Anyway, it's from a Pew Center polling of people in 47 countries on whether "We should further restrict and control immigration." (See p. 29 of the PDF.) Those favoring more restrictions on immigration are the salmon colored bars, those disagreeing are the blue bars. The restrictionists win in 44 of 47 countries, only losing two East Asian countries that haven't really tried immigration yet, Japan and South Korea, and in the Palestinian Territories (I don't know exactly how the Palestinians interpreted that question -- perhaps they read it as restricting their right to immigrate into Israel and reclaim grandpa's house in Haifa.)
Posts
30 comments:
Yes I can read, you just click on the table and it takes you to the page where the table is.
If you meant to ask if we can interpret, I'm really surprised that Japan and Korea seem relatively the most open to immigration. They let almost nobody immigrate, right? I wonder if they answered what they really thought or what they thought the person asking the question wanted to hear.
Vissarion
So 7 out of 10 Mexicans want to curb immigration in their own country, yet apparently 10 out of 10 Mexicans have no problem in shipping their peasant underclass north.
The Palestinians want more warm bodies for their endless struggle.
For everyone else, this is great news. The global diversitycrats are fighting human nature. More immigration = more backlash. Of course, in the end more immigration is what we're fighting against so we can't count on the backlash from it to save us.
Steve,
I think you could probably connect the pro immigration sentiment in South Korea toward their desire to have their kinsmen in the North be allowed to join them. Not sure if that's the case, though.
The graphic simply confirms that our planet is infested with racists and bigots. Obviously, it is up to enlightened people everywhere to establish social justice on earth by any means necessary, and turn these disheartening poll numbers around.
Race and culture doesn't exist except as a social construct, so why have borders? Let there be many ethnicities, many languages, and many religions in every city center and town square. Diversity is beautiful and there cannot be enough of it.
Homogeneity is disgusting and repulsive. Radical, right wing, white homogenous societies are the most backward and dangerous. In an enlightened world they would be outlawed.
A peaceful, coffee colored planet is the future.
The statement was, "We should further restrict and control immigration". With about three immigrants a year in Japan and Korea (not including those returning from their diasporae), any "further" control is impossible.
In other words, the respondents are saying the level of control is just right.
Which is understandable, if your immigrant pool is restricted to the likes of St Francis Xavier, Lafcadio Hearn, Sadaharu Oh and Lisa Ono.
The one thing I'm the most encouraged of in this chart is that exceedingly high anti-immigration sentiment in Italy. Apparently, when you get guys in power who put their money where the mouth is and show that 'yes, we can!' do something about these unwanted, unproductive, unfamiliar, uncooperative aliens, the public will actually follow.
Of course, this could be observed by just chatting around with ordinary citizens; very few are actually pleased to have all this plentiful diversity but speaking out loud against it is not something civilized people do, so we get along with our lives. As the tide turns and actual measures are taken, public support goes up.
Oh damn, the report is from last year. There goes the theory.
Well, at least Italy had a solid base to tighten the policies from. Their example should be duplicable in most other European countries.
Top Ten Duties of the Japanese Emperor
#3. Make sure Yoko Ono's U.S. visa is kept up to date.
"Top Ten Duties of the Japanese Emperor"
Is Alberto Fujimori on that list somewhere?
-Fred
". . . the pro immigration sentiment in South Korea . . ."
The results don't actually indicate a pro-immigration sentiment in either Korea or Japan, since the question asks whether "We should FURTHER restrict and control immigration."
In other words, if you live in a country like Japan (or presumably, S. Korea) that already tightly controls immigration, you might be wary of large scale immigration, but satisfied with the already high degree of restriction.
This poll is the best proof yet that a representative democracy is not the ideal system of government. A direct democracy, with referendums, is preferable. What do you think would happen if there were a referendum on immigration into the US? Or on affirmative action? The electorate might actually get its way....Power to the people!
Red wine ... note that the one of highest levels of anti-immigration sentiment is in Africa. I doubt very much that Ivory Coasters are worried about being swamped by whites. Think of the brutal murder of black refugees perpetrated by blacks in South Africa recently.
Because of its geographical position and long coastline, Italy cannot police its border effectively. Hence the growing resentment amongst Italians of illegal immigrants taking over parts of their cities and the increase in crime which results.
This Pew report was released skepticism of free trade was being bandied about a lot in the media last year.
