Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
National Data | Schumer/ Rubio Would Loot $100 Billion Annually From American Workers And Redistribute It To—Mark Zuckerberg!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we’ve all heard that immigration grows the economy—but at least some people now realize that virtually all that growth is captured by the immigrants themselves in the form of wages, leaving native-born Americans essentially no better off. (And that’s before transfer payments, like K-12 education).
Still, it seems that very few people realize the real dirty little secret of immigration: its key effect is within the native-born American community, redistributing income from labor to capital by beating down wages.
Thus VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has described the Gang of Eight Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill (S.744) as “a looting of the U.S. economy that can only be compared to the Russian oligarchs’ theft of assets as the Soviet Union collapsed.” Below, we attempt to quantify that looting.
S.744 proposes a minimum of 33 million lifetime work permits in the first decade alone (11 million to current illegal immigrants, 11 million to new legal immigrants admitted by continuing the current system, 5 million via chain migration of relatives of who have applied but are waiting for their slot and 6 million additional legal immigrants through new or expanded existing categories of immigration).
By, adding 33 million immigrants to the labor force S.744 could indeed eventually mean a total one-time increase in GDP by $660 billion, or by 4.4%, based on an assumed $20,000 average income per each new immigrant. And recent research (see below) indeed suggests that immigrants will receive about 98% of the gain.
So for native-born Americans, the primary impact
Peter Beinart argued recently in The Daily Beast that we are witnessing the rise of the “New New Left”—a coming era of Leftist hegemony stemming from the generational experience of financial collapse and declining living standards. He wrote:
Compared to their Reagan-Clinton generation elders, Millennials are entering adulthood in an America where government provides much less economic security. And their economic experience in this newly deregulated America has been horrendous.
[The Rise of the New New Left, September 12, 2013]
Beinart approvingly cites polls showing that “two-thirds of Millennial favored a bigger government with more services over a cheaper one with fewer services, a margin 25 points above the rest of the population.” Americans under 30 are more willing to describe themselves as “have nots” rather than “haves”—the only segment of the American population that thinks of itself this way.
Perhaps most importantly, Millennials narrowly (but explicitly) favor socialism over capitalism.
What is most revealing about Beinart is the sadistic glee with which he chronicles the dispossession of the historic American nation. He lazily depends on troglodyte-Leftist tropes about evil capitalists using cultural issues to trick Americans into voting against their interests. But, he gloats, this is no longer possible, as
…right-wing populism generally requires rousing white, Christian, straight, native-born Americans against Americans who are not all those things. But among Millennials, there are fewer, white Christian non-immigrants to rouse.
This reflects a common view of immigration on the Left. Mass immigration is a useful weapon on two fronts—the war against the ideal of limited government; and the greater jihad against the historic American nation itself.
Sometimes it is hard to determine which comes first. Thus the Left has seized
Memo From Middle America | New Evidence Of What Romeike Homeschoolers Face In Germany—But Obama Still Prefers Fraudulent Mexican Asylees
The struggle of the German homeschooling Romeike family to receive asylum in the U.S. can be approached from several different angles – religious freedom, homeschooling, immigration, and what appears to be an unmistakable anti-white bias in the Obama Administration. See my previous articles: Eric Holder’s DOJ Finds Some Foreigners It Wants To Deport—White Evangelical German Homeschoolers , followed two months later by More On The Romeike Case—What’s Wrong With Wanting White Immigrants? Now there is new, horrifying evidence of what the Romeikes face in Germany.
To summarize: Uwe Romeike and his wife Hannalore are music teachers who fled their native Germany in 2008 because of harassment they received from the government for home schooling. They had been fined and were facing the possibility of losing custody of their children. They settled in Tennessee and applied for asylum.
The Romeikes received asylum, like the majority of asylum applicants. On January 26, 2010, an immigration judge in Tennessee ruled in their favor. That would normally have been the end of the case—but not in Obama’s America.
Attorney General Eric “My People” Holder’s DOJ got involved, seeking to reverse the Romeikes’ asylum status. The Board of Immigration Appeals backed up Holder. The Romeikes appealed to federal court.
