak Japanese, and know quite well many Japanese...

Call it want you want guilt, shame,etc. but some of them do feel shame when talking about those things.

On the other hand, they aren't schooled in being anti-Japanese like being anti-White is taught in our schools and encouraged by the Scotch-Irish controlled media in the U.S 24/7/365.

So to a certain extent there is less guilt or shame about the bad things that were done...

Also I think it has something to do with the way the shame or guilt is induced...

In America the Scotch-Irish Cultural Marxists and their fellow travlers have portrayed "Whites as the cancer of the world" in the immortal words of the Jewess Susan Sontag (interesting choice of words and a classic case of Scotch-Irish projection on her part because what other group has found itself literally "excised" close to
a hundred times from Western countries time after time after time. Let's face it, Germany was only the most recent example of a trend that began at the begnnning of the Bible with their flight from Egypt and repeated hundreds of times in between).

For the young Japanese ... what their grandparents did or abided by was a crazy thing a small group of militarists cooked up...it doesn't define being Japanese.

It's more a generational thing than a biological racial thing.

It's like oh yeah some of our grandparents did some crazy stuff and it's really embarassing and shameful so please don't make me talk about it again (after you get to know them they will often bring the subject up themselves at least once...I guess to make sure you know they are not evil or whatever).

But that's about it....

Still I do think it is sincere

Reg Cæsar said...

...expressed surprise that we didn't shoot Mexicans coming here illegally. Apparently they do, or did, in Belarus.

Well, the proper English name for the place is White Russia, after all. Or White Ruthenia. The country's marketers make a terrible mistake not using one of these.

"Belarus" may sound lovely to Minsk ears, but to ours (or at least mine), it conjures up visions of a Taiwanese knock-off of an American snowmobile.

Anonymous said...

How about Bermuda? A relatively wealthy country located in the middle of an ocean with very strict laws on who can become a citizen.

They did have some Jamaican immigration for a while. Plus Michael Douglas. And those Uighur terrorists. So maybe not such a good example.

Anonymous said...

The Japanese don't feel guilty about anything. It's not part of their pyschological makeup. Whereas the Germans beat themselves up for their bad behaviour during the war, Japanese feel no such way over their terrible crimes from 1931-45. Or during the period of Korean occupation.

In this way the Japanese are more like the Russians, and less like the Germans. Although the Russians can always use the excuse of fighting a defensive war of survival.

Anonymous said...

in the immortal words of the Jewess Susan Sontag

You mean Scotch-Irishess, however awkward that may sound.

Whiskey said...

The Irish emigrated en-masse because they were STARVING. At the time of the famine, the British ... EXPORTED FOOD from Ireland. The Irish were not allowed their own language, or even to learn to read. Emigration was encouraged to alleviate rebellion and revolution.

And in the US, the Irish built pretty much EVERYTHING. The Railroads. The Brooklyn Bridge. The Empire State Building. They did most of the fighting, too. So no, the Irish don't have to apologize for anything. Somalis don't belong in Ireland.

As far as "Jews control the world" bs, I can't believe the stupidity of most here. Pretty much EVERYONE in the Ancient and Modern world has been massacred. Caesar killed a million Gauls. Roman conquest of Britain was bloody. As were wars in Germany, punitive expeditions. Repaid later. The English were subjugated by the Normans. Heck the Vikings killed, colonized, and wiped out the Celtic kingdoms, the Angles/Saxons, the Franks, and ended up down in Sicily fighting the Muslims and Sicilians.

Derbyshire is wrong in one respect. There IS A GROUP OF WHITES WHO FIGHT. Who don't apologize for existing. They're called Israelis. I like them. They're an example of fighting. They're not pussies. Too bad you losers don't have the stones to admire them for standing up to people who want to annihilate them. And don't copy them.

Sontag can rot in hell. But she hated her own people as much as herself. That's like judging all Irishmen by say Eamon de Valera.

Whiskey said...

