Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
The performance of Norway’s conservative/populist/classical-liberal Progress Party in that country’s September 9th election caused much shrieking and swooning on the multicultural left.
Nilsen’s column [sic] led off with a picture of fellow Norwegian Anders Breivik, perpetrator of the appalling July 2011 murders in Oslo and nearby Utøya Island. The connection here was that Breivik had belonged to the Progress Party in 1999-2007, resigning his membership because he found the party’s line against multiculturalism insufficiently stern.
For an approximate equivalent, you can imagine VDARE.com running a story about Democrats doing well in the 2014 congressional midterm elections, the story prominently decorated with a picture of Washington Navy Yard killer Aaron Alexis, a liberal Democrat. (We promise not to.)
Mr. Nilsen’s hyperventilating is even stranger in that the Progress Party’s performance in this election was not very good, their representation in Norway’s 169-seat parliament dropping from 41 seats to 29.
What disturbed Mr. Nilsen was rather the overall performance of the rightist parties, which together attained a wafer-thin parliamentary majority of 2 seats over the left-green coalition, which has been ruling since 2009 with a majority of 7. Some “lurch”!
Indeed, analysts discount the drop in support for Progress by noting that the Conservative Party, which did exceptionally well—from 30 seats to 48—has adopted some of the Progress Party’s ideas, leading Progress supporters to some strategic vote-switching.
The rightist majority will only be a majority if Progress is fully included in government. Everyone assumes they will be. Progress helped prop up a center-right coalition in 2001-2005, but the coalition parties did not bring them in to decision-making. Now, with less of a fjord to be bridged between Conservative and Progress policy positions, there is no longer any reason for the mainstream Right to keep Progress at arm’s length.
Progress is pretty much what VDARE.com urges our own Republican Party to be: low-tax, small-government, classical-liberal, culturally conservative, and immigration-restrictionist. It is led by 44-year-old, agreeably-Scandinavian-looking Siv Jensen (who, although a spinster, is not a strumpet: the headline “Siv Jensen har stumpet røyken” on that 2011 link translates as “Siv Jensen has quit smoking”).
Even more encouraging to us, Progress went through a schism in the early 1990s over open-borders libertarianism. The Paulites eventually decamped and formed their own party, which soon withered on the vine.
Other good news from Norway: two years ago the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), a mainstream-conservative business lobby, came out against unskilled immigration, noting that (via Google Translate):
Immigrants threaten the welfare state and [cost] too much. They work for a short time before they end up on welfare and [are] too little productive. [NHO will have fewer immigrants, ABC Nyheter, May 10, 2011.]
There are some slight qualifications to be made there. The immigration being spoken of in the NHO report, which it is now quite respectable to oppose, is of Muslims and Africans—“asylum seekers,” in the Euro-jargon of immigration. Immigration of Swedes,
The man who shot up the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, Aaron Alexis, heard voices speaking to him through the walls. He thought people were following him. He believed microwave ovens were sending vibrations through his body. There are also reports that Alexis believed the Obamacare exchanges were ready to go.
Anyone see any bright red flags of paranoid schizophrenia? (Either that, or Obama's NSA is way better than we thought!)
But Alexis couldn't be institutionalized because the left has officially certified the mentally ill as "victims," and once you're a victim, all that matters is that you not be "stigmatized."
But here's the problem: Coddling the mentally ill isn't even helping the mentally ill. Ask the sisters of crazy homeless woman "Billie Boggs" how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs living on the streets of New York City. Ask the parents of Aaron Alexis, James Holmes (Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooter), Jared Loughner (Tucson, Ariz., mall shooter) or Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter) how happy they are that their sons weren't institutionalized.
Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them "common sense" crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?
That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people
Memo From Middle America | Obama, Mexican Meddlers Get Together To Amnesty Illegal Workers North Of The Border—No GOP Senator Objects
Here’s a recent example which passed almost unnoticed in the U.S. Main Stream Media—a direct deal worked out between the Mexican foreign ministry and the National Labor Relations Board.
