Harvard labor economist George J. Borjas has been pretty quiet lately because he's been working on a big book entitled Immigration Economics, which comes out on June 2.
Millions of people--nearly 3 percent of the world's population--no longer live in the country where they were born. Every day, migrants enter not only the United States but also developed countries without much of a history of immigration. Some of these nations have switched in a short span of time from being the source of immigrants to being a destination for them. International migration is today a central subject of research in modern labor economics, which seeks to put into perspective and explain this historic demographic transformation.
Immigration Economics synthesizes the theories, models, and econometric methods used to identify the causes and consequences of international labor flows. Economist George Borjas lays out with clarity and rigor a full spectrum of topics, including migrant worker selection and assimilation, the impact of immigration on labor markets and worker wages, and the economic benefits and losses that result from immigration.
Two important themes emerge: First, immigration has distributional consequences: some people gain, but some people lose. Second, immigrants are rational economic agents who attempt to do the best they can with the resources they have, and the same holds true for native workers of the countries that receive migrants. This straightforward behavioral proposition, Borjas argues, has crucial implications for how economists and policymakers should frame contemporary debates over immigration.
Posts
75 comments:
supply and demand
1) the poor are many with low demand
2) the rich are few with high demand
3) a large middle class are many with middling demand
ergo a large middle class is the biggest source of demand
the banking mafia's strategy of using unlimited mass immigration to impoverish the middle class to enrich the banking mafia is destroying global demand and causing global depression.
if the banking mafia didn't own the media something could be done to stop it.
I've linked to these economists before, who emphasize the benefits of balanced trade and the harm of running persistent trade deficits like we do. Maybe a similar concept is true of migration.
Balanced migration would mean as many people from Country X could migrate here this year as Americans migrated to Country X last year. I think that might lead to beneficial results all around.
For starters, migration from some problematic countries such as Pakistan would grind to a halt immediately. It would would stop the brain drain from developing countries and give those countries' leaders an incentive to improve their standards of living to attract first world expats. Think of how, for example, it would change the Mexican government's incentives.
In other words, in plain English it's all about supply and demand, just like everything else in economics.
Which is,apparently, a very, very difficult concept to get into the minds of huge numbers of professional economists, being to them something as mind boggling and abstruse as the latest 'superstring' explanation of the universe.
Like most economists who reduce nations, history and people into input for GDP (the primary concern for them), its very predictable what that book will be about. It will show some graphs comparing GDP and immigration and conclude by saying how immigration is the greatest thing ever for GDP.
And I am not saying money is not important, but these people think its justifiable that one should destroy ones race, culture, history and stable society just to make some extra money.
the paleocon perspective is good, but still missing a lot of the big picture on immigration.
Diversity in and of itself is destructive of democracy. Why? Because it diffuses and weakens the expressed will and viewpoint of the majority. A populace with a diffused will/culture/worldview is less able to elect and hold accountable its elected representatives.
immigrants are rational economic agents
This gives me no comfort.
If your neighbor has irrational immigration policies, it might become rational to emigrate; displace him demographically; take over his institutions; then write history to make it look like you did him a favor.
Steve
What is it that you want?...An unendng debate about economist X versus economist Y econmetric study as if the Native Born White American Working Class didn't already know what the fact are....
Borjas's first book was used to justify the first Reagan Amnesty. Borjas should not be forgiven for this.
The US could have easily been labor self-sufficient like it was pre-1965. Labor scarcities are wonderfull things..the more severe the better..unless you think a very high real wage and having Native Born White Americans a 90 percent majority of the US population is a terrible thing.
There should be a Native Born White Ameican Victims Wall that documents unrelentingly the extreme demograpic and economic violence that is post-1965 immigration policy. The experiences of millions of Native Born White American Workers are the only data points that matter.
Bill Blizard and his Men didn't wait around for the latest mind numbing econometric study before they waged their war against the evil Coal Company during the Battle for Blair Mountain in West Virginia.
The passage of The Native Born White American Annihilating 1965 Immigration Reform Act set into motion the open and deliberate policy of race-replacing The Historic Native Born White American Majority and the wage slavery violence that comes with race-replacement. It is an open declaration of war by the Democratic-Republican Party...the Mega-Coporations...and the various imported highly racialized fifth columns in the US. And you want to have a policy wonk debate about econometric study X versus econometric study Y?
The Immigration Moratorium Enthusiasts would start cranking nonwhite legal immigration up again the moment the Chamber of Commerce screams "LABOR SCARCITY"..thereby depriving the Native Born White American Working Class the very great benefit of a severe labor scarcity. The very rapid race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Majority is at the most fundamental level driven by Greedy Cheating CEO stark raving fear of a severe labor scarcity precisely because a severe labor scarcity would drive up the real wage and transfer labor market power back to the Native Born White American Workng Class. Immigraton Moratorium Enthusiasts have made it very clear that a severe labor scarity would be the signal for cranking up nonwhite legal immigration.
