Immigration and multiculturalism news

[WolfBear]

Lower-class locals appear to be more hurt by mass immigration in the early 21st century than they were in the early 20th century:

Debunking the American Dream: Immigrants Did Better in 1900 Than in 2000

It?s a familiar story. An immigrant family makes their way to America....

www.ancestry.com

 

[WolfBear]

Just one thing, though: In the late 21st century, the US's immigrant pool is projected to be significantly less Hispanic than it was back in 2000. So, we might see some push in the situation above back to 1900 patterns:

Almost half of the US's immigrant population in 2000 was Hispanic, but this figure is projected to dwindle to less than one-third by 2065.

 

[WolfBear]

There IS Such A Thing As A Dangerous Neighborhood—It's Called New York City | Blog Posts

Ludicrous, lying “experts” now retail racial fai...

vdare.com

 

[Cherico]

There IS Such A Thing As A Dangerous Neighborhood—It's Called New York City | Blog Posts

Ludicrous, lying “experts” now retail racial fai...

vdare.com

this is what new yorkers want.

I cant pretend to say I understand it but when crime went down and the city was cleaned up for a bit you know what happened?
New yorkers bitched about it, they absolutely fucking dispised it, new yorkers just are not happy unless there is a chance they will be shanked when they walk outside.

Weather we like it or not this is what makes them happy and we have to respect it.

 

[WolfBear]

this is what new yorkers want.

I cant pretend to say I understand it but when crime went down and the city was cleaned up for a bit you know what happened?
New yorkers bitched about it, they absolutely fucking dispised it, new yorkers just are not happy unless there is a chance they will be shanked when they walk outside.

Weather we like it or not this is what makes them happy and we have to respect it.

When you have family in New York it's less pleasant, you know? Though I've heard that Manhattan is one of the safest parts of New York due to it being so expensive.

Is there a constitutional way to do stop-and-frisk or something similar?

 

[Terthna]

this is what new yorkers want.

I cant pretend to say I understand it but when crime went down and the city was cleaned up for a bit you know what happened?
New yorkers bitched about it, they absolutely fucking dispised it, new yorkers just are not happy unless there is a chance they will be shanked when they walk outside.

Weather we like it or not this is what makes them happy and we have to respect it.

The problem is, they keep trying to force the rest of us into emulating their self-destructive insanity.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

Lower-class locals appear to be more hurt by mass immigration in the early 21st century than they were in the early 20th century:

Massive amounts of immigration, legal or otherwise, always hurts the lowest economic classes the most. Whenever there are surges to places, there are significant upswings in violence, domestic violence, and all sorts of petty crimes. The local low end job market usually ends up all kinds of shook up. You end up with local communities incredibly upset, and very upset immigrants who end up forming enclaves and being actively hostile for generations. (Think the Various China Towns and how long it took before it was okay to be white and wander into those sections of town just in the day time.)

There's even a number of ancient and modern examples. Like the early mongol and tartar expansion leading to the Gothic Migrations into Rome. The Seljuks part conquering part migrating into Anatolia. The Trail of Tears which was an unchecked migration of white Americans into Georgia (IIRC) and displacing the local tribes and their massive amount of black slaves. The Huns displacing Eastern Europeans/Slavs as they came in from the Steppes. The big Vietnamese migration into the US that lead to the biggest rises in Police Brutality in the Police's attempt to not die against the absolutely willing to die for it Vietnamese. The ~Industrial Revolution mass migration into the USA from all over Europe led to a very bumpy and corrupt few decades because the various Mafias came over, and the cultural and historical tensions did take a long time to overcome 'Irish Need Not Apply,' the deplorable ways the Eastern Europeans got treated.

Mass Immigration hurts everyone actually involved. That's why 'College Educated' 'Not Racist' White Women love it. They aren't actually involved and they get to feel good and righteous while other people suffer. They don't have to deal with any of the bad parts but they'll get access to 'actual culture' in the form of ethnic restaurants. It's why the counter strategy of shipping illegal/near-legal immigrants to places like Washington DC and Chicago are so devastatingly effective.

Plus there are actual reasons why Probably not a Child Molester, 1%'er, and Noted 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders was pro-border control until the 2020 elections. How else are you supposed to make a good five year plan without being able to accurately predict pop growth? Of course, he flipped on the point because he wanted more donations before he dropped out of the race.

 

[PsihoKekec]

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

lul, they even complain this is modern colonialism. What is their illegal crossing and settling on american soil, a vacation? Fuckheads ought to shut up and deal...

 

[WolfBear]

For what it's worth, I myself would support a push for a more merit-based immigration system here in the US if total numbers were significantly increased and if such a system used IQ testing in addition to skills selection in order to identify smart and talented people among the world's poor:

Heritage Was Wrong | National Review

As you no doubt have already heard, on Friday the Heritage Foundation accepted the resignation of one Jason Richwine, who in 2009 had completed a Harvard dissertation in which he probed the nexus b…

www.nationalreview.com

Richwine also suggests using IQ tests in the immigration process. I was initially skeptical: We know we want immigrants with skills, immigrants with education, etc. — why not just base our policy on these factors directly, rather than using IQ as a proxy? With so many powerful groups clamoring for massive low-skill immigration, a policy favoring immigrants with high levels of skill and education will be difficult enough.