But on May 14th, the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled against the Romeikes, upholding the Obama administration’s asylum denial. (The judges: Ronald Lee Gilman, appointed by Bill Clinton; Jeffrey Sutton and John M. Rogers, appointed by George Bush.)[Decision in Romeike v. Holder (PDF)]
The court did acknowledge a constitutional right of Americans
What I Saw At The Naturalization Ceremony—More Immigration Means Welfarism, Crime, And The End Of America
At first, the families were permitted to be present. But soon we were sent to a waiting area, where we whiled away several hours.
I had packed a couple of books, which we read at our cafeteria table, while a huge screen TV blared in the front of the room. At one point, we went to a concession, to pick up some snacks, leaving our bags at the table, to show it was occupied.
When we returned, we found two women there, yapping away very loudly in Spanish. I recognized them: they’d been sitting at a table in the front. If they already had a table, why did they move to ours?
Easy—to run us off, and take our table. It wasn’t enough for them to have a table. Their enjoyment required depriving whites of one. (I seemed to be the only white around.)
But I had a solution: I began edifying them by reading aloud—shouting, really—from my book, even louder than they were speaking. After a few minutes, they departed.
We got to witness the big swearing-in ceremony. Every Citizenship And Immigration Services [CIS] worker was herself an immigrant—they bragged about it, while promoting the “America is a nation of immigrants” myth.
The agency apparently refuses to hire native-born Americans. You know the old routine about black welfare clients rising above poverty by becoming welfare workers to other blacks? Now we have people going from being an immigrant-client to an immigration worker!
Afterwards, The Boss was enraged. During the hours while we waited for her, the immigrant immigration workers had brought out forms for every welfare program under the sun, which
As a Democrat, I think the Republican Party is committing Hara-Kiri with the Federal government shut-down. But my concern is how this will play out in the struggle to stop “comprehensive immigration reform”—S.744, the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill already passed by the Senate.
As Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King’s Chief of Staff, Tracie Gibler eloquently warned at the recent US. Inc sponsored 37th Writers’ Workshop in Washington DC, if any of the so-called "good” bills on immigration reform are passed in the House, and Speaker Boehner allows a Conference Committee with the Senate, then some form of Amnesty will be smuggled through.
Let me repeat—if any House bill is passed, and the House goes to conference with the Senate, we will get son of S. 744—a true bastard, which will profoundly change America and wreck permanently our precious Rule of Law.
Breaking Bad Habits: New Mexico Cannot Protect Its Kids From Mexican Drug Cartels While The Borders Are Open
[See also Ann Coulter: 'Breaking Bad': A Christian Parable]
Creating drug dealers in New Mexico may lead to great television, but it shouldn't be a result of our immigration policy.
Breaking Bad, the story of a white chemistry teacher turned drug kingpin in New Mexico, came to an end last Sunday. The scribblers and chattering classes are obsessing over the show and its meaning, but continuing to avert their eyes from the actual casualties of drugs in New Mexico. Most importantly, they take care not to address what is really driving the death toll in the Land of Enchantment – mass immigration.
While Breaking Bad’s Walter White occasionally clashed with Mexican gangs on AMC, the real life penetration of the Mexican cartels into the United States is no fiction. New Mexico’s rate of drug overdose is higher than the national average – and many of the cartel's customers are teenagers. [The Heroin Surge | As addiction climbs in Albuquerque, cartels are ready to deliver, By Joe Kolb, Alibi.com, June 2 - 8, 2011 ]
New Mexico politicians are divided about how to respond. Rep. Emily Kane (D) proposed to reduce marijuana possession penalties but her bill was defeated in the Senate. However, the debate over liberalization of marijuana laws is irrelevant—youth in New Mexico are dying from hard drug use and overdoses that will continue as long as the borders remain open.