Bill Blizzard an his Men
Second, immigrants are rational economic agents who attempt to do the best they can with the resources they have, and the same holds true for native workers of the countries that receive migrants.
Excuse me, but I thought it was settled economic science that paying attention to the concerns of native workers, economic or otherwise, is racist.
Unless by "native workers", you mean "those natives with jobs, whose jobs, wages, neighborhoods, and children's schools aren't negatively affected by immigration, and who benefit from the presence of immigrants". In which case, carry on.
Borjas' cowardly sellout of Richwine--while it doesn't discredit his work, of course--shows his character to be lacking.
"Diversity in and of itself is destructive of democracy."
Correct. As Frank Salter has written:
"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century."
The many millions of the third world motto is 'wherever it's good that's home'. They're all on the move toward the bright lights of the first world. It's a matter of survival to keep from getting engulfed. Most economists think in terms different from that of the average person who desires to live in a nation that's safe, stable, prosperous and has a foreseeable future that their grandchildren can live in. This clashes with those who perceive the US as just a business concern, a geographically located economic unit. Their ideal is to run the US as one big plantation with everyone in it being interchangeable.
Steve, what are the economics or return on the Presidency?
Is it $1 per citizen per year, or $10 per citizen per year for the person or family that holds the office.
Perhaps term limits were not enacted to prevent one person or family from controlling the country but to share the moolah around.
A populace with a diffused will/culture/worldview is less able to elect and hold accountable its elected representatives.
Holy corrupt lawmakers, Batman. I think you've figured it out.
RD quoted me:
"Diversity in and of itself is destructive of democracy."
and then said:
Correct. As Frank Salter has written:
"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century."
"
I completely agree. But what you cite are EFFECTS of homogeneity, and not the root, the cause of, the force that allows/enables homogeneous white nations to be very good places to live.
To uncover what the forces are, I quote a passage from federalist paper 10, written by James Madison:
The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.
The question is, who is madison worried that the populace is going to oppress? Hmm...let's see...maybe madison was worried about the majority oppressing the rich folks. Madison was worth $100 mill when he came into his inheritance....
to quote further from fed paper 10:
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens [which is madison really concerned with here?]; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
So there you have it. Madison and the other founding plutocrats did not want the people to "act in unison with each other."
So they junked the articles confederation and installed the federal constitution to enlarge the voting districts, thereby increasing the number of factions in the voting districts.
Why?
A quote by madison from Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787:
"They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. "
The minority of the opulent is what the federal gov't protects. It protects their wealth from the rest of us--the faction of the majority.
Also the fed govt helps increase the wealth of the minority of the opulent by increasing mass immigration, which in turn increases diversity. Again, we come back to the idea of how increasing the number of factions in the populace prevents the populace from uniting and discovering their common purpose. Mass immigration and the diversity it engenders is a factionalization generator. The more factions in the populace, the more the "opulent of the minority" is protected, and in fact the more their wealth increases. The rich are protected by diversity because diversity prevents the white majority from uniting to control the government.
More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid.
I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous.
@Chicago,
The many millions of the third world motto is 'wherever it's good that's home'.
So it was also for your ancestors who migrated to North America (unless you are a pure-blood member of a native tribe).
In reality though, leaving one's home country, even to go to a better functioning one, is a heart-wrenching decision and is taken by people for whom living conditions have become intolerable (Mexicans are exceptions, of course, as they can just walk across the border and back if they so choose.)
Unless you have a scheme to hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, zero immigration is neither possible nor desirable. At the very least, a small amount of immigration ensures population replacement levels are maintained and reduces strife in other parts of the world (i.e., acts as a safety valve.)
Do try to persuade your members of Congress to pass an immigration moratorium though. At the very least, it would be an interesting exercise and bring facts out in the open. But do try to pass it as a comprehensive package with changes in trade agreements. For example, subsidies to American farmers ensures their enrichment and very low food prices for Americans at the cost of driving already poor farmers in the third world to penury and suicide. If you try to reign in immigration without reigning in American capitalism, you might achieve short term prosperity in the US but will also end up reducing the entire non-developed world into a slum. And then anything may happen; Americans will not be immune from the consequences.
Keep in mind that imports from populous low-wage countries like China and India also increase the effective supply of labor relative to demand, as does the introduction of a steady stream new labor-saving technologies, most recently as a result of the IT revolution. Trade, immigration, and automation all have a major impact in this area.. They confound each other, which means that you cannot blame falling wages and growing inequality between labor and capital on any one of them by itself. Defenders of current trade and immigration policies use this fact to deflect blame onto one or both of the other two.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/polands-gen-wojciech-jaruzelski-dies-90
Anonymous quoted an earlier post:
More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid.
and replied:
I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous.