According to its own website,
The NLRB is an independent federal agency created to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. Headquartered in Washington DC, it has regional offices across the country where employees, employers and unions can file charges alleging illegal behavior, or file petitions seeking an election regarding union representation.
Calling the NLRB “independent” when its members are chosen by the President and Senate is a bit of a stretch. But more on that later. Quoting from the NLRB website again:
Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") in 1935 to protect the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy.
Well, on July 23, 2013, Eduardo Medina Mora, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. (see here, here and here for more on him) signed an agreement with the NLRB. As reported on the website of the Mexican foreign ministry:
On behalf of the Foreign Ministry, Mexico’s Ambassador in the United States, Eduardo Medina Mora, signed a cooperation agreement with the United States National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the independent agency responsible for safeguarding employees' rights. The NLRB was represented by Mark Pearce, Chairman of the Board, [an African-American Obama appointee, pictured] and Lafe Solomon, Acting General Counsel.
The agreement promotes and protects the labor rights of Mexican immigrants in the United States, especially the right to free association, regardless of their immigration status.
[FOREIGN MINISTRY—U.S. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AGREEMENT. Spanish language version: Se firma acuerdo entre la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores y la Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales de Estados Unidos, SRE (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores), Comunicado #259, July 23, 2013
My emphasis. Yes, you read that correctly—“regardless of their immigration status.” In other words, it’s protecting illegal aliens.
As for “free association”, that would be great—will Americans have it someday?
The Mexican Foreign Ministry press release continues:
Under this agreement, the Mexican consulates and the NLRB will take joint steps to inform Mexican workers of their right to join or be part of a union,
Forget gun control. America needs government control. Have you noticed the common thread among several mass killings and homeland security incidents lately?
Time and again, it's the control freaks in Washington who have fallen down on their jobs, allowing crazies, creeps and criminals to roam free and wreak havoc while ignoring rampant red flags. Let's review:
With the Obama administration’s decision to allow states to legalize drugs, Eric Holder’s efforts to avoid minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and New York’s stop and frisk law in the hot seat, the persistent claims that the war on drugs targets minorities have increased. In June, the ACLU published a study entitled The War on Marijuana in Black and White. [ June, 2013 PDF] Everyone from the New York Times [Blacks Are Singled Out for Marijuana Arrests, Federal Data Suggests, By Ian Urbina, June 3, 2013] to Rand Paul regurgitated its findings. Virtually no-one criticized it. So I will.
According to the study, marijuana arrests have increased over the last decade and now make up 52% of all drug arrests. Some 46% of all arrests are for simple possession. Moreover, the study found that
…a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates.
The ACLU study relied on the Department of Health and Human Service’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, which found that 14% of blacks admitted to using marijuana, while only 11.6% of whites did. I will explain why these numbers are unreliable in future VDARE.com article. But, for now, I want to focus on the minority drug offenders whom the ACLU chose to “profile” (with no apparent pun intended) as victims of the “racist” war on marijuana in their report.
I expected the ACLU to find some isolated case of a grandmother with glaucoma who had 1.1 ounces of marijuana and was charged with a felony and spent years in prison. However, almost all of the ACLU’s offenders spent, at most, a couple nights in jail while awaiting a judge. The most serious consequence for their arrests were inconveniences: modest fines, probation,
[Previously by Paul Streitz: Can Chris Shays Win “Blue”-State Connecticut On The Immigration Issue? (VDARE.com answer: he didn’t even try).
Higher education in the United States is a gigantic extortion racket. It’s time to do something about it. Colleges and universities should be forced to lower tuition—and to eliminate all outstanding student loans, with student loan give-backs.
Colleges and universities are not "non-profit." They grab as much money as possible from every source, spend every cent and then cry poverty. Tuition at private schools would be about $9,000 per year, not $44,000, at the rate of inflation since 1960.
Tuition is not determined by “costs.” It is determined by revenue. The more money schools have, the more money they spend. In effect, college “loans” make the poorest students indentured servants of colleges.
The IRS has strict guidelines as what is permissible for other non-profit organizations: only a certain percentage of revenue can be used for fund raising and administration.