New Mexico has some of the highest national rates of cocaine and marijuana use for 12-17 year olds, according to New Mexico’s Department of Health. But the real problem drugs in the Southwest: heroin and prescription opiate painkillers. As a society, we are in a prescription drug abuse crisis, officially declared an epidemic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2009.
Of course, Americans’ tendency to pop a pill to deal with the stresses of everyday life is not the fault of drug cartel. However, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that one-third of people over twelve who used a controlled substance for the first time started off using a prescription drug non-medically. The leap to heroin from opiate painkillers in New Mexico is even more logical, given its low cost and easy availability.
The source of this cheap heroin: Mexico. Mike Gallagher, a journalist for the Albuquerque Journal, has spent his career investigating the New Mexican drug cartels
Following my September 18th report on Scandinavia, I thought some news from the other end of Europe would not go amiss. Here are two stories.
The one that really had me transfixed this week was the public self-criticism performed by Guido Barilla, chairman of the privately-owned Barilla Group, the world’s leading producer of pasta.
This story begins September 25th when, in an interview with an Italian radio station, the 55-year-old Mr. Barilla was asked whether his company planned to do an advertisement featuring a homosexual family. Barilla replied:
Non faremo pubblicità con omosessuali perché a noi piace la famiglia tradizionale. Se i gay non sono d'accordo, possono sempre mangiare la pasta di un’altra marca. (“We will not do advertising with homosexuals because we like the traditional family. If gays do not agree, they can always eat another brand of pasta.”)
Invited to elaborate, Mr. Barilla said that homosexuals “all have the right to do what they want—of course they do—so long as they don’t disturb others,” but that his firm aimed to serve the traditional family, with the woman in a key role.
Innocuous enough, surely. Mr. Barilla sounds like a live-and-let-live sort of guy, but prefers to target his firm’s product at traditional families.
Given that Italy’s Total Fertility Rate is a dismal 1.41, ranked 203 out of 224 in the world, and that their country is a prime destination for illegal immigrants from Africa, patriotic Italians keen to preserve their nation’s character and culture have good reasons to worry about the demographic future. Such worries might reasonably generate doubts about the wisdom of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.
But Mr. Barilla did not take that position, nor any other political position, only remarking that Non la penso come loro—“I don’t think like them.”
He quickly learned that in the Western world of today there is only one permitted way to think. The homosexualist lobbies and their Leftist allies went into a feeding frenzy, launching boycotts via the Twitter hashtag #biocottabarilla and venting their outrage on talking-head TV shows.
The Daily Beast reports that pasta aisles were vandalized in grocery stores in Bologna, “considered the most gay-friendly city in Italy.” [Italian Gay Activists Boycott Top Pasta Maker, by Barbie Latza Nadeau, September 27, 2013] The president of a homosexualist group opined that Mr. Barilla’s view “that if you don’t agree, you can just eat another type of pasta” was “a dangerous message.” A Leftist parliamentarian was less alarmist, saying only that “we need to educate the public who agree with Barilla’s sentiment.”
[Note: For my usage of the word “homosexualist,” see the first paragraph here.]
The outrage spread worldwide. Barilla is international: The Economist reported in 2007 that the firm has 25 percent of the U.S. market.
The chairman buckled. He put out a short video clip, recanting his heresy. This was the item that had me transfixed.
Yesterday I apologized for offending many people around the world. Today I am repeating that apology. Through my entire life I have always respected every person I have met, including gays and their families, without any distinction. I’ve never
The Establishment Conservative Movement has been compared to a gun turret, capable of hitting targets directly in front of it, but unable to shift to hit anything else. Unfortunately, this understates the case. Like a dysfunctional laser, the Beltway Right has an incredible ability to take on precisely the fights it can't win—while ignoring the critical issues like immigration that could save the movement and the country. To adopt General Omar Bradley’s famous phrase, it fights the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy.
Right now, the “conservative wing” of the Republican Party has shut down the federal government in what is largely conceded to be a futile effort to stop Obamacare and repeal the 2012 Presidential Election. However, at the same time, the party leadership is preparing to dispossess its white base by sneaking in Amnesty through the back door.