Germany is over-run with Turks, about 40% of kids under 18 are Muslim. So no, Europeans including Germans have no wish to fight.

To fight, and believe you and your people and culture have a right and DUTY to exist, women have to believe in it. Guys won't fight for nothing. A country will only exist, a nation endure, a people remain, only so long as their women prefer their men to all others. Take that away, and what's the use of fighting?

All these videogames, those FPS, all focus on fighting. But the idea of saying NO to foreign, non-consanguinous immigrants (like Somalis in Sweden) means that women have to value their men, culture, history, tradition. And mostly, their men. Men will do ANYTHING for female approval, sex, and love. That's the principal (maybe only) preoccupation of men and boys ages 14-30. The prime "military age" and the cohort that through violent action or simple demographic strength keeps foreigners out when not wanted.

White people are pussies, as Derbyshire notes, because their women don't believe in them. Don't want them. Would prefer other men of other races replacing them and theirs. That's as obvious as those White female celebrities with a Black or African baby. Charlize Theron, Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, Madonna.

Peter the Shark said...

Well, the proper English name for the place is White Russia, after all. Or White Ruthenia.

I prefer "Eastern Poland" myself.

Anonymous said...

"Today 1/2 of all newborns are non-white."

No way this could be true. Total bs.

Anonymous said...

Kenya is very open to immigration. Over a million Somali refugees have crossed over in the past 20 years and they are put on a path to naturalization.

The attitudes of educated people in Kenya mirror that of Anglosphere elites. I once asked an accomplished lawyer in Nairobi why the borders are allowed to be so open, welcoming people born in refugee camps with Kenyan citizenship. He responded that an open policy would attract top talent to the country and create good results for Kenya. It was amazing how in this third world country the educated elites had similar attitudes to their counterparts in London.

Anonymous said...

Some posters here have claimed that the elites allow mass third world immigration in order to 'fund social security' or some other such motive, hence the elitists are deaf to all restrictionist pleas and allow it to carry on regardless.
Nothing could be further from he truth.
- Careful unbiased research in such countries as Denmark and the Netherlands unequivocally tells us that third world immigrants - from generation to generation - are a nett and massive aggregate liability to the nation's finances. This is almost certainly true of other western nations, one only need cite the Rector study.
The Dutch government did their absolute utmost to suppress the release of this information, which was only released after MPs demanded 'freedom of information'. After the release, the official elitist cry was that "you cannot judge human beings in cash terms " - which is rather odd since until they were exposed they kept banging on, non-stop, about the supposed and fictitious fiscal contribution.

No. The reason why elitists demand and insist upon mass third world immigration, despite popular (or 'populist' as they call it), opposition is purely down to ideology. Ideology of the extreme left and the extreme right.
- Just read those insane ststement by plutocrat Peter Sutherland and brain dead lefty Cecilia Malmstrom. Those quotes say it all - and reveal the truth about elitist think and policy.

Anonymous said...

In Europe, outside of the UK, Netherlands, and France, the non-white minority population is small.

AnnoDomini said...

Some considerations:

Sweden and Norway have effectively the whole population speaking English. Immigrants who want a blue collar job and can speak English can definitely get it, even with absence of other skills. (This is from personal experience, as I am an immigrant to Norway from Poland.)

Also, Sweden and Norway can be reached easily by going through the European Union, rather than through Russia. Internal police checks of travelers are uncommon (though I have encountered a few). Only problem is securing some sort of ID to get a ferry ticket - for example, between Poland and Sweden, there aren't any usual passport checks.

Svigor said...

The Pilgrims were settlers, not "immigrants", and they arrived almost 400 years ago.

This.

When I once complained about our lax laws, an African-- Eritrean, if memory serves me, but it doesn't matter-- claimed there were no significant immigration hurdles to my getting into his country.

I stopped to think about this. He may have been right. Why bother to pass laws, if no one is coming anyway?


