Immigration Changes A Society -- And, Let's Be Honest, Sometimes In Negative Ways
I love how our country is a nation of immigrants and a melting pot that's better for all the different people and cultures melting into it. But for America to work, there has to be that melting, and especially a melting into American values. Enlightenment values, especially. Civil liberties and the freedom to practice one's religion -- but not the freedom to use it to incite the murder of others who believe differently.
Douglas Murray writes at NRO about immigration that "to pretend that ... change doesn't occur" with it "or won't occur, or isn't very interesting so please move along has always seemed an error to me."
The piece comes off the recent news that Asia Bibi, on death row in Pakistan after an accusation of "blasphemy," was released.
Mobs of violent fanatics are calling for her death, and she needs asylum elsewhere. But there's a problem.
As Murray explains:
There are clearly international efforts underway to get Bibi out of Pakistan. If anybody in the world deserves asylum it is her. And any civilized country should be queuing up to give asylum to her and her family. Among those reported to have done so is the Netherlands.But today there are reports that the British government has said that it will not offer asylum to Asia Bibi. The reason being "security concerns" -- that weasel term now used by all officialdom whenever it needs one last reason to avoid doing the right thing. According to this report, the government is concerned that if the U.K. offered asylum to Bibi it could cause "unrest among certain sections of the community." And which sections would that be? Would it be Anglicans or atheists who would be furious that an impoverished and severely traumatized woman should be given shelter in their country? Of course not. The "community" that the British government will be scared of is the community that comes from the same country that has tortured Asia Bibi for the last eight years.
The government is right to expect a backlash. There have been cases before of this "community" expressing its views. From the book-burnings and protests over The Satanic Verses affair in 1989 to the mass protest against cartoonists, which was the "community's" response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015, the Pakistani Muslim community in the U.K. has never been shy of expressing its views. Occasionally you even get a case like that at Easter 2016, when a Muslim from Bradford drove up to Glasgow to kill another Muslim (a shopkeeper called Asad Shah) because Mr. Shah came from a minority Muslim group that his killer deemed heretical. Which you might say is another example of "diversity."
In any case, if it is true that the British government has declined to offer Asia Bibi asylum for this reason, then it should lead to a huge national and international outcry. Among other things, it suggests that the British government has got its priorities exactly the wrong way around. For it is not Asia Bibi who should not be in Britain. It is anyone from the "communities" who would not accept Asia Bibi being in Britain who should not be in the country. Though I wouldn't expect any British politician to express that simple truth any time soon.
I feel so much of the discussion around immigration is all or nothing.
I feel like you can't admit problems without being accused of racism, therefor no problems are admitted to, therefor they cannot be addressed.
I've had too many bad experiences as a woman walking around in European cities, particularly Paris, to pretend the cultural differences aren't a problem. I mean now I'm older and married and don't tend to go out as much at night as when I was in my 20s, so it isn't an issue for me anymore, but it was pretty bad and I imagine it's still bad for the young women out there.
And I know a lot of teachers, and in urban areas it is becoming a huge problem because half the class can't speak French or German or whatever the local language is, and some of them are told by their parents they don't need to listen to what women tell them to do. This makes teaching nigh impossible.
Part of it is plain ole more people means you need more infrastructure... more teachers, more police, more doctors, more everything. Forget the specialised stuff like cultural classes and integration assistance, often times places aren't even getting enough basic services to provide for the influx of people.
If you want lots of immigrants, if that's what your country decides, fine. Grow a pair and admit what the problems are and put resources into fixing them.
But the cynic in my says they don't care about fixing them, the powers that be just want cheap labor, and it's the poor locals who will have to deal with the problems so what do they care.
NicoleK at November 16, 2018 11:27 PM
As Thomas Jefferson said -
"But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here."
Snoopy at November 17, 2018 5:09 AM
NicoleK's cynic is spot on. The upper classes would still live their lives in their walled enclaves of exclusivity, with plenty of cheap labor to provide for nannies, cooks, gardeners, and other work they need, and for their businesses.
The current problem with immigration into the West isn't immigrants per se, but a) the welfare state and b) the "it's raaaaaaaacist!!!!111! to make immigrants assimilate!!!111!!!" attitude that is pervasive.
Denmark bucks that trend with "you must learn about Danish culture or you can leave". Who knew the Danes were such dirty, dirty racists?
I R A Darth Aggie at November 17, 2018 6:06 AM
That is why American style free speech is so important. If you can't say what the problem is you also can't fix the problem. Problems don't go away just because you don't talk about them.
But there are far too many who don't want to fix problems. Hence they call you racist and tell you to shutup.
Ben at November 17, 2018 7:10 AM
The problems discussed above obviously can't be ignored. Only an idiot would.