=============
apples to apples, oranges to oranges, and ne'er the twain shall meet...yadda yadda
No. Actually, Nigeria is NOT racially/ethnically homogenous.
It's an artificial construct created by one Lord Lugard, the British governor of the place in 1900, and named by his lady wife.
It melded together Yoruba, Igbo, Hausas and others, christians, muslims and aminists on no real basis whatoever other that to create a large 'chunk' of governable 'British west Africa'.
The Biafar war of the late '60s was a result - and also is Boko Haram today. It is moot to discuss whether if Nigeria had been divided into tribal states if the parts would have fared better than the whole.
A failure of imagination: per the CIA World Factbook, Nigeria has 250 ethnic groups, the largest of which comprises 29% of its population.
Balanced migration would mean as many people from Country X could migrate here this year as Americans migrated to Country X last year. I think that might lead to beneficial results all around.
It would be a lot more balanced anyway. But balanced? No. Balanced would be correcting for the value of American citizenship vs. citizenship in country X.
And I am not saying money is not important, but these people think its justifiable that one should destroy ones race, culture, history and stable society just to make some extra money.
The current intellectual regime seems to be about destroying the west's race, culture, and history, just to make some extra money. In fact, I suspect this is baked into capitalism's cake. It's natural for capitalism to destroy all competitors.
I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous.
Moreso than Rwanda, for example. (took me about 3 seconds to come up with that. You?)
Balanced migration would mean as many people from Country X could migrate here this year as Americans migrated to Country X last year. I think that might lead to beneficial results all around.
It would be a lot more balanced anyway. But balanced? No. Balanced would be correcting for the value of American citizenship vs. citizenship in country X.
And I am not saying money is not important, but these people think its justifiable that one should destroy ones race, culture, history and stable society just to make some extra money.
The current intellectual regime seems to be about destroying the west's race, culture, and history, just to make some extra money. In fact, I suspect this is baked into capitalism's cake. It's natural for capitalism to destroy all competitors.
I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous.
Moreso than Rwanda, for example. (took me about 3 seconds to come up with that. You?)
Anonymous said:
"unless you are a pure blood member of a native tribe".
They came over from Asia themselves. They didn't grow out of the ground like grass.
"is a heart-wrenching decision"
We don't want their hearts to be wrenched. People keep claiming the US can't be protected so nothing can be done. Or perhaps they really mean nothing should be done because they want the swarming to continue for whatever reasons they may have. But if we don't try then failure is assured. India built a wall to keep out Bangladeshis which seems to be achieving it's aim. The Indians aren't embarrassed to protect their country. The Israelis have done the same. We don't need hypocritical third worlders to try to lecture us. Give it a try; we have everything at stake here, a country to lose or to gain. It belongs to those who have the will to hold it.
@Chicago,
"The many millions of the third world motto is 'wherever it's good that's home'."
So it was also for your ancestors who migrated to North America...
Gosh, really? Who knew? If immigration-restrictionist types could only, you know, be awared about this suppressed history of their own ancestors, it would totally re-arrange their views on the issue.
(Though if we're talking immigrants now and then, when most of my ancestors showed up, North America didn't have quite the level of amenities available to contemporary huddled masses.)
...(unless you are a pure-blood member of a native tribe).
I know it's bleeding-edge paleoanthropological research that hasn't reached the general public yet, but those guys migrated into North America, too.
Unless you have a scheme to hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, zero immigration is neither possible nor desirable.
Anybody who insists that immigration is uncontrollable is arguing in bad faith. Or maybe just prone to hysteria. ("Hermetically seal", "zero". Lol.)
At the very least, a small amount of immigration ensures population replacement levels are maintained...
If only a "small amount" is needed, then it's not really needed. A lot of stupid things get asserted in immigration debates, but I think the thought- and fact-free assertions about fertility and population levels take the cake.
...and reduces strife in other parts of the world (i.e., acts as a safety valve.)
A great deal more than a "small amount" of migration would be necessary to produce a "safety valve" effect for the billions of non-First Worlders. Hell, the bleed-off of Mexico's "safety valve" into this country is already in the tens of millions. You can't "reduce strife" in one place like that without increasing strife in another.
But do try to pass it as a comprehensive package with changes in trade agreements.
Oh, I'm all for changes in our trade agreements. I'd even agree with you that "American capitalism" is partly responsible for Third Worlders being on the move - the other responsible parties being, of course, the "capitalists" in the affected countries themselves. So I'm not all that interested in making the average American worker the responsible party for other people's poverty, in the form of turning him into a Third Worlder, too, via mass immigration.
... but will also end up reducing the entire non-developed world into a slum.