The bottom line comes in two parts: Firstly, nations overwhelmingly like being able to trade with other nations and favor free market economies over those that are centrally-planned. Pew is a trustworthy source, but in spite of this it strains credulity to see that, of the 47 nations polled, support for free trade (59%) was the very lowest in the United States.
Secondily, nations are also overwhelmingly opposed to the unfettered flow of people and want their respective governments to "further restrict and control" immigration (with over 70% favoring greater restriction and less than 26% opposing it).
Only three of the 47 countries bucked this trend: The Palestinian territories (does anyone actually immigrate there? I was under the impression that the flow of people was mostly one of emigration), Japan (barely, and since it has so few immigrants it is not particularly surprising that the population is ambivalent toward it), and South Korea (where citizenship is garnered either by marrying a native Korean--and one-fifth of the Korean men who marry each year join in union with a non-Korean, usually of Southeast Asian descent--or by bringing big bucks into the economy).
The idea that free trade and free flow of people are inevitably linked is falacious. The former can be had without the latter. The errant assertion relies on the assumption that people are indistinguishable economic units, blank slates that can be equally educated, assimilated, and utilized across the globe in equal capacities. That conception of human resources is antiquated, as Gregory Clark lays out in A Farewell to Alms (and has been less holistically argued in academia for decades and more recently across the blogosphere).
A barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia and another one from Canada, once they have been through a US refinery and turned into gasoline, are no longer appreciably distinct. Workers from each of these countries, however, will remain distinguishable from one another (and from other Americans, to a varying degree) once they've been through the American 'assimilation process' (whatever exactly that is). They will retain different temperments, different views on how society should be structured, different intellectual capabilities, different views on the value of work, etc.
Whether that slab of beef came from Kansas or Brazil matters less to the people of Missouri than does whether their neighbor just moved from Kansas or Brazil.
That the free trade and the free flow of people are not two sides of the same coin is obfuscated more by how similar the two concepts are semantically. Both involve the free movement of things, right? Except free trade has an obvious caveat--people only import things that they want to use and consume, things that they want to be part of their lives. If Bolivians don't want to buy Ford automobiles, Fords won't be imported into Bolivia. If Spaniards don't want large numbers of Moroccans living in their midst, why should they not similarly be able to restrict immigration from Morocco?
Further, in a competitive, global economy, nations must compete with one another. Any corporation that offered a cubicle, computer, and paycheck to whoever desired a job with the company wouldn't be in business for long. The corporation hires only those that will add value. Natives similarly want those who become their fellow residents to benefit them, the difference being that while a corporation's objectives are primarily economic, people employ a more expansive metric in evaluating what is desirable in a person: Cultural closeness, official language fluency, temperment, and the like.
Japan & South Korea both have net immigration rates (at least officially) of 0.00%
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_net_Migration_Rate_dall.htm
That being the case I would agree with those citizens who think it is too low. That doesn't mean any of them want to match other western rates.
The question was "We should further restrict and control immigration"
That right there is not a homogeneous question. When an informed American hears that he thinks 1 million legal and 2 million illegal immigrants a year - and mostly rabble in both categories.
I reckon, when a Japanese or Korean hears it - its a fraction of the amount, and of a population that looks similar and has a much higher IQ. All things to take into account.
Perhaps its not as simple as Japanese or Koreans being ignorant of immigration effects.
For a rational person, the following factors should influence their opinion.
1. Economic knowledge (more immigration)
2. Size of welfare programs (more high skilled, less low skilled if welfare programs are large)
3. Current restrictions (less if low, more if high)
Without any longitudinal data, I'm not sure how significant these poll results are. I suspect that people have always been opposed to large-scale immigration in general, but that opposition hasn't prevented elites from getting their way on the issue for a good while. Only a dramatic increase in opposition--and an increase in the salience of the issue--holds out the possibility of reform.
Doug Wilder was another conservative black Democrat who could never inspire the "whiter" people. A shame because he would have been a much better President than Bill Clinton.
I'm really surprised that Japan and Korea seem relatively the most open to immigration
LOL. The Japanese let (practically) no one in. The statement is, "We should let fewer people in." The Japanese don't agree, and this signals openness to immigration to you?
Still, let's assume the Japanese citizenry is more open to immigration than their immigration policies indicate; this makes the lack of treachery on the part of their elite even more striking IMO. Why aren't they selling their own down the river for short term profit?
I would guess that even these numbers are INFLATED in such as the US, and Canada because of the high number of immigrants. I would assume that most recent immigrants want to bring in more of their people. I think if you only polled native born people, the results would be similar to Italy.