But it would also be idiotic to act (of course, this is seldom put into words) as though the solution to the very low birth rate in so many countries - the U.S., Italy, Germany, etc. - is to nag and guilt-trip citizens to have babies they either don't want or can't afford - especially when plenty of them have children already. Or deprive them of family planning services. What a wonderful way to provide future generations with loving, non-abusive parents. (Of course, if the average poor couple had only one child or fewer, where would the cheap labor come from? Heaven forbid all potential voters be well-fed and well-educated, with real choices in life.)
lenona at November 17, 2018 7:57 AM
> But it would also be idiotic to act (of course,
> this is seldom put into words) as though the
> solution to the very low birth rate in so many
> countries
Why is this a problem? Japan has the same "problem" yet seem to do just fine without immigration.
Low birth rate in the current environment is a rational response to the environment people face.
Snoopy at November 17, 2018 8:21 AM
1.) Snoopy, way to go.
2.) The British, once a nation of heroes, conquerors, and adventurers, have been busy neutering themselves for some time now. Looks like it's about complete. No idea why they would do this.
kenmce at November 17, 2018 8:43 AM
"Do just fine"? One politician in Japan had the gall to say that old people need to hurry up and die. They complain again and again about the problem. What is "fine"?
lenona at November 17, 2018 8:46 AM
> One politician in Japan had the gall to say
One politician in the US had the gall to say the government would nuke its own citizens.
Aging Japan Wants Automation, Not Immigration
A labor shortage could fuel the nation's next innovation boom
"Japan's next boom may be at hand, driven by the very thing that is supposed to be bad for the economy."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-08-22/aging-japan-wants-automation-not-immigration
And you didn't answer the main question: why is a low birth rate a problem?
Snoopy at November 17, 2018 8:59 AM
Amy,
If only there was a president and a party which sought to deal with these questions.
A party which believes in assimilation. One which could use a little PR 'love'.
Alas, you can't seem to see that party or that President with anything but disdain. Okay.
If you REALLY worried about this, maybe you'd be a bit more open to seeking some natural allies.
FIDO at November 17, 2018 9:14 AM
At some point, lenona, the old do need to die. The elderly are about 13% of the population but take up about 36% of medical spending in the US. We tax the young to pay for the elderly's revolving-hospital-stays. We need to completely revamp our views on aging, hospice, and death. No, a few more months isn't worth tens of thousands of Medicare dollars.
Momof4 at November 17, 2018 12:27 PM
No, a few more months isn't worth tens of thousands of Medicare dollars. }}}
This is true. For instance, when my 92 year old MIL (who was living in a locked dementia ward in a great assisted living facility) developed bleeding in the brain, the doctor explained that invasive surgery might be able to stop the bleeding. We had the option to accept or decline such surgery, and my husband chose to decline on her behalf. She passed peacefully a few weeks later on hospice care back in assisted living.
The problem is that what was a sensible decision in her particular situation seems to quickly become a mandatory policy in places where health care is rationed by the government. If she had been a healthy and mentally sound 92, and chose surgery, that would not necessarily be wrong.
RigelDog at November 17, 2018 1:13 PM
An increasing population is not a feasible economic model in the long run. I mean the US still has huge swaths of open land... Western Europe does not. They're already building almost no houses around here, even in rural areas you get these big apartment buildings because we are running out of land to build on.
I get that the way things are set up, you need the population to grow to build the economy but hopefully technology will fix some of that.
NicoleK at November 17, 2018 1:37 PM
Au contraire, ma ami.
An increasing population is the only feasible economic model in the long run. A static or declining population puts no pressure on the system for increased production, innovative solutions, etc. It puts no pressure on older generations in the workplace. Innovation comes from pressure, not stasis.
The US has historically kept its population growing through a combination of birthrate and immigration, instead of relying solely on birthrate like the majority of culturally homogenous countries.
For an interesting, albeit dense, examination of the factors that make countries economically competitive, including an increasing population, read Harvard professor Michael Porter's The Competitive Advantage of Nations. It was written in the '80s, so the examples therein are a bit dated; for example, using Japan as an exemplar of Asian economies. However, apply the standards Porter applies to '80s Japan and Korea and China bear witness to the accuracy of his model.
Conan the Grammarian at November 17, 2018 2:34 PM
The US did just fine when we had only half the population we do today - and that was fairly recently.
Population growth is cyclical. A population decline can reduce the cost of real estate, and reduce family formation costs, leading to the next period of population growth - i.e. the "problem" takes care of itself without any need for immigration.
> Innovation comes from pressure
For instance, increased automation taking everyone's jobs.
> An increasing population is not a feasible
> economic model in the long run.
At some point that has to be true - e.g. 1 trillion people on the planet is likely too much. And even if it weren't, does the majority of humanity really want to live like sardines packed in high rises?