The last ditch effort to stop Obamacare began with a filibuster from Texas Senator Ted Cruz, complete with allusions to Nazism, Star Wars references, and a reading from Green Eggs & Ham. Cruz's effort electrified many American conservatives, who are already talking about him as a presidential candidate.
This led to Cruz’s remarkable political coup: in effect, becoming the de facto Speaker of the House, as John Boehner and the House Republicans followed his lead, demanding concessions from the White House or else they would shut down the government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama called their bluff, and as a result, the Republicans may be on the wrong side of a public relations disaster.
This is especially embarrassing because we have seen this movie before. Newt Gingrich famously shut down the government when trying to win concessions from President Bill Clinton. The result: a catastrophic loss of support for the Republican Revolution of 1994 and Slick Willie's political resurrection.
The parallels go further. The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 was significantly powered by a host of patriotic National Question concerns, including illegal immigration (California’s Proposition 187 also passed in 1994) and anti-white discrimination (California’s anti-Affirmative Action Proposition 209 was clearly headed for an overwhelming victory in 1996). But while Republicans were happy to benefit from these issues, they did absolutely nothing about them once they won office. Instead, Newt Gingrich, in a comically doomed attempt to win black votes, allied with black Republican congressman JC Watts to ensure that Affirmative Action remained untouchable.
Similarly, archetypical Beltway conservative Paul Ryan is using the government shutdown as an opportunity to scheme for amnesty. [Where Has Paul Ryan Been During the Latest Shutdown Debate? By Matt Fuller, RollCall, September 27, 2013] Eric Cantor is also holding meetings on immigration, while RNC head Reince Priebus prepared for a joint appearance with DNC chief Tim Kaine on the Treason Lobby television network Telemundo.
However, the real problem is Ted Cruz. He has been remarkably silent during the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge battle. Though he has expressed opposition to Amnesty, he has done so in a muted form obviously calculated not to upset any of the party's major donors. Instead, he has vowed to raise a “grassroots army” to confront Obamacare, even though the law is already a fait accompli. In contrast, he has been notably silent about raising any such army to save America from another attempt at Amnesty.
The likely result is the worst possible scenario. The Republicans will fail in their attempts to win any concessions from the White House. More importantly, they will inherit all of the blame for the government shutdown, and this will bleed into the 2014 mid-term elections. As a result, the Republicans will fail to expand their majority in the House and fail to retake the Senate, giving the Obama Administration the advantage as it heads into its final two years.
The real tragedy here: the historic American nation, which has largely entrusted its political fortunes to the Republican Party, will receive the blame for any upcoming defeats.
We cannot deny that race too is an added factor to the fathomless sense of entitlement felt among the GOP far right. You saw it in birtherism; in the Southern GOP’s constant outrageous claims of Obama’s alleged treason and alliance with Islamist enemies... in the endless race-baiting from Fox News and the talk radio right… [The Nullification Party, The Dish, October 1, 2013]
And of course, MSNBC's explanation is that the shutdown is being motivated by “hate.” [‘Serious Racism Here’: Ed Schultz Insists GOP’s Shutdown Showdown Motivated by ‘Hate’, by Noah Rothman, MediaIte, September 27, 2013]
They are all correct…but not in the way they think. All of these smears reflect that fact that the GOP has by default become the Generic American Party, the party of the Historic American Nation, which happens to be white. Any hope of stopping mass immigration largely remains with the Republican Party, as among Democrats immigration patriotism has been all but totally suppressed by the Leftist ideological faction that controls the party. Accordingly, Republican political defeat likely spells disaster for immigration patriots.
Immigration patriotism as an issue has no powerful constituency within the Republican Party—except for primary voters as a whole. But this is not a decisive advantage because, among the conservative base, immigration is simply one more issue, behind other priorities such as guns, abortion, or health care. Therefore, #StandWithCruz is largely a kind of Kabuki theater, a way of defining conservative “militancy” through largely irrelevant concerns.