And people think we've got Democracy. Hah!
I may have mentioned before that Big Business always wins? Yes?
(And the ignoramii who puffed off about how Big Business never pulled this sort of stunt in the US before are way to ignorant of their own history to have an opinion on the subject. The US has been overwhelmed time and time again from African slaves to uncouth Frenchmen to Irish peasants to ponytailed coolies to Poles to Jews, etc, etc.
Cheap Labor Will Be Served!)
mnuez
P.S. As a bonus treat for the few commentors here who can read, here's Freddy Doug on the subject (and before the Mexicano Invasiono, imagine that!
Cheap Labor
"...When we inquire who are the men that are continually vociferating for cheap labor, we find not the poor, the simple, and the lowly; not the class who dig and toil for their daily bread; not the landless, feeble, and defenseless portion of society, but the rich and powerful, the crafty and scheming..."
I note that Israel also has a majority for restricting immigration. Does that mean all those Neocons will stop demonizing Americans who support immigration reduction or that they will begin to attack Israelis who support reducing immigration?
It’s gotta be one or the other, right?
It seems to me a second order generalization beyond the first which Steve supplies above (‘most people in the world by large majorities oppose mass immigration’) is as follows:
Sentiment in favor of mass immigration only approaches or reaches fifty percent where both the country itself faces little current immigration pressure and a large number of it’s own nationals, relatives of many of the respondents, are themselves immigrants in other, richer countries. Examples of this phenomenon are much of Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Bulgaria) and some East Asian countries, e.g. S. Korea and China. I don’t know enough about the situations in Peru or Kuwait to comment. Japan has so little immigration, especially current immigration (there was formerly a fair amount of Korean immigration) that its responses can be seen as essentially theoretical and hence highly susceptible to current popular mass fashions and probably international (i.e. American) mass entertainment media ideological influence.
Sweden is about the only country in the graph that seems to me to stand outside this theory. Although Sweden arrived in the post modern era (post say 1965) with an almost entirely homogenous population, it has in recent decades been doing its best to bring in large number of immigrants, especially Muslim ones it seems. There are now lots of Iranians and more problematically Palestinians in Sweden, and lo and behold, they have brought with them a host of social problems, which the right thinking Swedes studiously ignore and sweep under the rug, perhaps even more than here (the US). Sweden has long been one of the most ideologically leftist of all free and democratic countries, in part because of their modern era homogeneity it seems to me. (It’s always easiest to ignore ethnic or nationalist loyalties when they are an absolute given, not remotely under pressure from within or without.)
Ben Franklin,
I've heard American neo-cons suggest foreign and military policy options to Israel (regardless of whether most Israelis agree with the position), but so far I haven't heard any deign to suggest different immigration policies for Israel.
Israel actually has a fairly liberal immigration policy, as long as you aren't a Muslim or Palestinian. That part is just common sense. I'm sure if an American Christian wanted to immigrate to Israel, he wouldn't have much trouble doing so. Of course, the country does give preference to Jewish immigrants, since its whole purpose is to be a refuge for Jews, but even there the Israeli authorities have let in non-Jewish spouses, relatives, etc.
I would be interesting if someone could come up with a correlation between national support (or lack of support) for immigration and, well, anything.
Isn't it too late to demand immigration reform in the US? The groups are here, they are proliferating via births on US soil and chain migration. Don't we get to a point where you can't change the momentum? I think it may be time to develop alternate strategies for coping with diversity, like Americans of European descent demanding to have their new status as a minority respected.
I mentioned this to a Japanese labmate of mine and he told me that when the Japanese think of "immigration" they think of getting maybe one or two star soccer players or a few dozen models from somewhere each year - not hundreds of thousands of people from god-knows-where. Entirely different conception.
Ben Franklin is funny.
Israel wants only members of The Tribe in good standing to immigrate.
Not so for the lunatics known as Christian Zionists.
They're allowed to visit, but not to stay.
Talk about unrequited love.
I think Pat Buchanan would be a brilliant choice as McCain's running mate. It would shore up his support among white, working class voters who have been less than enthusiastic about Obama. The fact that Buchanan has expressed politically incorrect views on immigration would lead the liberals to attack him viciously--making it seem that the Democrats are the party of unlimited third-world immigration. (As if having Obamas face on the election posters didn't send the same message.)
I actually like Obama a lot more than McCain. I am going to vote against him because he is a symbol of the future that our liberal elites have planned for the country. I will not have it construed that I have assented to the destruction of my country.
Post a Comment