ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Immigrants and the economy

It is becoming increasingly clear that immigrants are not good for the economy, except in the pure Keynesian sense of requiring an increase in G:
Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

The report was released at a time when both major presidential candidates have backed policies that would make it easier to immigrate legally and would boost the numbers of people coming to the U.S.
The same pattern has been seen in Europe. Second generation immigrants are actually less inclined to work and more inclined to be radical about their home countries and cultures than the first-generation ones. While there is nothing about it in the linked article, they are also much more likely to commit criminal acts. Notice that the conclusion is something I have been pointing out for some time now: "full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences".

It is, in fact, close to impossible even over three or four generations. As I have also previously noted, it takes hundreds of years to civilize an uncivilized people; this is why blacks are still behaving in social patterns that are clearly distinct from both native whites and immigrant whites, and if history is a reliable guide, they will for at least another 800 years even if there are no absolute genetic bars to it.

Most non-Anglo Americans have a very retarded and romantic attitude about immigration because their grandparents or great-grandparents were immigrants. First, they don't understand how those nineteenth and early twentieth waves of immigration harmed the USA for the obvious reason that they don't understand the Constitution or the English Common Law any better than their immigrant forebears from Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Scandinavia did. They may have the emotional attachment to the flag and the pledge of allegiance - the latter only created in 1892 - but they are not genuine Americans in the sense of having been born in a tradition of sovereign rebellion.

Second, they fail to understand the qualitative differences between the various waves of immigration. Immigrants from civilized European cultures were always going to be fundamentally different than those from semi-civilized and uncivilized societies.

Labels:

83 Comments:

Anonymous The other skeptic August 08, 2012 10:37 AM  

And then there is Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome

Blogger Professor Hale August 08, 2012 10:47 AM  

Wow. They even lag behind native Americans? They must really be stupid, drunk and lazy.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick August 08, 2012 11:06 AM  

How do you account for people with non-Anglo ancestry that have more American attitudes than those with Anglo ancestry?

Blogger James Dixon August 08, 2012 11:12 AM  

> How do you account for people with non-Anglo ancestry that have more American attitudes than those with Anglo ancestry?

There are always statistical outliers, Mr. Nightstick.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 08, 2012 11:13 AM  

"attachment to the flag and the pledge of allegiance"

The Flag of the USSA Empire and the Socialist Francis Bellamy with it's "Heil" hand sign to me are not measures of being a 'True American'.

In addition the Constitution represents what was essentially a coup de'etat and shoved down the throats of the Colonists. The Constitution has not prevented Empire building and in fact has enabled it at every turn. It is the Empire that needs immigrants to man it's Foreign Legions just like the Roman Empire did.

To claim that the Irish were not born under a tradition of sovereign rebellion is just pure horse-hockey. It was the English and their 'Common Law' that allowed for the blockade of Ireland and the subsequent genocide of the Irish, and shamefully blamed it on 'Taters'. It was the Irish immigrants that rioted when the Syphilitic Madman known by the name of Lincoln attempted to conscript them to murder their Southern Brothers. It was the Southerns, mostly from Ireland and Scotland who rebelled against the Tyrant Lincoln, receiving his just deserts, Sic Semper Tyrannus.

I am no fan of immigration, but to claim that Americans have a tradition of sovereign rebellion when they grovel at the foot of a blood soaked pile of skulls created by the USSA Empire every 'Sunday come to meeting' from sea to shining sea is just delusional.

Anonymous Paddy August 08, 2012 11:13 AM  

You don't think the Irish understood the implications of English Common Law or sympathized with sovereign rebellion?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 08, 2012 11:14 AM  

How do you account for people with non-Anglo ancestry that have more American attitudes than those with Anglo ancestry?

What kind of people are you talking about?

If you look at Canada, for example, most native-born people in Quebec seem to have little regard for the "English" who surround them. This is why there has been a strong independence movement in Quebec.

In the United States, you have Italian-Americans, Arab-Americans, Jewish-Americans, and many other assorted hyphenated Americans. If you have ever traveled to Chinatown in New York City, you'll see basically a large group of people who have not integrated with our culture.

I think that if the United States were to close down it's borders and shoot any trespassers on sight, in about a generation or two you'd see a better world overall. This is because instead of having a place to flee to, most people would be forced to make a stand against their own tyrannical governments they are fleeing from.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 08, 2012 11:19 AM  

The Constitution has not prevented Empire building and in fact has enabled it at every turn.