While Cruz's look-alike Pat Buchanan was once the gold standard for “authentic” conservatism, today conservatism relies on culture war rhetoric to defend economistic policies. The result: the Republican Party receives all of the political baggage of being tied to inherently evil people like white families and Southerners without any of the benefits of actually helping these constituencies. Indeed, the GOP actually works to destroy American whites, while simultaneously being condemned as a “white nationalist party.”
When culture does enter into Conservatism Inc. calculations, it is often a cynical use of Christian Right rhetoric that does little but confirm Leftist stereotypes. The disaster of Todd Akin's comments on abortion and rape, the perennial debates about evolution in science classes, or the black would-be Lieutenant Governor of Virginia's comments on yoga leading to Satanic possession were hardly edifying spectacles. Furthermore, though conservative Christian voters actually tend to support immigration patriotism, their leaders
I spent an afternoon the other day strolling through the Valley View Shopping Center in Dallas. Its once-fine stores are slowly closing one by one. In their place, quaint Mexican vendors with amateurishly painted signs and sparse stores now hawk their wares as they would in a seedy swap meet.
In 1984, there was a Bloomingdales in this mall.
Valley View was never upscale like ritzy Highland Park. But 17 years ago, when I arrived in Dallas, Valley View was a place where you could wander among big name stores and professional marketers. Clothes were always top fashion. The restaurants were havens of delectable eating. You could spend a day there and feel like you were immersed in value. It was an uplifting experience.
Today it is Death Valley. Today it is tamales and rap music, velvet paintings of Christ and plump Latina women chattering like magpies. South of the Border culture is slowly snaking its way into Dallas.
How long will it be before it is seriously encroaching on Yankee territory?
Is Valley View just a normal part of an ever-shifting marketplace brought on by Schumpeter’s “creative destruction,” as libertarians maintain? Are complaints just knee-jerk reaction to the nature of capitalism?
Not at all. In 1996, the apartment complex I moved into upon arrival (and lived in for 12 years) was a nice, middle-class complex nestled among beautiful homes in a North Dallas surrounding neighborhood. The residents were 85 percent white Americans. Today that complex is down to 10 percent white Americans, 10 percent black Americans, and 80 percent Mexicans, largely illegals. And it’s uninhabitable.
This is not capitalism and “creative destruction” at work. This is ideological insanity at work. This is multiculturalist dogma hammered in by the educational system for 40 years, coupled with a federal government outrageously negligent about one of its most fundamental duties--the protection of the nation’s borders.
“It gets worse every day,” complains one local businessman. “I have owned a contracting business here for 25 years, and I can no longer find any employees that can speak English (nor do they have a desire to). Having been around them for the last ten years on a daily basis, they make no bones about it.”
“Yes, Dallas is full of illegals,” says a former resident who moved to California. “I lived there for years and still work in Dallas at least once a month. You will find illegals working everywhere, living in every suburb. You cannot insulate or isolate yourself from them completely – unless you live in a castle surrounded by a moat.” [ Is there an influx of illegal immigrants living in Dallas, Texas? Ans: Are You Kidding?,CityData August 21, 2007]
Bianca Mercado summarizes this transformation of the great metropolis of historically white, Protestant north Texas:
In 1980, one out of every eight Dallas residents was Hispanic. By 2000, the statistic changed to one in three. By 2004, Hispanics had become the largest single ethnic group in Dallas, comprising nearly 42 percent of the Dallas population, or nearly one in every two Dallas residents. The Catholic diocese of Dallas, moreover, grew from 200,000 in 1990 to 950,000 in 2007, with Hispanics accounting for most of that growth.With their Hearts in their Hands: Forging a Mexican Community in Dallas, 1900-1925, Masters Thesis, University of North Texas, May 2008
Class and taste, of course, still exist throughout Dallas (and America). But the writing is on the wall. A lower culture has invaded a higher culture. And all the lying Political Correctness of our Establishment is not going to be able to cover it up if our Republican quislings in Washington D.C. grant Amnesty to the 12-20 million illegals spearheading the invasion.