Yeah, if only the U.S. opens its borders and continues to run high trade deficits, there will be no poverty or slums in the non-developed world.
And then anything may happen; Americans will not be immune from the consequences.
"Nice country you've got there..."
I'm suspect that our trillion-dollar military won't be tasked to do its real job (you know, protect the physical integrity of the country and its citizens) should your scenario develop. However, I'd rather take my chances with the restive Third Worlders "out there", rather than next door.
"Second, immigrants are rational economic agents"
Definitely not true, immigrants are the biggest economic losers from further immigration, so if they were operating on grounds of economic rationality, they would be clamoring to seal the borders
Anonymous:
"Unless you have a scheme to hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, zero immigration is neither possible nor desirable."
Why not?
Anonymous:"At the very least, a small amount of immigration ensures population replacement levels are maintained"
If the population problem is so tiny that a "small amount of immigration" is sufficient to correct it, why bother with immigration at all? Other incentives (tax breaks, free daycare, etc) would do about as well.
Anonymous:" and reduces strife in other parts of the world (i.e., acts as a safety valve.)"
If the world's safety is depending on the wretched of the Earth immigrating to America, the planet is in big trouble.
Anonymous:"Do try to persuade your members of Congress to pass an immigration moratorium though."
Well, we had pretty low levels from 1924 to 1965. And the period 1945-65 was pretty great.
Anonymous:" At the very least, it would be an interesting exercise and bring facts out in the open."
You mean facts like low Mestizo IQ? I would love to see that one debated openly.
Anonymous:" But do try to pass it as a comprehensive package with changes in trade agreements. For example, subsidies to American farmers ensures their enrichment and very low food prices for Americans at the cost of driving already poor farmers in the third world to penury and suicide."
Preaching to the choir, pal. I would love to see farm subsidies end. Even better, how about combining an end to farm subsidies with a government program to roboticize picking crops? I would support that in a heartbeat.
Anonymous:"If you try to reign in immigration without reigning in American capitalism, you might achieve short term prosperity in the US but will also end up reducing the entire non-developed world into a slum."
Isn't it a slum all ready? For that matter, why not let the Chinese take a stab at it. I'm sure that they would love to have several million Latin Americans immigrate to their country.
Anonymous:"And then anything may happen; Americans will not be immune from the consequences."
As opposed to our present dire situation? I fail to see what could be worse than a flood of low IQ Mestizos and Amerinds. Well, low IQ Sub-Saharan Africans would be worse...
every time an economist uses the phrase 'rational economic agent', a kitten dies.
"I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous."
You must not be old enough to remember the Biafra war (your imagining is wrong).
"...Biafran War, 6 July 1967 – 15 January 1970, was an ethnic and political conflict...
..the result of economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions mainly between the Hausas of north and the Igbo of the southeast of Nigeria. Over the two and half years of the war, 1 million civilians died from famine and fighting. The war became notorious for the starvation of some of the besieged regions during the war, and consequent claims of genocide by the largely Igbo people...
...Nigeria was a structure initiated by former colonial powers which had neglected to consider religious, linguistic, and ethnic differences. ...
...60 million people consisting of nearly 300 differing ethnic and cultural groups."
Including combatants, in total some 3 million may have died.
The Biafran airlift (organized largely by churches in the West) is "the largest civilian airlift, and after the Berlin airlift of 1948-49 the largest non-combatant airlift of any kind, ever carried out."
'Nigeria is haunted by Biafran war': Chinua Achebe's new memoir suggests that his country is still suffering from a refusal to face up to its insalubrious history, Guardian Africa, Ike Anya, Wednesday 10 October 2012.
"Biafra: Thirty years on", BBC, Barnaby Philips, 13 January, 2000.
"It is 30 years since the end of one of post-independence Africa's first and most bloody wars.
The Nigerian civil war not only came close to tearing Africa's most populous country apart, it also provoked passions in many other parts of the world...
...many of the country's diverse peoples, not just the Ibos, are demanding greater autonomy.
... the causes of the Biafran conflict - ethnic rivalry and mistrust - are as relevant today as ever."
I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous.
Is this a joke? It's involved in a low-level religious civil war right now.
From the CIA Factbook:
"Ethnic groups:
Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, is composed of more than 250 ethnic groups; the following are the most populous and politically influential:
Hausa and Fulani 29%, Yoruba 21%, Igbo (Ibo) 18%, Ijaw 10%, Kanuri 4%, Ibibio 3.5%, Tiv 2.5%
Languages:
English (official), Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), Fulani, over 500 additional indigenous languages
Religions:
Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, indigenous beliefs 10%"
Steve, please do a post on the whitening of Elliot Rodger:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638993/Disturbed-white-males-dangerous-people-country-Michael-Moore-speaks-latest-U-S-mass-shooting.html
Nigeria is in fact both ethnically and religiously diverse. They even had a civil war over it: Hausa and Ibo and Yoruba all hate each other.