So far as it goes; as you suggest, Eritrea obviously reciprocates nothing - more to the point, can reciprocate nothing. A night at the Waldorf is worth far more than a night in a bum's cardboard box in an alley.

Steve I think this is an important distinction

High IQ immigration to America from the Pale has worked out spectacularly poorly, from a native's point of view.

Let's face it, Germany was only the most recent example of a trend that began at the begnnning of the Bible with their flight from Egypt and repeated hundreds of times in between).

It's really rather remarkable, when you think about it, isn't it? But nobody talks about it.

Anonymous said...

Immigration into Germany is a function of the control the occupying powers still have on the country. Most of the lax immigration laws, and much of Germany politics for that matter, were written by people in the occupation administration. Let's not get into who they really were/are.

Until Germany is formally released from the occupation, and a peace treaty is made with the country, Germans cannot really enact the kind of government and policies they really want.

I think a free Germany wil go off in a direction which will not suit most of Western Europe, the Anglo American empire and above all you know whom. It will be much of the old, a strong cooperation with Rusia, China and Japan, a few smaller allies within Europe.

Anonymous said...

Lets face it, the only countries that have to worry about massive immigration are majority White countries ..

Think about it ... other groups want to live with Whites but Whites with other groups not so much...

Well ... it's simple really outside of a few non-White countries, like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore
populated by North Asians who share with us Neanderthal gentic inheritance which other groups do not.... the rest of the world is unsafe, corrupt, inefficent and in general less pleasant to live...

No one is beating a door down to live in any country of Africa ...or most of the rest of the world

And no I don't include the "Scotch-Irish" as Whites despite their White admixture becuase they are genetically, culturally, idealogically (they align themsleves with non-Whites politically) different and historically geographically from the Eastern tip of Asia so as not to warrant inclusion.

Moroever, the majority of the Scotch-Irish, more so in the U.S. than in Great Britain perhaps, are extremely openly and agressively hostile to Whites ...only a fool fails to see this in the behvaior of the Debbie Wasserman Schultzes (of the famed "the Democratic party is the natural home of new immigrants" ergo not the home of Whites) that the U.S. is populated with.

If they consciously wanted to be considered White than you would think they would allign their loyalty and politics with Whites ...but they don't ... they align themsleves for the most part with Blacks and Hispanics and other non-Whites.

A group can't be hostile to Whites and then claim they are White when it convenient...they definitely need their own category in the U.S. so they can't mask their massive over representation in American elite schools, media, and institutions by hiding behnd their "Whiteness." LOL They are the flip side of the Rice and Warrens of the world who use their sometimes dubious mixed ancestry to claim they are non-White...

The interesting twist is that both of these groups are using the current racial spoils system to game the system to the detriment of Whites: dubious mulattoes get AA postions while denouncing Whites while the Scoth-Irish can hide their disproportionate representation at places like Harvard by claiming they are White while also denouncing Whites and working agisnt their interests.

Most Whites have deep seated notions of fairess, reciprocity, and equality before the law, while other groups are apparently too tribal(probably both by culture and genetics) to understand, embrace, and accept these ideas and ways of life.

Therefore, I am skeptical if Whites can ever live with these other groups in peace.... there seems to be plenty of manifest evidence they cannot.

Frankly, Whites need to call out the Scotch-Irish in particular
and state often, openly, and repeatedly that they are not White and shouldn't be treated as such in censuses or in any other manner... they should be treated like the non-White minorities they are.

If the Scotch-Irish want to be considered White (and I don't have any problem with that) than they need to reallign their political and idealogical loyalties with Whites ... until then no.

It's actually quite insane for Whites to tolerate or worse invite people into countries that have been historically White and then permit these guests to game the system by being openly hostile to Whties and berate and browbeat Whites with how bad Whites are.

If you don't like living with Whites or playing by the same set of rules you should just go back to your own ancestral country.