But there appear to be no such guidelines for colleges and universities. So there are art museums, squash courts, luxury dorms, climbing walls, million dollar college presidents, multi-million dollar loans to administrators, diversity deans, sustainability deans, bloated salaries, excessive staff, minimal teaching hours (six hours of teaching class per week).
Congress should require the IRS to create and enforce such guidelines on colleges and universities. This would give them a choice: either colleges economize and reduce tuition, or lose their non-profit status and be taxed by federal, state and local authorities.
At my alma mater, Hamilton College, A.J. Lafley was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of from 2008 to 2013. He is the President and CEO of Procter and Gamble and attended Harvard Business School. You would think he could run a cost-efficient organization. Not the case.
On Lafley’s watch, tuition was raised from $38,600 to $44,346. That is a cumulative increase of $42,418,614 over five years.
Where did this $42 million dollars go? Lafley paid
VDARE.com note: In case you missed our January 2013 VDARE.com webinar, or you want to relive its glory, DVD recordings are FINALLY ready and available! The DVDs come in a set of 2, divided into the morning and afternoon sessions. They offer a meaty sampling of some of VDARE.com’s favorite topics : the Birmingham bombing and racial realities of America’s urban decline (Paul Kersey), how guns, race and immigration really relate to each other (James Fulford); the critical significance of the white a.k.a. American vote (Steve Sailer); and, unforgettably, Our Job Is To Combat ‘Anosognosia’ BY SQUIRTING ICE-COLD WATER INTO SOCIETY'S LEFT EAR by John Derbyshire ). All for $50 (tax-deductible!). You can donate in the usual way, just alert office@VDARE.com with your snailmail address.
We post tonight an adaptation of Paul Kersey’s January 19 address “But For Birmingham” which was prescient in several ways, given this year’s debate, and is the only dissent you are likely hear on the fiftieth Anniversary of the Birmingham Church bombings, September 15, 2013.Paul Kersey’s book The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013 was reviewed on VDARE.com here.
Time Magazine described Barack Obama as the “Architect of a New America” when it crowned him Man of the Year.
It's certainly an apt description for a man who just won a closely contested victory over Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.
Conservatism Inc. would have you believe it was a blowout, but the truth is that Barack Obama relied almost exclusively on a coalition of post-1965 Americans, with the significant addition of the monolithic black vote. The GOP also sabotaged itself because of its inability to get the white working class to show up at the polls.
Only VDARE.com discussed the important truth behind the 2012 elections. Conservatism Inc. has swept aside any real discussion about voting behavior so as to better welcome the “inevitable” Hispanic tide. As for Barack Obama, he's hard at work cobbling together a mostly anti-American coalition and still telling us it is the same country as Norman Rockwell's. “Electing a new people” indeed.
Few men of courage exist in Obama’s America—as Peter Brimelow has correctly observed, this is an occupied country. However, Brimelow himself and the writers and staff of VDARE.com are among the few who express cutting edge political opinions. Unfortunately, this places them squarely in the crosshairs of the trigger-happy Obama Administration.
2013 is an auspicious year for a resurgent authentic American nationalism—the kind of real patriotism VDARE.com has championed since I first found the site more than 13 years ago.
2013 is, after all, the 50th anniversary of the events in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963: the year Bull Connor, water cannons, and vicious dogs were packaged as the last vestiges of dying way of life—the American way of life.
Think about it. But for Birmingham, would we have watched Watts, Rochester, Detroit, and Newark go up in flames as a result of what Life Magazine dubbed the “Negro Revolt”? Had the events of Birmingham transpired differently, would the Western World have capitulated?
It is this one city, and the events of 1963 in particular, that have been used to promote the radical transformation of America to conform with racial egalitarianism. The specter of Birmingham haunts America, providing the justification for the “Architect of a New America” to socially engineer the country out of existence.
Any politician who dares question the mass immigration of non-European immigrants into the United States (or Europe for that matter) will instantly be denounced as preparing to unleash the hounds and water cannons, a la Bull Connor. After all, illegals are just “people seeking a better life.”