As far as Borjas argument goes, he fails to see what a nation is for, really. This is the same error Gillian Tett makes in the Financial Times, celebrating how London changed from the "Sloane Rangers" White elites to all sorts of non-White elites, Sheikhs and Chinese oligarchs and various European people evading taxes and laundering money. Tett thinks its great -- no more boring White guys is the subtext. Typical female attitude btw.
HOWEVER, if places like London or Paris or the US writ large are just places where immigrants very very very rich, and very very very poor, can come and exploit the natives, what is the point of the nation?
What is the point of paying taxes? There is none, only a sucker will pay them and the result is Greece-Italy type of tax evasion and black off the books economies.
What is the point of serving in the military? There is none and thus the nation soon becomes prey to whoever has a better, more robust military and can grab off great chunks of your land: see Ukraine, Tibet, Vietnam, etc.
Indeed what is the point of America at all, if its just a place where the Third World can come and get welfare for themselves and kids while undermining wages of working/middle class Whites? Who have no special status unlike Migrant Mexicans, or Central Americans, or Blacks, or Hispanics, etc.
This is why Secession is in the air in Europe. Why Venice, Catalonia, Scotland, Brittany, Wales, Cornwall, all have various degrees of separatist movements. Why indeed have America if the nation exists only to welcome more competitors for you and yours?
The only question is, where and when will the separatist movement arise in the US?
Nigeria's actually not ethnically or religiously homogeneous.
Nigeria's moto:
Diversity is strenghn!
Gosh, really? Who knew? If immigration-restrictionist types could only, you know, be awared about this suppressed history of their own ancestors, it would totally re-arrange their views on the issue.
(Though if we're talking immigrants now and then, when most of my ancestors showed up, North America didn't have quite the level of amenities available to contemporary huddled masses.)
The immigration issue is just a proxy for nationalist and racialist issues. It's a way of grappling with these latter issues without explicitly doing so. Ultimately nobody cares about immigration qua immigration. They care about immigration qua race, nationality, ethnicity. Obviously if the country was majority Eskimo, and European immigration was in contention, the current immigrationists and restrictionists would have different views.
Indeed what is the point of America at all, if its just a place where the Third World can come and get welfare for themselves and kids while undermining wages of working/middle class Whites? Who have no special status unlike Migrant Mexicans, or Central Americans, or Blacks, or Hispanics, etc.
Well, Pat is only one of the right that warn about getting rid of the Mexican corn worker. That's why Whiskley OC was flooded with low skilled Mexican immigrants for about 30 years. Most of the changes now in California and Texas are birth rates since Hispanics the kids of the illegal immigrants have come of age. In fact Santa Ana was at .9 according to the US Census in Growth up in 2012 to 2013 but the cost of rent went up so the California Finance Demographic stats shown Santa Ana dropping to .5 for 2013 to 2014. The coastal California counties are growing at a slower rate. La's Hispanic enrollment was at 58 percent in 2,000 and only grew to 62 percent in 2013. Only 4 points. So, the high housing causes some whites to leave but slow Hispanic growth since they moved inward in the state where its cheaper.
Whiskey said...
Nigeria is in fact both ethnically and religiously diverse. They even had a civil war over it: Hausa and Ibo and Yoruba all hate each other.
England is in fact both ethnically and religiously diverse. They even had a civil war over it: Celts and Romans and Saxons and Vikings and Normans and Welsh and Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants all hate each other.
Keep in mind that imports from populous low-wage countries like China and India also increase the effective supply of labor relative to demand, as does the introduction of a steady stream new labor-saving technologies, most recently as a result of the IT revolution. Trade, immigration, and automation all have a major impact in this area.. They confound each other, which means that you cannot blame falling wages and growing inequality between labor and capital on any one of them by itself. Defenders of current trade and immigration policies use this fact to deflect blame onto one or both of the other two.
You have a point for example before all the lowest skilled factory assembly was shipped overseas. Most of the factory workers in California didn't know a word of English and labor cost were lower than even the south since it was in the black market. La during the 1990s' was the center for most garment work in the US, companies even worst than American Apparel since the wages were way below the minimum wage. The factory work coming back is going to the south and it is lower than the 25 to 30 an hour in the past more like as much as 7.25 per hr to abut 22 per hr. The fracking to keep energy cost down is why its heading to the south but automation has prevented big job growth its only about 700,000.
Euro election results: UKIP on track to replace LDP as UKs 3rd largest party in local elections. Le France's National Front takes 25% of vote and 1/3 of eu parliament seats, comes in first place, quadruples performance from its 6% showing in 2009.
Overall a great election cycle for us in Europe.