The Constitution was merely a documented, renegotiated contract between the states to determine who they unify but still maintain their own sovereignty.

It was only as good as the people who were supposed to uphold it and it didn't take long for the men who were elected to dismantle it.

In other words, a contract is only as good as the people who apply it.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick August 08, 2012 11:22 AM  

What kind of people are you talking about?

I know of a famous Greek around these parts.

Anonymous JartStar August 08, 2012 11:30 AM  

I suppose that the US was doomed from the start as throughout all of its history there have been mass migrations of people coming into it. For instance between 1820 and 1914 6 million Germans moved into the US and brought their beer, Lutheranism, and socialism with them.

Anonymous VD August 08, 2012 11:32 AM  

The Flag of the USSA Empire and the Socialist Francis Bellamy with it's "Heil" hand sign to me are not measures of being a 'True American'.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote, as you clearly didn't understand it.

I am no fan of immigration, but to claim that Americans have a tradition of sovereign rebellion when they grovel at the foot of a blood soaked pile of skulls created by the USSA Empire every 'Sunday come to meeting' from sea to shining sea is just delusional.

Many, if not most of those Americans are the non-Anglo descendants of German, Irish, Italian, and Scandinavian immigration. And the Anglos have now largely abandoned their ideological and religious traditions of their revolutionary ancestors.

Anonymous JartStar August 08, 2012 11:42 AM  

What countries have allowed near zero immigration, and stopped outside thought, politics, and culture for centuries? Feudal Japan comes to mind, but little else.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick August 08, 2012 11:44 AM  

JartStar - Do you mean like isolationism or something more extreme? Wikipedia has an article on Isolationism that may provide more examples.

Anonymous Kickass August 08, 2012 11:51 AM  

I think it was either a drinking game or dare gone awry.

Anonymous Kyle In Japan August 08, 2012 11:57 AM  

What about the Dutch and other colonial-era Europeans who settled North America at the same time as the English? It would be fascinating to mull over the history books and see if they were more or less supportive of the independence movement, or if there was no real correlation at all.

Anonymous The One August 08, 2012 12:04 PM  

The immigrants are playing the game right, every tribe for themselves. If the Anglos are dumb enough to spend resources on foreigners rather than their own non existent children, they deserve what is coming.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 08, 2012 12:07 PM  

The Flag of the USSA Empire and the Socialist Francis Bellamy with it's "Heil" hand sign to me are not measures of being a 'True American'.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote, as you clearly didn't understand it.

Thank you, it is clear upon re-reading your text you were speaking of non-anglo, which I understand to be non-English speaking people. I must admit to an emotional response to the American flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, both represent the worst side of America, in fact in my mind do not represent America at all, but represent the flailing, murderous, immoral USSA Empire. Having rid my self of that cloth long ago and absolutely refuse to pledge allegiance to this monstrosity as all who desire peace, freedom and civility should.

Blogger Rahul August 08, 2012 12:10 PM  

"What countries have allowed near zero immigration, and stopped outside thought, politics, and culture for centuries? Feudal Japan comes to mind, but little else."

Japan has some problems though. Japanese women aren't having enough kids and they still follow Keynesian economics.

Anonymous antonym August 08, 2012 12:14 PM  

The same pattern has been seen in Europe. Second generation immigrants are actually less inclined to work and more inclined to be radical about their home countries and cultures than the first-generation ones. While there is nothing about it in the linked article, they are also much more likely to commit criminal acts.

Regression to the mean, probably.

Anonymous VD August 08, 2012 12:15 PM  

Japan has some problems though.

Japan does have some problems. But it has one big advantage over America and Great Britain. It is still Japan.

Blogger Holden August 08, 2012 12:17 PM  

@JartStar, the German immigrants are also the most likely to describe themselves simply as "Americans" in a number of surveys. They are also the most financially successful immigrant group according to the 1990 census. And besides what you listed, they also brought with them a hostility to slavery, ran large sections of the underground railroad, and made sure that Missouri did not support the confederacy.

Anonymous Anonymous August 08, 2012 12:17 PM  

"The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal,...."

Sorry, no free pass here.
Immigrants come through the front door.
The rest are STILL illegal aliens.
How sad that the parents of "children" (age 30, up from the age 25 "free ride" of Obama Care)have subjected their illegal alien offspring (anchor babies aside)to rightful deportation when they illegally dragged them across the boarders.
I'm sure that when they're returned to the country they were dragged from, as unknowing children, they'll NOT have a lifetime "felonious" mark on their permanant record, yet any "credentials" illegally gleaned in the US will still "count".