But for Birmingham, would this be happening?
Theologian Bruce Metzger, in his 1997 book, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significancee, claimed that the famous “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr, was actually considered by some ministers a worthy addition to the Bible. Metzger states:
“Shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968, a group of ministers seriously proposed that King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” be added to the New Testament. All will appreciate that this letter, written in April 1964 after he had been jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, for participating in a civil-rights protest, conveys a strong prophetic witness, and interprets God’s will in the spirit of Christ. At the same time, however, most will recognize that the differences as to age and character between it and the books of the New Testament are far to great to warrant its being added to the canon, and today few if any take the proposal seriously.”
Does such a proposal sound so outlandish anymore?
Much has changed since 1997—a statue of MLK now rests
The Fulford File | After The Successful Colorado Recall We Ask “Why Can Gun Grabbers Have A “Moral Panic” After An Immigrant Mass Murder, But Immigration Patriots Can’t?”
“Colorado voters Tuesday ousted two state senators who succumbed to the post-Newtown moral panic and voted to enact new restrictions on law-abiding firearms owners” wrote James Taranto in his in his WSJ Best Of The Web column. [September 12, 2013]He calls the story of the Colorado recall elections a “feel-good story” and a triumph of democracy. But, as he notes, the New York Times Editorial Board says it’s a "a disgraceful low point in punitive single-issue politicking by the gun lobby.”[ Hard Lessons of the Colorado Recall, September 11, 2013]
Thinking about how unhappy it has made the NYT Editorial Board, whose evil purpose has for years been to impose New York-style gun control on the rest of America, is part of what makes people like Taranto myself (we’ve had many disputes but agree on this issue) feel good.
Michelle Malkin, who lives in Colorado, is a gun owner, and doesn’t want to be disarmed by an out-of-state campaign funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, covered this issue in her columns here, here and here. See also DNC Chairwoman: We Lost Colorado Gun Vote Because We Couldn't Cheat, By Patrick Cleburne.
However, the main thing you need to know: you can have a New York Times-approved “moral panic” about guns. But no matter how many blacks and/or immigrants commit crimes, you can’t have any kind of “moral panic” about immigration.
Here's what the late Lawrence Auster had to say about Ferguson's reason for shooting up the white passengers of the Long Island Railroad:
American Renaissance, February 1994
A black kills six whites at random. Liberals find it ‘unfathomable.’
This past December, a Jamaican immigrant named Colin Ferguson opened fire in a Long Island Rail Road commuter car, killing six and wounding nineteen. In hand-written notes carried in his pocket, Mr. Ferguson made undeniably clear his motive for murdering a bunch of white strangers: revenge for the racism he saw lurking behind every disappointment in his life.
Without missing a beat, the liberal establishment rushed in for damage control, declaring that the carefully planned massacre was simply the “incomprehensible” and “meaningless” act of a deranged man. “No more sense can be made of such a thing than of a typhoon or cyclone,” wrote Luc Sante in the New York Times. “Forget the gunman’s declared motive of racial hatred [emphasis added]. When someone with a semiautomatic weapon starts perforating citizens en masse, the question of motive evaporates.” Governor Cuomo of New York struck a similar tone of bemused detachment, saying that the massacre was “unfathomable.”
Unfortunately, nothing could be more “fathomable” than Colin Ferguson’s act of hatred. [More]
Ferguson is an early example of what we at VDARE.com call Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome. He's also an example of the black spree killer, who gets so much less publicity than the white ones—see my
[See earlier Is the Rule of Law Immoral? Ask Archbishop José Gomez!]
According to the New York Times, America's Catholic bishops are counting on the persuasive power of the pulpit this month to push "comprehensive immigration reform"—also known as amnesty for illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, we've already seen this movie, and it has an unhappy ending. Back in January 2010, our beloved shepherds launched a similar campaign supporting another amnesty bill.
Bishop John C. Wester chaired the Committee on Migration of the bishops' conference (USCCB) at the time. He told the Catholic News Service that "the church will prod lawmakers take action on the issue, beginning with a postcard campaign to members of Congress and prayer vigils across the country." [CNS, January 8, 2010].