But Richwine makes a strong moral case for taking IQ into consideration rather than relying exclusively on skills and education. IQ would give the world’s poor a chance: Someone living in a Third World country may not have access to training or high-quality universities, but with an IQ test he can demonstrate his ability to become successful. This delicately balances two competing goals — the goal of bringing in immigrants who will be a net benefit to the U.S., and the goal of helping the world’s poor improve their lot in life.

Politically unlikely? Sure. But a better and more humane idea than it might initially seem. And the implications are not restricted to the U.S.; many countries already have immigration systems based on skill, and the incorporation of IQ testing would be an improvement.

The RAISE Act does not increase total US immigration levels; rather, it significantly reduces them. And it does not take IQ testing into account.

 

[Captain X]

 

[Arch Dornan]

Video: DC Has Become a 'Border Town' - Dem Official Realizes Republicans Called Her Bluff

She went from proclaiming 'the District is a sanctuary city' to confessing that Washington has now turned into a 'border town.'

www.westernjournal.com

Cry me a river.

 

[Bear Ribs]

For what it's worth, I myself would support a push for a more merit-based immigration system here in the US if total numbers were significantly increased and if such a system used IQ testing in addition to skills selection in order to identify smart and talented people among the world's poor:

Heritage Was Wrong | National Review

As you no doubt have already heard, on Friday the Heritage Foundation accepted the resignation of one Jason Richwine, who in 2009 had completed a Harvard dissertation in which he probed the nexus b…

www.nationalreview.com

The RAISE Act does not increase total US immigration levels; rather, it significantly reduces them. And it does not take IQ testing into account.

US Immigration numbers are already stupidly high compared to everywhere else. Any plan that starts with "We need to increase immigration" needs to explain itself first and foremost as to why on earth the US needs not just several times more immigrants that everybody else, but several times more than everybody else combined.

 

[WolfBear]

US Immigration numbers are already stupidly high compared to everywhere else.

Not per capita. Per capita, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are higher.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Not per capita. Per capita, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are higher.

New Zealand has a population less than half the size of New York City. Canada and Australia are also very low-population countries with numbers in the low tens of millions.

It's very easy to get whopping per-capita numbers when your existing population is tiny, this is basically statistical noise.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

I'm sure that illegal migration to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is much smaller too. Since all that's there is black flies, MURDEROUS WILDLIFE, and sheep.

It's definitely a big change when one person immigrates to a town with four people, three dogs, two cats, and nine hundred sheep.

At the same time, it's also a big, and arguably more impactful, change when a town becomes so overwhelmed by the sheer numbers and the new group forms an enclave that's hostile to the natives, and the natives will roll over and do whatever it takes to not be called racist.

 

[Aldarion]

 

[TheRejectionist]

I will give two cents as a someone who considers itself as national leftist : every decent, good-natured and respectful of the host country should be treated as such. But rights to citizenship should be granted only to their sixth or eight generation descendants.
Another immigrant does shit like was previously posted here ? Fuck him up, deportation or in case of serious crime jail him up for good with no parole chance. I am speaking this as the son of an immigrant woman, daughter of descendants of other immigrants.

 

[WolfBear]

Christians (As Well As Israelis) Have The Right To Defend Their Borders With Lethal Force | Articles

Earlier: THE FULFORD FILE: Face It—Pentagon Want...

vdare.com

 

[Marduk]

Christians (As Well As Israelis) Have The Right To Defend Their Borders With Lethal Force | Articles

Earlier: THE FULFORD FILE: Face It—Pentagon Want...

vdare.com

I think the issue of using violence to guard borders is the tip of an iceberg. It's a bandaid to cover a gangrenous wound. Even if you apply it perfectly, that still won't solve the bigger problem underneath, just scale it down a little.
The core problem is how a combination of political inertia and ass covering, bureaucratic inertia, media pressure, and legal activism under poorly defined limits of "human rights" create a situations where illegal immigrants are encouraged to come and try their luck, and if caught, continue to try their luck in increasingly more ridiculous legal and PR manipulations. If they succeed, good for them, if they fail, at worst, after some stay in conditions no worse than the poor of their homelands normally endure (often better, in particular if they have major health problems that are expensive but possible and considered non-elective to address, yet their homeland's healthcare has no will or resources to do so), they get deported and can try again in the future at little cost, at least compared to the potential benefits in case of success.
And then everyone is surprised that so many keep trying.
It's like a lottery ticket. Except it's pretty cheap, and the chances of winning are higher than any actual lottery ticket provides. Harsher enforcement would help a bit by increasing the cost in form of risk, but it would not address the fact that there is still a reward pool and there is a way too high chance for a cheeky migrant to reach it. Harsher legal and administrative treatment of cheeky migrants is what's necessary, and if that's done, lethal violence may not even be needed.

In case of Israel the main difference is that most of the border crossers are motivated more by being part of a national-religious war they are waging on Israel rather than economic benefit, but to a surprising degree the point about being free to try again and again still applies (also local terrorist organizations outright compensate them and\or their families for taking the riskier actions and getting harmed in turn).