Remember, next time your Scotch-Irish "friend" says he is White remind him or her why they are not and explain to them how they would have to change in order to be considered White....then maybe more of them will start alligning themselves with White interests.... then again maybe most ot them are more comfortable playing for the other team.

Anonymous said...

Germany in the 1990s did the same thing with ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe, perhaps hoping they would displace Turkish gasterbeiters.


It had nothing to do with a displacement policy. Germany has a refugee-program which was initially designed to accommodate the 9+ million Germans who were ethnically cleansed from Eastern Germany in the wake of WWII. That's something nobody likes to talk about and which the allies and liberals comfortably sweep under German guilt carpet. But it was a human rights crime in its own right, and cannot be explained away by anything else which happened during WWII.

Letting in the East European Germans who got caught behind the Iron Curtain was just a delayed version of the original refugee program and perfectly just from a German perspective.

Unfortunately the refugee system, designed to deal with the ethnically cleansed and war refugees, has since been massively abused by leftists, ethnic lobbies and interested parties to turn Germany into multiethnic state.

Anonymous said...

The attitudes of educated people in Kenya mirror that of Anglosphere elites. I once asked an accomplished lawyer in Nairobi why the borders are allowed to be so open, welcoming people born in refugee camps with Kenyan citizenship. He responded that an open policy would attract top talent to the country and create good results for Kenya.

This is only one part of the story. Political systems in Africa are nepotistic by nature. So mass immigration is never a threat to the ruling elite and their fellow ethnic travelers on the gravy train. That's why the black South Africa government, in sharp contrast to the former white government, opened the borders and let in an estimated 20 mio refugees. The poor native Africans get screwed badly, which is why there is so much xenophobia, but the black elite give a shit.
Apart from that most African countries, due to the corruption and incompetence endemic in their government ministries are unable to control their borders anyway, so theorizing about the upside of that is just window dressing.

RD said...

"When I visited Germany I was pleasantly surprised about how "German" their cities (I went to Berlin and Dresden) still remained."

Berlin has Third Worlders.

Dresden is in the former German Democratic Republic, a country which was sealed off from the world until 1989. Despite all the money that has been pumped into the former GDR since reunification, the east is still significantly poorer than western Germany and therefore not particularly attractive to immigrants.

Next time visit north-west Germany. Plenty of Third Worlders occupying that part of Germany.

Still, I think you have a point: Germany is in a better position demographically than the Anglo countries, all of which are in advanced stages of national suicide through Third World replacement migration.

RD said...

"Well, the proper English name for the place is White Russia, after all. Or White Ruthenia. The country's marketers make a terrible mistake not using one of these."

Tell Alexander Lukashenko.

JP said...

"At the end of they day folks, capital gets what capital wants. Can't be anti-immigration without being anti-capitalist."

Anti-capitalist like Japan?

Was the USA anti-capitalist before 1965?

RD said...

"For example, Australia has truly massive immigration, but the immigrants are economically productive and actually have higher IQ than white Australians and get good paying jobs and pay high australian taxes. Immigration of this sort is welcomed as far as I can tell by all political parties, and is welcomed by almost all people who are not ethno nationalist."

Australia is committing national suicide at an alarming pace. And, no, not all immigrants to Australia are of the high IQ variety. In fact, in recent years, the country has been accepting more and more low IQ, unproductive Third Worlders under various family reunification and refugee resettlement schemes.

In any case, even if all immigrants to Australia had high IQs, it wouldn't diminish the demographic threat such immigrants pose to the continued existence of Australia's founding Anglo-Celtic core population.

There is nothing good that can come from mass non-Western immigration.

Anonymous said...

"For instance, they seem to sincerely look up to Maoris, whereas in Australia pretty much everyone considers the Abos a joke."

The Maoris are a fierce, hierarchical warrior people with an interesting culture who fought the English to a draw in a lot of New Zealand. The Aboriginies...not so much. You can't really compare the two.