Sounds pretty charitable to me.

CaptDMO

Anonymous The One August 08, 2012 12:21 PM  

"made sure that Missouri did not support the confederacy."

Holden, that is considered a very bad thing on this blog.

Anonymous JartStar August 08, 2012 12:24 PM  

Japan does have some problems. But it has one big advantage over America and Great Britain. It is still Japan.

When did America cease being America in your opinion?

Anonymous JartStar August 08, 2012 12:30 PM  

@Holden,

I'm German, Danish and Lutheran. I see now that I am the problem with America. I've heard Denmark is a nice place and my surname will fit right in...

Anonymous JCclimber August 08, 2012 12:33 PM  

Vox,
thanks for doing your part to bring the facts to the people.

I am sure all Republicans will no longer hold their noses and vote for Romney, knowing he supports legalizing people who came here illegally. Instead, they will rub their crotches where their testicles used to be, and vote for Romney. Because it has gone beyond a foul stench, instead, they are knowingly castrating themselves in order to buy a little more time, a little more power, a little more money. Eunuchs.

Anonymous JCclimber August 08, 2012 12:35 PM  

On a related note, I've been traveling and on an "internet vacation" for several weeks. Has anything been done in the US House of Representatives (you know, the body which has 50 "Tea Party" Republicans in it) to overturn Obama's amnesty Executive order granting status to >100,000 illegal immigrants?

If so, I've certainly missed it.

Anonymous VD August 08, 2012 12:41 PM  

And besides what you listed, they also brought with them a hostility to slavery, ran large sections of the underground railroad, and made sure that Missouri did not support the confederacy.

In other words, they were statists with no regard for English traditions. Which makes sense, because they were a bunch of fucking Germans who intrinsically believe in their right to dictate how other people must live. It's not an accident that "kindergarten" is a German word. Germans tend to loathe homeschooling or anything that smacks of decentralization.

The English tradition is that anything not explicitly banned is permitted. The German tradition is that anything not explicitly permitted is verboten.

When did America cease being America in your opinion?

Hard to say because it's a big place with different population groups settled at different times. But here are my instinctive answers: Politically, 1865. Economically, 1930. Demographically, 1965.

Anonymous Azimus August 08, 2012 12:43 PM  

James Dixon August 08, 2012 11:12 AM
> How do you account for people with non-Anglo ancestry that have more American attitudes than those with Anglo ancestry?

There are always statistical outliers, Mr. Nightstick.


Enough with the Anglo circle-jerk please, there were plenty of men from German/Dutch/Scotch/Other peoples that fully understood concepts of personal liberty and freedom, and paid in full by spilling their blood for said causes (or did they do that wrong too?)... as for the English, no doubt they were a great people once, but look at them now and YES I mean native-born Britons living in England.

Can't we just agree that instilling the values of liberty and freedom in ANYBODY is a statistical outlier? Why do we have to make little lists of "Who's the Bestest Freedom Fighting People" like a bunch of 10 year old boys debating the relative might of superheroes?

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick August 08, 2012 12:45 PM  

For some reason this thread make me think of this.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 08, 2012 12:48 PM  

Three words:

No. More. Immigrants.

It's that simple.

No more immigrants.

None. Zero. No more.

Anonymous Josh August 08, 2012 12:50 PM  

And besides what you listed, they also brought with them a hostility to slavery, ran large sections of the underground railroad, and made sure that Missouri did not support the confederacy.

Um, those aren't inherently good things, especially that last part.

And to think we let those meth addicts into the southeastern conference...

Blogger James Dixon August 08, 2012 12:52 PM  

> Can't we just agree that instilling the values of liberty and freedom in ANYBODY is a statistical outlier?

Pretty much, yes. But the differences between populations are still significant.

Anonymous Josh August 08, 2012 12:52 PM  

I would say that the scots, not the english, have the strongest legacy of fighting for freedom...

Blogger James Dixon August 08, 2012 12:54 PM  

> ...And to think we let those meth addicts into the southeastern conference...

There were alternatives. :(

But the Big 12 is still so better than the Big East it's not even a reasonable comparison. So we'll take what we can get.

Blogger James Dixon August 08, 2012 12:55 PM  

...so much better.,,,

Anonymous Azimus August 08, 2012 1:02 PM  

Josh August 08, 2012 12:50 PM And besides what you listed, they also brought with them a hostility to slavery, ran large sections of the underground railroad, and made sure that Missouri did not support the confederacy.