German results no so good for paleos, but the free dems, Germany's pro biz pro immigration libertarian party, continued its collapse, once the #3 party they are now more like #6.
Greece finally found a way to get people to pay their taxes: cut off electricity if they don't. There is a Prometheus joke here somewhere.
Anonymous:"The immigration issue is just a proxy for nationalist and racialist issues. It's a way of grappling with these latter issues without explicitly doing so. Ultimately nobody cares about immigration qua immigration. They care about immigration qua race, nationality, ethnicity. Obviously if the country was majority Eskimo, and European immigration was in contention, the current immigrationists and restrictionists would have different views."
I don't want large scale immigration from any source; the USA has more than enough people already. If I had my way, America would have half its present population.
"And I am not saying money is not important, but these people think its justifiable that one should destroy ones race, culture, history and stable society just to make some extra money."
95% of people would gladly accept their income doubling for their race's birth rate falling in half. There might be a White Nationalist contingent that would reject the offer on ideological grounds but they'd be a rounding error.
By this metric economists are pretty close to the typical person's preference. Money really really matters to most people. That's why folks regularly take jobs away from their friends, families and homes for minor pay bumps.
The immigration issue is just a proxy for nationalist and racialist issues.
And these are deadly important issues that cannot be avoided. Peace in our time, eh?
"There Was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra", Chinua Achebe, 2013.
"...decades in the making, comes a towering account of one of modern Africa’s most disastrous events, from a writer whose words and courage have left an enduring stamp on world literature. A marriage of history and memoir, vivid firsthand observation and decades of research and reflection..."
"Foreign Policy Must Read 2012"
....
...the Igbo, in only 30 years, were able to bridge the educational gap that the people of the then Western Nigeria had as a result of early exposure to Western education. ... The consequence of this accomplishment was an immediate fear of Igbo domination."
....
...described ... as "Politicians with plenty of money and very low IQ."
Hum, something about this sort of issue seems familiar...
"Steve, please do a post on the whitening of Elliot Rodger:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638993/Disturbed-white-males-dangerous-people-country-Michael-Moore-speaks-latest-U-S-mass-shooting.html"
Remember when a Mulato kid who murdered his teacher was classified as "White" by the mainstream media and law enforcement simply because he had a WASP last name and was only raised by his single White parent.
It seems like "White" in 2014 has a completely different meaning than it did back in say 1914.
"The Ahiara Declaration: The Principles of the Biafran Revolution" (1969):
"...one of multiple documents drafted by Biafra's National Guidance Committee, a body including renowned author Chinua Achebe..."
A small extract (read the source, not the commentary):
"...We are the latest victims of a wicked collusion between the three traditional scourges of the black man - racism, Arab-Muslim expansionism and white economic imperialism. Playing a subsidiary role is Bolshevik Russia seeking for a place in the African sun. Our struggle is a total and vehement rejection of all those evils which blighted Nigeria, evils which were bound to lead to the disintegration of that ill-fated federation...
...When the Nigerians violated our basic human rights and liberties, we decided reluctantly but bravely to found our own state, to exercise our inalienable right to self-determination as our only remaining hope for survival as a people. Yet, because we are black, we are denied by the white powers the exercise of this right which they themselves have proclaimed inalienable. In our struggle we have learnt that the right of self-determination is inalienable, but only to the white man."
This might not be all past history:
Biafra Nation (lots of dead links), Biafraland:
"Biafra Provisional Government
The Biafran Provisional Government (BPG) is created and formed by the authority of the Biafra Charter of May 30 2007...
... Announcement for Declaration of Biafra Government in Exile (BGIE)"
Good thing I'm drawn to the smell of napalm in the morning. But it would be nice to think that there are some places, like the old midwest of the Ancient Americans, where ethnic bloodshed was mostly a thing of the past. A step forward, a few steps back, pretty soon we are all Biafrans.
And these are deadly important issues that cannot be avoided. Peace in our time, eh?
Dealing with them through the proxy of the immigration issue is a way of avoiding them.
England is in fact both ethnically and religiously diverse. They even had a civil war over it: Celts and Romans and Saxons and Vikings and Normans and Welsh and Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants all hate each other.
Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans in England weren't native populations (although all except the Romans were ethnically close). Doesn't that prove the case that forced mixing of populations leads to the opposite of peace?
And that was a long time ago. Maybe it takes a thousand years, or at least centuries, for such mixed populations to become peaceable, based on the English experience? And maybe a few things like the Hundred Years War?
"I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous."
So is Detroit.
"England is in fact both ethnically and religiously diverse. They even had a civil war over it: Celts and Romans and Saxons and Vikings and Normans and Welsh and Catholics and Anglicans and Protestants all hate each other."
Civil war fifty years ago is considerably different from civil war 370 years ago. You're so wrong even Whiskey knows you're wrong; just admit it.