Anonymous said...

but NZers are even worse. For instance, they seem to sincerely look up to Maoris, whereas in Australia pretty much everyone considers the Abos a joke.

But Maoris and Abos are not the same. Must be quite an IQ gap between the two. Maoris may not be white but they seem more like the defeated Indians of the US, a warrior group respected by the victors. As in the US that respect has been morphed into servile PC worship of The (better) Other.

And many Maoris (and part Maori) are functional in white NZ society in a way many Abos are not in Oz.

Anonymous said...

Albania because no one wants to go there.

Zimbabwe because everyone wants to LEAVE.

North Korea because it's nuts.

Oceania cuz no one can find it.

Anonymous said...

Israel is very pro-immigration.. but only of Jews.

Anonymous said...

A more interesting question is 'why nations have the most selective immigration policies?'

Canada would be one of them.

It's also worth asking what the criteria for selectivity are. Is it racial/ethnic, skill-based, or geographic-based.

Much of American immigration policy seemed to be geographic-based. Since US is next to Mexico, we take in a lot of Mexicans.

Anonymous said...

"Sweden?? They're a poster child of population replacement!"

Yeah, if Sweden ended up the way it did with restrictive immigration policies, imagine where it would be if it had open immigration policies.
Or, maybe Sweden tightened the screws a bit over the years since they've been getting so many useless immigrants from Third World nations.

It goes to show you that ideology does matter. Since the main ideology of the West is 'anti-racism', anti-nationalism, and pro-diversity-ism, the radicals have been able to keep pushing Europe in that direction. And though the majority of Europeans may not endorse such policies, they remain silent because the governing ideology has convinced them that they would be 'evil and racist' to think otherwise.

Ideology has the power not only to push certain things but to undermine the immune system of those who oppose them.
PC ideology attacks the white cells of the West. It is like HIV, and the West needs to find new drugs and methods to resist this sick disease.
True blue leftist radicals may not be big in number in the West, but they exert disproportionate amount of power because they not only go on the attack but neutralize the defense system of their opponents.
Same with Jews. With the cult of Holocaustianity, it is nearly impossible for anyone to challenge Jewish power as Jewish power. Jews can attack and mock us, but we can't do likewise to Jews. We may be much bigger than the Jew, but the Jew can fight with both hands--and even kick us and bite our ears--whereas we have both our hands tied behind our backs and shoelaces tied with one another.

-----

There are advantages and disadvantages to bringing in skilled labor and unskilled labor.
If a nation allows a lot of skilled or high IQ immigration--especially of another people--,there is the chance of the majority coming under 'alien' domination. It happened in the US with the rise of Jews. And in Southeast Asia, the Chinese minority hold tremendous economic power. The plus is that high-IQ Jews and Chinese do much to develop and grow the economy. The downside is the majority people are essentially dominated and even ruled by a minority elite.

The advantage of bringing in low IQ unskilled labor is that the immigrants will be unable to take over the nation. Fat chance of hordes of Mexican-Americans gaining elite power in the US. Masses of mestizos and Indians in Mexico cannot even wrest power away from the minority white elite. Guys like Carlos Slim dominate Mexico, and he's not even Mexican originally.
And the low-IQ immigrants from Southeast Asia in Japan and South Korea cannot gain elite power over Japanese and Koreans. If lots of Jews and Chinese might go to Japan and Korea, it might be a different story. But, Japanese and Korean talent pool will be limited to their own kind. It won't benefit from Jewish genius and the like. And all the unskilled dummy labor from Southeast Asia might becoming a growing pool of mediocrities like so many Mexican-Americans are in America: a burden for tax-payers.

Anonyia said...


"The Pilgrims were settlers, not "immigrants", and they arrived almost 400 years ago."

For the last freakin' time, the pilgrims did not "found" America. The Jamestown settlement preceded Plymouth by over a decade.

Anonyia said...



"So, from an Irish person: I, for one, am sorry about the Irish immigrants. Please don't think we have anything to do with Irish Americans - or, as some like to call them, Walking Wallets With Notions."