Hey, wait a minute. Wasn't something else going on in January 2010?
Oh, that's right—Obamacare! But Obamacare wasn't a problem. After all, it never would have gotten off the ground, had the bishops not supported "universal health care" as "a basic human right" for years.
So the confident bishops focused on amnesty, announcing a nationwide "Justice for Immigrants" campaign in January 2010. They planned to distribute millions of postcards to parishes throughout the country urging Catholics to demand that Congress "enact immigration reform as soon as possible."
Then ObamaCare passed with abortion funding intact. The betrayed bishops expressed shock and chagrin.
It's shocking, I know. Simply shocking.
Then the most pro-abortion president in history betrayed them again, directing HHS to issue its notorious "Contraceptive Mandate." And today, dozens of bishops, Catholic universities, businesses, and individuals—among them Notre Dame—find themselves suing Obama, whose "universal health care" regulations threaten to force thousands of Catholic institutions nationwide to close.
The Experts Flunk Out
But, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, "Who Are We?"
Richard Doerflinger, [Email him] Appleby's colleague on the USCCB staff, answered that question in 2010. He said that "one organization in particular [the USCCB] has the role of speaking for the moral voice
Barack Obama’s victory in the 2012 presidential election precipitated a running series of exchanges among election analysts centered on the topic: Can the Republican Party remain nationally competitive without making itself more appealing to minority voters?
Note that the differences of opinion—the interesting ones, at any rate—are coldly arithmetical, without moral content. It is possible to believe that Republicans ought to try harder to appeal to minorities, while yet believing that they can achieve electoral success without doing so.
That seems in fact to be the position of Sean Trende, a key participant in this War of the Wonks. On immigration reform, for example, Trende wrote this:
From a “pure policy” standpoint, I find quite a bit to like in the basic “Gang of Eight” framework. But regardless of whether Republicans could or should back the bill, it simply isn’t necessary for them to do so and remain a viable political force.
[The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited, Real Clear Politics, June 21, 2013.]
That is taken from the first essay in a four-part series Trende published in June-July this year. (Parts two, three, and four are titled, respectively, “Does GOP Have to Pass Immigration Reform?,” “The GOP and Hispanics: What the Future Holds,” and “Demographics and the GOP, Part IV.”) That series in turn enlarges on a book Trende published earlier this year, The Lost Majority.
Trende argued, with numbers to back up the argument, that the biggest part of Mitt Romney’s 2012 loss was due to “missing whites”—blue-collar northern and Midwestern whites who didn’t show up at the polls in November.
(Note that “white,” here and in what follows, refers to non-Hispanic whites.)
The GOP, said Trende, could build a fairly strong coalition by going after these downscale whites:
It means abandoning some of its more pro-corporate stances. This GOP would have to be more “America first” on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics.
Various elements of the wonkerati rode into battle against Trende, brandishing their slide rules. Karl Rove, for example:
To have prevailed over Mr. Obama in the electoral count, Mr. Romney would have had to carry 62.54% of white voters. That's a tall order, given that Ronald Reagan received 63% of the white vote in his 1984 victory.
[More White Votes Alone Won't Save the GOP, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2013]
(The slide rules there are purely symbolic. I may in fact be the last person in the Western world that knows how to use a slide rule. I actually have one here
It's been said that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Unfortunately, this isn't true if you are speaking for the historic American nation. If the people pushing white dispossession can't prove you are a “racist,” they will just make something up.
That's exactly what happened to pro-Southern protesters in Uvalda, GA. A small group of members of the League of the South, a Southern nationalist organization modeled on the Italian Lega Nord, demonstrated against mass immigration and what they called the “replacement of the Southern people.” The group took care to make sure its message could not be misinterpreted, upholding a strict dress code, approving signs in advance, and encouraging participation from prominent figures, including the town's police chief, Lewis R. Smith.