Steve,
Please explain why we can not directly donate to you using Paypal, Amazon, and WePay anymore. Hopefully this does not have something to do with the SPLC and its odious hate sites baloney.
If I make my annual donation to VDARE, will you get a cut?
Fittingly enough, my comment about how the Right believes it can simply gather enough Big Brains that agree with it and never ever have to confront the possibility of violence seems to have been eaten by Komment Kontrol.
"immigrants are rational economic agents" - human beings are emphatically not rational econommic agents.
Re the above, if they were they'd favor slamming the door shut behind them.
95% of people would gladly accept their income doubling for their race's birth rate falling in half. There might be a White Nationalist contingent that would reject the offer on ideological grounds but they'd be a rounding error.
By this metric economists are pretty close to the typical person's preference.
You are mistaken. What you describe here is merely a Prisoner's Dilemma.
"I imagine that Nigeria is pretty ethnically/racially homogeneous." -
"The most numerous ethnic groups in the northern two-thirds of the country are the Hausa and the Fulbe/Fulani, the overwhelming majority of whom are Muslim. Other major ethnic groups of the north are the Nupe, Tiv, and Kanuri. The Yoruba people are the overwhelming majority in the southwest, as well as parts of the north-central region. Over half of the Yorubas are Christian and about 40% are Muslim, while the remainder hold traditional Yoruba views. The predominantly Christian Igbo are to be found in the central parts of the southeast. Roman Catholic is the largest denomination, but Pentecostal, Anglican and other Evangelical denominations are also strong. The Efik, Ibibio, Annang, and Ijaw constitute other South Eastern populations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria
No DR, you've got it absolutely and completely wrong.
Didn't the SErbs pay any absolutely terrible 'cash price' in terms of destroyed assets and income, not to mention the priceless cost of deaths,, in order to preserve their 'racial numbers'?
Didn't this happen but recently, like only 20 years ago and not in mediaeval times?
Closer to home aren't the Israelis prepared to pay any possible price in terms of money, lives and international opprobrium in order to keep Israel Jewish? Look how hard the Israelis fight to keep a few aretched, stony, arid sun-burned acres f their land free from Palestiinians and as Jewish settlements. The phrase a 'tigress fighting for her cubs' doesn't even begin to describe it.
The comment of the the left wing douche bag about homogeneous Nigeria at least proves that being a liberal does not make you automatically smart. Nigeria has a serious religious divide problem as well as a lot of ethnic groups. The country is a completely artificial construct of British colonialism.
I guess being a white lefty from America does mean you will see Africa as one single homogeneous black place, but even the most casual inspection of African ethnics would show you otherwise.
The liberal who thought he was so clever by saying Nigeria was homogeneous was obviously and easy one to shoot down (because Nigeria is in fact very diverse), not admitting he was wrong he laughably then say its not any different to England !?
For that ignorant lefty, I am actually glad you are now frantically scouring the internet to prove us all wrong here, because confronted with enough naked facts even the most conditioned left winger cannot ignore them.
Going back to Nigeria, even if that place was hypothetically 100% homogeneous it would prove the point that its a backwards black country, which I doubt you are trying to argue for. What you should be looking for to prove blacks are equal to everyone else, you would have show a black country that was successful. The best you can find is possibly Barbados, but that is dubious because the place is run by the light skinned mix race class, for a country run by a pure black ruling elite its Botswana. While Botswana and Barbados are not the worst places, the problem is that they are average at the very best. When socialists argue with capitalists they usually bring up Sweden or Switzerland or Hong Kong to back their side, while the always ignore the things those countries have in common, what you "blacks are equal to everyone" types never can produce is an example to back your side.
RD said...
"Diversity in and of itself is destructive of democracy."
Correct. As Frank Salter has written:
"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates ...etc. etc."
What nonsense. Quite a few Slavic countries are essentially ethnically homogeneous and yet are very corrupt, undemocratic, have fairly high crime etc. On the other hand, countries like Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Australia somehow manage to be prosperous and democratic. And yes, even the U.S.
So, perhaps diversity isn't the determinant of whether the country is 'successful' or not, but how advanced the people that live there are.
If you created a country now that contained large subgroups of Japanese, Koreans (two peoples not very fond of each other), Northern and Western Europeans, high SES Indians and Chinese, I bet they'd do just fine as a country.
Zuckerberg or Googleman made the news because they did not want their racial of their company to be released to the DOJ because it would show how many much needed Hb1ers were writing the software that made the company what they are today.
"There should be a Native Born White Ameican Victims Wall that documents unrelentingly the extreme demograpic and economic violence that is post-1965 immigration policy. The experiences of millions of Native Born White American Workers are the only data points that matter."
The vast majority of native-born white Americans truly could not care less about immigration.
You must be unfamilair with Borjas. He's said mass migration has contributed to US wage stagnation since the 70s.