We aren't all that bad. Not all Irish left during the famine, and not all of them went to become the obnoxious Northeast corridor Irish.

Anonymous said...

"For example, Australia has truly massive immigration, but the immigrants are economically productive and actually have higher IQ than white Australians and get good paying jobs and pay high australian taxes. Immigration of this sort is welcomed as far as I can tell by all political parties, and is welcomed by almost all people who are not ethno nationalist. "

If the above statement is true then countries like China and India have de facto colonization rights over the rest of the world. Let me explain - a high population country such China or India will always have a subset of its population that has higher IQ then any other country in the world. Which means that according to your theory above China and India should have full colonization rights over any other in the world. Of course the above could be logically extended to any two countries - but it more applies to countries with higher populations with respect to countries with lower populations.

The reason there are such things as borders and countries in the first place - is not just to satisfy the "ethno nationalists". I swear to you it's not. Pick up a history book and figure out why borders and countries exist. Also think about why unlimitted (especially one way) population transfers are NOT a good idea.

Also keep in mind that previously in our history we did not have nuclear weapons. We have nuclear weapons today. We also have the fastest demographics shifts in history. Think about why there were wars in the past and why previously powerful countries became destabilized. You will then understand why border control is not only for the "ethno nationalists", but why it is in the interest of the world.

jody said...

you can definitely put south korea above japan. then again, you can put north korea above south korea.

obviously, china should be on the list as well. not sure where. but above all the european nations.

sweden should not be on the list. sweden is well on it's way to deliberately transforming itself into some other country. denmark is more ethnically unified and resistant to immigration than sweden or norway.

russia is not friendly to vibrant immigrants. not only is there no france or UK style tidal wave of them every year, the ones who are there get physically harrassed by the locals as if it were the year 1900 in some other countries. actual beatings happen regularly and the russian authorities do not step in to stop the locals from asserting that this is our land, get out.

"I'm wondering if Germany isn't surreptitiously creeping up onto this list?"

maybe. people from turkey are slowly leaving, and germany doesn't take the hundreds of thousands of vibrant immigrants every year which france and the UK do. although there are some. people in germany complain slightly about them showing up in german cities, but it's NOTHING like france or the UK. nothing at all like that. they aren't transforming german cities into crapistan.

germany is brain draining spain. taking their engineers and scientists under 30. that moderately increases the disparity in the balance of power between germany and the rest of europe. the spaniards are forced to learn german and english and assimilate.

Anonymous said...

Pick up a history book and figure out why borders and countries exist.

People are people. Let's get a little off-topic here. I used to be a fan of SF literature depicting a unified Earth, with no countries, no war, and a strong world government. Now that I'm older and wiser, I see it as unrealistic. As someone mentioned in another post, there are really three options. The first is the same nations as today, and a weak or nonexistent world government. The second is the same but with a strong world gov't, as in a dictatorial police state that actively persecutes nationalism. The third is a humanity so homogenized that the old races and nations no longer exist, and Earth is just one big country.

Anonymous said...

The third is a humanity so homogenized that the old races and nations no longer exist, and Earth is just one big country.

I should have added that some sort of nations or sub-nations will still exist in some form. Unless geography changes, they will be in approximately the same place as present ones. After all, Anglo-Saxon plus Norman England is in the same place as Celtic Brythonia. But these future nations will be more like American states (which will also likely still exist) than true countries.

Anonymous said...

" Switzerland should definitely make the list of immigration resistant countries though. "
is Switzerland really that good? Over 20% of their population is foreign born. Maybe most of those are Italians or Germans, but they are getting more Mosques in the country.

Have you seen the Swiss national soccer team? Hardly Swiss.

I saw many black people in Geneva as well as Chinese working at the hotel I stayed at.

Anonymous said...