With Amnesty will come the next wave, which will be 20-30 million, then 40-50 million, then the
If Obama Had A City, It Would Look Like Detroit—But Without An Art Museum, Which Will Have Been Looted By The Rich
If Obama had a city, it would look like Detroit. Actually, it already is his—the President has just officially adopted it.
Of Detroit's over 700,000 people, eighty-two percent are black. Obama won the city’s voters by a margin not seen since the fall of Saddam Hussein, taking 98 percent of the votes cast in the 2012 election.
Not coincidentally, the city is also $18.5 billion in long-term debt, forcing the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history.
However, in the post-American age, slavish political support for the powers that be has its benefits. The Obama Administration has just delivered the “bacon” City Council member JoAnn Watson notoriously demanded after the election. [Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out, MyFoxDetroit, December 5, 2012]
America’s failed city is getting $300 million in “freed-up” grants from the government and private foundations. The Obama Administration has also appointed a “point person” who will be “on the ground” during this “recovery” process. It has “vowed to bring ‘a lot of passion’ to an aggressive effort to help Detroit recover from its economic crisis”:
White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, addressing the media after a closed-door meeting between White House officials and state and local leaders, said Friday’s meeting was “exceptionally good.” “We just have one goal: To have all of Detroit working together for one Detroit with the Obama administration as a key partner every step along the way to support the vision, strategy and priorities of the people of Detroit,” he said. “We do not think of it as our job to devise the priorities or the strategy for Detroit. Our job is to listen to all sectors of Detroit.”
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan
Adapted from Refugee Problems in Arizona, Social Contract Press, Summer 2013
Most immigration news coming from Arizona concerns the flood of illegal aliens that crosses the border—but illegals are not the only problem the state faces. Arizona receives significant numbers of legal immigrants who are given refugee and asylum status—and these people cause significant social and financial problems out of proportion to their numbers. [Arizona Is a Haven for Refugees, By Jason DeParle, NYT, October 8, 2010]
In statistical terms the refugees that arrive in Arizona are indeed dwarfed in size by the influx of illegals that sneak across the border. FAIRUS and the Pew Hispanic Center estimate that Arizona has about 400,000 illegal aliens residing in the state. About a quarter of a million illegal aliens cross the Arizona border per year en route to other states.
The ceiling on total refugee visas that can be issued per year in the U.S. doesn’t have a hard limit because it varies depending on the whims of the President and Congress. On average about 80,000 a year are given refugee or asylum visas. Arizona receives about 2,000 refugees per year. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Refugees can request asylum visas for family members and close relatives—and many of them have very large extended families. There is no limit to the number of asylum visas that can be granted per year. For the purpose of this article refugees and asylees will be lumped into one category of immigrants called “refugees.”
The refugee program causes many problems—among them is the distortion of the labor market caused by influxes of new workers that displace citizens. Refugees get immediate authorization to work upon arrival and they receive unrestricted Social Security cards. Refugees directly compete with U.S. citizens for all manner of jobs, both skilled and unskilled, high and low wage.
After a few years refugees are typically granted an adjustment of status to legal permanent residency. They then become a permanent part of the U.S. workforce. Refugees are not subject to numerical limits on adjustments of status.
Refugee resettlement programs, however well intended, are costly. State and federal agencies pay benefits to each and every refugee that sets foot on U.S. soil. Unlike other immigrants, refugees are automatically eligible for free housing, welfare, and any other type of government aid that U.S. citizens are entitled to. Officially, the refugee resettlement program costs about $1 billion a year, and of that, $165 million is paid by the states and $332 million is federal. Don Barnett, a researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote that the real cost is about 10 times higher than the official estimate! [Refugee Resettlement | A System Badly in Need of Review, CIS, May 2011]
State spending on refugee resettlement is an unfunded mandate because states have no say over accepting refugees but they are required to provide services for them. The federal government customarily rubber-stamps thousands of refugee applications that are submitted by private organizations.