This did not stop the Cultural Marxists at the Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com) from using their usual point-and-sputter tactics to try to derail the demonstration: League of the South to Protest “Southern Demographic Displacement” by Heidi Beirich, [Email her] August 21, 2013. In their usual conpiratorial way, they alerted the police chief that he was participating in a demonstration with people of whom the SPLC did not approve. When Chief Smith did not back down, they made him the center of their hit piece—even though his participation was limited to receiving an award and shaking hands with demonstrators.
Lewis R. Smith receives the Robert E. Lee Award.
Photo Courtesy Of the Southern Poverty Law Center
Damningly, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that there were muttered racial slurs throughout the demonstration.
Now, however, it's been revealed that the only racial slurs that were muttered came from the author of the $PLC piece—a mole named Keegan Hankes. According to another demonstrator at the rally, Mr. Hankes expressed his fury about “spooks” and “n*****s” and his pleasure that Chief Smith had “taken care of them.” He also consistently brought up race in conversations, trying to bait other members.
The Southern Poverty Law Center made the fatal mistake of publishing Hankes' piece under his own name, before removing it and replacing it with “Hatewatch Staff.” See Georgia Police Chief Accepts Award from Extremists During Rally Against Latino Immigrants, Hatewatch Staff on August 27, 2013, and see the pre-redaction Archive.org version here.
By this point, members of the “Southern Nationalist Network” had already identified him and linked him to the protests. [SPLC provocateur Keegan Hankes attempted to stir racial hatred in Uvalda, SouthernNationalist.com, September 5, 2013]
Memo From Middle America | News Flash—Obama Has Decided To Control Mexican Border…with Guatemala and Belize!
But recently Obama and his people have expressed interest in securing the southern border—Mexico’s southern border, that is:
Obama administration and Mexican government officials recently discussed creating a three-tier security system designed to protect Mexico’s southern border from drug and human traffickers, according to U.S. officials.
Obama Administration Considers Plan to Bolster Mexico’s Southern Border by Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon, August 22, 2013
Oh, and they want to do it with your money!
The border control plan calls for U.S. funding and technical support of three security lines extending more than 100 miles north of Mexico’s border with Guatemala and Belize. The border security system would use sensors and intelligence-gathering to counter human trafficking and drug running from the region, a major source of illegal immigration into the United States.
According to the officials who discussed the U.S.-Mexican
Immigrant displacement of American workers has reached an all-time high—right as Congress returns from its August recess and, incredibly, is looking at passing some version of the Eight Gangsters’ Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill.
Employers added 169,000 jobs in August, slightly below expectations. The unemployment rate fell to 7.3%, mainly because people dropped out of the labor force and were no longer counted as unemployed. Labor force participation—the share of the working-age population that is either working or looking for work—has been dropping since the economy collapsed in late 2008, but is now at its lowest level since 1978.
The MSM and the Wall Street crowd played this as another ho-hum report. The numbers were good enough to keep current GDP growth projections intact but disappointing enough to forestall serious monetary tightening in the near term—a relief to Wall Street, which likes low interest rates.
But none of the chattering class commentary focused on the “other” employment report—of households rather than businesses. Total employment fell by 115,000 according to the Household Survey. Our analysis of BLS data finds native-born workers suffered more than 100% of the loss, while foreign-born enjoyed a big job gain.
- Total employment fell by 115,000, or by -0.08%
- Native-born employment fell by 338,000, or by -0.28%
- Foreign-born employment rose by 223,000, or by +0.95%
August is a month when seasonal factors—the change in car model years, the start of school, summer job terminations—can swamp long term economic trends. Even so, this August seems to be one for the record books. The immigrant share of U.S. employment—16.49%—was a new high for any August during the Obama years:
Foreign-born Share of Total Employment (%)
Source: Author's analysis of BLS unseasonalized data.
From August 2009 to August 2013 the immigrant share of total employment rose by 1 percentage point—from 15.49% to 16.49%. Had the immigrant share remained at its August 2009 level, 1.44 million more native-born Americans would have been employed this August, and the native-born unemployment rate would have been 6.4% instead of the 7.5% reported by BLS.
The displacement of native-born Americans by immigrants reached