Was under the impression that only Denmark and Finland were really restrictive amongst the western nations on immigration. Japan and Israel kind of go without saying, unless the people emigrating happen to be Japanese or Jews. BTW, a few weeks ago saw an op-ed written in the WSJ by some bigwig at Columbia's Teacher's College, he was citing both Finland and Singapore as countries to emulate educationally. In other words, a country that abhors immigration and another that hates multiculturalism, I wonder what we could copy from them? Certainly not immigration restriction and no multiculturalism, that would just be bad form and the R word that shan't be said.

Reg Cæsar said...

For the last freakin' time, the pilgrims did not "found" America. The Jamestown settlement preceded Plymouth by over a decade. --Anonyia

The Jamestown settlement is also guilty of introducing diversity to these shores. Perhaps that's why folks are so eager to forget it.

The first major "African-American" history was titled "Before the Mayflower". Speaks volumes.

Rev. Right said...

"It's actually quite insane for Whites to tolerate or worse invite people into countries that have been historically White and then permit these guests to game the system by being openly hostile to Whites and berate and browbeat Whites with how bad Whites are."

Why yes it is, but that's the basic conundrum, isn't it? Because that's what is going on, and it shows no signs of abating. How does this insanity persist when it runs counter to all natural survival instincts? One would almost conclude the western nations had internalized some sort of death wish. This is either validation of Oswald Spengler's view on the mortality of cultures or the result of the very effective machinations of an international leftist cosmopolitanist project to destroy Western civilization that you aren't allowed to recognize the exisitence of.

Anonymous said...

Personally I think Irish immigration was a source of strength to the countries they came to (Canada, Australia, etc). As a Canadian i would welcome Irish people over, Tamils, Jamaicans and all the other third world trouble-makers my government lets in. I saw this commercial in Ireland where a voice-over narration is going on. The guy is reading a 19th century letter condemning Irish immigrants in America. At the end you see he is a black African and the "idea" is supposed to be that Irish people in Ireland can not be down on Africans inviting themselves to their island because the Irish departed for other lands in the distant past.

Except that............

1) The Irish moved to undeveloped countries and helped to develop them. African blacks today arrive in a modern and fully developed Ireland and contribute nothing to it. Unless you consider adding to the welfare rolls a "contribution".

2) No Irish ever immigrated to any black African country, so the analogy is absurd.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:28

Much of the emigration to South Africa were by the non Mugabe tribe escaping to a country where they were safer because of apartheid.

Anders said...

Unfortunately Sweden is taking in people from Somalia and other "problematic people" in LARGE numbers - some cities are in the prestages to Detroit...

x said...

""For example, Australia has truly massive immigration, but the immigrants are economically productive and actually have higher IQ than white Australians and get good paying jobs and pay high australian taxes. Immigration of this sort is welcomed as far as I can tell by all political parties, and is welcomed by almost all people who are not ethno nationalist. ""

complete lie. australian immigration is opposed in its entirety, at least according to a recent poll, by a majority of australians, and this number has been rising every year: http://www.visabureau.com/australia/news/22-05-2012/majority-oppose-australian-immigration.aspx

the facts concerning the value of this skilled labour are likewise equivocal:

http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/when-skilled-immigrants-arent-so.html

and the economic benefits, even from "skilled migration" are questionable.

Foseti said...

I have friends who have been working in Switzerland for the better part of a decade, and they'll never be allowed to immigrate.

Someone should figure out a way to quantify aversion to immigration and regress it with GDP per capita. My guess is they're highly correlated.

Anonymous said...

Part of "resistantness" might also come from whether there is an innate, possibly overt sense of ethnic solidarity or what Frank Salter calls "ethnic genetic interests"... Some ethnically homogenous contries (Koreas) have it and others do not (e.g. Scandinavian countries)--but I dont know if there is a value that one could calculate expressing magnitude of "ethnic genetic interest"...

rahyal said...


Thanks for great sharing post. Its very comprehensive information for everyone, very important to know about Norway Immigration