"So it was also for your ancestors who migrated to North America"
Seriously, this is absolutely the dumbest thing said by advocates for open borders. Do they honestly believe that the immigrant (or colonial) forbears of modern white Americans would approve of massive, indiscriminate immigration from places such as Haiti, India or the Dominican Republic? I doubt it. I'm sure they would side with their descendents.
The vast majority of native-born white Americans truly could not care less about immigration.
False and well-known to be false. You just made this up to further your agit-prop agenda, right? If you keep repeating a lie long enough people buy it, is that the idea?
"Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey"
"...most Americans want illegal immigrants to return to their home counties, rather than be given legal status.
...Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.
...There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about that view, ...
...voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because we had not made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws."
"Americans want legal immigration cut in half, poll finds":
“Those are pretty astounding numbers for Americans right now, saying we don’t need immigration right now — and we sure don’t need immigration like we have,”
What are your motives?
Remember when a Mulato kid who murdered his teacher was classified as "White" by the mainstream media and law enforcement simply because he had a WASP last name and was only raised by his single White parent.
A half-Cherokee went on a killing spree and killed a couple of blacks in Oklahoma a couple of years ago,a nd was also described as "white."
Check it out, the white spree killer is on the left, the REAL "Cherokee" is on the right: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sc5fmUD7Q0A/T6ZZAVqe8XI/AAAAAAAAEzw/vKPP49CtVcE/s1600/race_in_America.jpg
"So it was also for your ancestors who migrated to North America"
Seriously, this is absolutely the dumbest thing said by advocates for open borders. Do they honestly believe that the immigrant (or colonial) forbears of modern white Americans would approve of massive, indiscriminate immigration from places such as Haiti, India or the Dominican Republic? I doubt it. I'm sure they would side with their descendents.
I think you misunderstand.
He is saying that the Native Americans were screwed over and destroyed by unrestricted immigration of Europeans, so the current situation is justice and Karma.
Zuckerberg or Googleman made the news because they did not want their racial of their company to be released to the DOJ because it would show how many much needed Hb1ers were writing the software that made the company what they are today.
More likely because the data would show how few African Americans, Hispanics and women are employed by those companies.
So, perhaps diversity isn't the determinant of whether the country is 'successful' or not, but how advanced the people that live there are.
Unfortunately, the people being imported are not so advanced.
Have you seen the problems caused by the importation of not so advanced people in Australia? You know, like Lebanese Muslims and their views that Australian Women are uncovered meat?
If you created a country now that contained large subgroups of Japanese, Koreans (two peoples not very fond of each other), Northern and Western Europeans, high SES Indians and Chinese, I bet they'd do just fine as a country.
So, how about you conduct that experiment in other countries, like, say, South Korea or Japan?
Hmmm, the Japanese, surely an advanced people, seem to have not-so-advanced attitudes towards Koreans born in Japan.
Actually most of the so called slavic nations eg Czech Republic, Poland, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia etc are fairly stable fairly prosperous moderately wealthy democracies with modest crime rates. Russia of course is in no way an ethincally homogenous state. Ukraine has its own problems as does Serbia.Belarus might be undemocratic but it is stable and generally low crime with a resonable living standard.
Furthermore the only significant difference between Swiss or Belgians is one of language so tp use these nations as examples of diversity is absurd. Saying that Belgium IS wracked by Fleming Walloon tension. No the real global f*ck up stories are always but always nations which contain marked difference of race or religion within their borders. There you will always find the greatest bloodshed death and destruction. In one word think of India. Think of the Calcutta riots of 1945.
The Immigrant Advantage
By ANAND GIRIDHARADASMAY 24, 2014
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
IF you want to die a successful American, especially in the heartland, it helps to be born abroad.
Statistics show that if you are born elsewhere and later acquire American citizenship, you will, on average, earn more than us native-borns, study further, marry at higher rates and divorce at lower rates, fall out of the work force less frequently and more easily dodge poverty.
What’s curious is where this immigrant advantage is most pronounced. In left-leaning, coastal, cosmopolitan America, native-borns seem well groomed by their families, schools and communities to keep up with foreign-borns. It’s in the right-leaning “Walmart America” where foreigners have the greatest advantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/opinion/sunday/the-immigrant-advantage.html
"What’s curious is where this immigrant advantage is most pronounced. In left-leaning, coastal, cosmopolitan America, native-borns seem well groomed by their families, schools and communities to keep up with foreign-borns. It’s in the right-leaning “Walmart America” where foreigners have the greatest advantage." - an artifact of the left price discriminating the poor out of their living space.
I love the Left's never-ending condescension of everywhere not LA or NYC. I bet the NY Times author all but swooned with smug satisfaction as he hammers out "Walmart America".
Post a Comment