Snoopy at November 17, 2018 3:27 PM
No, Conan, in the long run you cannot keep growing. At some point you run out of space and. natural resources and can’t sustain yourselves. At which point you either need a disaster to wipe half the population out so you can start growing again or to find new lands. So nwe better fund NAsA.
If a growing population is the only model we have found that works we better damn well find a new one. It is unsustainable
Nicolek at November 17, 2018 7:37 PM
NicoleK,
You’re making the same mistake Malthus did, imagining that capacity will remain static.
Conan the Gramnarian at November 17, 2018 8:41 PM
NicoleK and Snoopy,
You guys are making the same mistake Malthus did, imagining that capacity will remain static.
Conan the Gramnarian at November 17, 2018 8:43 PM
"You guys are making the same mistake Malthus did, imagining that capacity will remain static."
Care to explain how to manufacture cubic feet of space? If you're not raising capacity right now, shouldn't you be?
And... Japan does not have an immigration problem. Their aging is a different issue, and they should be distinguished.
Radwaste at November 17, 2018 11:18 PM
Are you serious Rad? You know those graphs are crap! I refuse to believe you are dumb enough to think otherwise.
I'll defend Snoopy's comment. Maybe 1 trillion, maybe a quadrillion is the limit. At some point there isn't a planet anymore but only people standing on top of each other. But that is far enough away to be irrelevant at the current time. As Conan points out the biggest issue today isn't more people, but instead the kinds of people. We actually have fewer climate refugees than in the recent past. Instead we have government refugees. Pile a couple million more communists on the globe and you can be sure the people around them will die starving and cold.
Ben at November 18, 2018 6:46 AM
Japan most definitely does have an immigration problem. It has practically no immigration; that combined with a less-than-replacement birthrate. Japan needs a growing population and it has a declining one. That decline could be cured with immigration.
Japan has the same problem many countries with homogenous cultures have, an inability to let immigrants become "Japanese," and an unwillingness to let their culture and society change with immigration.
You cannot manufacture cubic feet. You can, however, utilize the cubic feet you have better. And we've been doing that for centuries.
You guys are making it sound like we'll be out of space in a few years, kinda like Al Gore predicting in 2006 that the earth will be uninhabitable by 2016.
We're eons from plowing under Yellowstone or building housing units in the Grand Canyon. We're using our space better (building up not out), maximizing our farmland yields (three growing seasons), etc. California is currently building single-family houses with zero-lot lines in an effort to put more housing in less space.
"Unsustainable." Climate alarmists love that word. It just screams "imminent danger" while implying an intellectual and moral superiority for their position. So "sustainable" becomes their "Pax Vobiscum," a blessing from the priest.
Remember folks, computer models, no matter how scientifically constructed, are not evidence, are not proof.
That's due more to political pressure than population pressure. Too many laws making it less-than-optimal to hire people.
Let the population of unemployables grow exponentially and we'll see a different set of pressure points come into play.
Conan the Grammarian at November 18, 2018 8:16 AM
Japan's immigration reality explained.
Conan the Grammarian at November 18, 2018 8:46 AM
The sustainable/unsustainable buzz words are much like the electable one, it is anything but. 'Electable' candidates don't get elected. 'Unsustainable' things are usually the most sustainable.
Ben at November 18, 2018 12:47 PM
Conan please explain how, say, Japan can support an infinite amount of people
Nicolek at November 18, 2018 10:06 PM
"explain how, say, Japan can support an infinite amount of people"
Like this, of course!
This video is safe for work, entertaining for all, and not the slightest bit horrifying.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 18, 2018 10:46 PM
"Are you serious Rad? You know those graphs are crap! I refuse to believe you are dumb enough to think otherwise."
Okay, Ben. How about these?
Or this?
You know the typical checks on population, right? War, disease, famine?
They'll be back.
Radwaste at November 19, 2018 3:37 AM
Nicole, I hope you're just being facetious here. That question's not worthy of you.
I never argued the planet could hold an "infinite" number of people. Yes, by the laws of physics, the planet can only hold so many people. But we're eons away from hitting any sort of spatial limit.
Ever tried to board Pittsburgh/Bay Point bound BART train at Embarcadero during rush hour, Gog? That's pretty much how you have to do it; or ride down to Civic Center and turn around, adding another 40 minutes to your commute. That's one reason I left my good job in the City, workin' for the man every night and day.
Conan the Grammarian at November 19, 2018 8:58 AM
"That's one reason I left my good job in the City, workin' for the man every night and day."
I gave up on BART lo these many years ago. Like you, I moved away.
Y'know, I miss the City sometimes - until I visit. The management have destroyed that town.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 19, 2018 12:12 PM
Yep. It is a beautiful place, made uninhabitable by bad management.
Conan the Grammarian at November 19, 2018 12:29 PM
Leave a comment