Decisions over which refugees to accept, and where they will be resettled, are often administered by nongovernmental agencies (NGOs). Many of the NGOs work closely with the United Nations (UN) and are not accountable to the American people or to federal agencies. The UN refers about one-third of the refugee admissions and the United States usually accepts about half of those. California has historically taken the largest share of refugees, but Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular dumping grounds.
Arizona takes more refugees per capita than any other state.
Sometimes the President of the U.S. decrees
I would like to thank Professor Hoppe for inviting me to speak. It’s a pleasure and an honor to be before you today.
I have been asked to give you a history of American race relations in a half hour—not an easy thing to do. It would be easier to give you a history in a single word, and that word would be conflict. Conflict is the normal state of race relations anywhere in the world, and for reasons that I believe are deeply biological.
Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.
Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict.
American race relations in the Anglo-American sense began in 1607 with the founding of the Jamestown colony on the coast of Virginia. Jamestown is not only where American race relations begin, it is also a fascinating example of the inevitability of racial conflict.
The purpose of the colony was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.
The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.
In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.
There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.
The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance.
I don’t know how much I can assume about this audience’s knowledge of colonial history, but the chief of the neighboring Indians was named Powhatan, and his favorite daughter, Pocahontas, converted to Christianity and married the English planter John Rolfe. That was in 1614, and it inaugurated a period of real harmony. The new head of the colony, George Thorpe, was especially solicitous of the Indians, whom he genuinely tried to help. When English dogs barked at Indians, he had them publicly hanged.
But four years after Pocahontas married John Rolfe, Chief Powhatan died, and his younger brother, Opchanacanough, became chief. Opchanacanough did not have a marriage alliance with the English, and he wanted to drive the invaders out. In 1622, four years after he became chief, Opchanacanough struck. By then there were about 1,200 English in the colony, spread out in several different locations. Every morning, Indians would come to work with the English on farms and in workshops, and on March 22, they were to all rise up and exterminate
Previously by Martin Witkerk: The Philosophy Department Looks at Immigration
I purchased a copy of The Myth of the Muslim Tide on the strength of its title alone. Having seen the photographs of Muslim swarms occupying streets and squares in the capitals of Europe, kneeling and praying in unison toward Mecca, I was genuinely curious as to how anyone would go about trying to persuade readers that the said Muslims were a “myth.”
Author Doug Saunders, [Email him] however, is neither as foolish nor as dishonest as one might gather from his title. He even begins his book with a description of the highly visible changes his own London neighborhood has undergone over the past fifteen years.
His central argument can be stated succinctly: rural peoples tend to be fertile, while cities are population sinks; Muslims moving to the West are usually also moving from rural areas in their homelands to vast urban conglomerations in their host countries, where their fertility tends to fall rapidly. Therefore, estimates of future Muslim population growth based merely on projecting the fertility of first-generation arrivals into the future are wildly exaggerated.
Saunders does a fairly convincing job of demonstrating this thesis. He shows, for example, that Muslim fertility has declined within the Muslim world itself in recent decades in tandem with a marked process of urbanization. Iranian families had an average of nearly seven children in the mid-1980s; by 2010, their fertility had fallen to 1.7, below the rates of France or Great Britain. Turkey has moved away from secularism in recent years, but its fertility rate has also fallen from 6 to 2.15 children per family. North Africa has seen a steep fall in fertility; the worst effected country, Tunisia, is now below the replacement level. Altogether, Saunders writes, “the fertility rate across all Muslim-majority countries has fallen from 4.3 children per family in 1995 to 2.9 in 2010.” Demographers project an overall decline to 2.3 by 2035.
But how about Muslim fertility in the Occident? In the West Germany of 1970, Turkish families had 4.4 children each, while today they have 2.2. Austrian Muslim fertility decline from 3.09 in 1981 to 2.3 in 2001. First-generation Pakistani women immigrants in Great Britain average 3.5 children each, while their daughters average 2.5. Saunders notes a study of the situation in France reporting that Muslim fertility rates are “closely tied to length of residence... the longer immigrant women live in France, the fewer children they have.”
These figures certainly offer a heartening respite to all