Um, those aren't inherently good things, especially that last part.


Wouldn't the correct "English" response for Missouri to tell both Richmond and Washington to go f*ck themselves? Why is it better to be statist South than statist North? Seems like the same sh*t in a different bucket.

Anonymous Move Zig August 08, 2012 1:02 PM  

Gee. I don't know if I fall into the "Anglo-Saxon" class of Americans you mention. Let's see. Half Sicilian, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 French...Nope...no Germanic roots whatsoever. Unless maybe some of my Gallic ancestors might have messed around with some Germans.
In any case, I have always believed what I thought America was...a meritocracy...to at least some extent.
As far as fighting for freedom...we need to define freedom better.
Freedom to do what? Freedom from what? If I fight, will I really get that, should I survive the coming violence?
There are a lot of lies out there. Hard to know what is and what is not a lie. Should I trust statistics?? Bwahahaha!

Anonymous The One August 08, 2012 1:10 PM  

Vox, why 1930 for economically and not 1913 with the creation of the Fed and the income tax?

Blogger JDC August 08, 2012 1:11 PM  

Quote from scoobius dubious
No more immigrants. None. Zero. No more.

I hope you don't intend on participating in the 2016 Olympic games in Rio, the thought police will get you.

Anonymous realmatt August 08, 2012 1:12 PM  

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a terrible movie.

Blogger Vox August 08, 2012 1:15 PM  

Enough with the Anglo circle-jerk please, there were plenty of men from German/Dutch/Scotch/Other peoples that fully understood concepts of personal liberty and freedom, and paid in full by spilling their blood for said causes (or did they do that wrong too?)... as for the English, no doubt they were a great people once, but look at them now and YES I mean native-born Britons living in England.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. The Germans and Dutch had absolutely no concept of the rights of Englishmen, except for that which they picked up from their fellow colonists of English descent. That's why there are so many references to "the rights of Englishmen" in the works of the Founding Fathers.

The rights of Englishmen are the perceived traditional rights of British subjects. The notion refers to various constitutional documents that were created throughout various stages of English history, such as Magna Carta, the Declaration of Right (the text of which was recognised by Parliament in the Bill of Rights 1689), and others. Many Patriots in the Thirteen colonies argued that their rights as Englishmen were being violated, which subsequently became one of the original primary justifications for the American Revolution and the resulting separation from the British Empire.

Blogger Vox August 08, 2012 1:17 PM  

Vox, why 1930 for economically and not 1913 with the creation of the Fed and the income tax?

Because while the groundwork was laid in 1913, it didn't really make a material difference until 1930. Hence difference between the swift recovery from the depression in 1920 and the Great Depression.

Blogger Leni Dog August 08, 2012 1:32 PM  

"The English tradition is that anything not explicitly banned is permitted. The German tradition is that anything not explicitly permitted is verboten."

Well said, indeed. Although when I mention this to my Germany friends, they initially deny it, then concede that it's mostly true.

N5

Anonymous paradox August 08, 2012 1:55 PM  

Azimus August 08, 2012 1:02 PM

Wouldn't the correct "English" response for Missouri to tell both Richmond and Washington to go f*ck themselves? Why is it better to be statist South than statist North? Seems like the same sh*t in a different bucket.


Incorrect... Missouri should have joined the Confederacy and after a Confederate victory, Missouri could have easily withdrawn from the Confederacy.

The Confederacy viewed states as their own republics and individual countries, those countries joined together to stop Federal invasions of those countries. I'm positive if the Confederacy had won, Texas would have withdrawn first followed by others.

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 08, 2012 2:01 PM  

It's been over a hundred thousand years ago and thousands of generations back since Homo Sapiens arrived at its present stage of biologic development. We now have three thousand years of recorded history. That's only a pittance!

Lately my uncle drove a horse and wagon. My cousin became an airline pilot. That's only going back three generations. You can see that technology is accelerating. Can you predict what's coming in say, 200 years? Even that's a drop in the ocean.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 08, 2012 2:06 PM  

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Blogger tz August 08, 2012 2:08 PM  

Where did the Angles and Saxons come from originally? The were no more in the British Isles than in Nebraska (well, there was Nebraska man...).

The Englishmen who came here in the 1700s left England because of its lack of liberty. They were nonconformists at home. If it was an English trait they should have just been able to stay home. Which genetic subset of Englishmen or others in that geographic area left?

"Immigrants from civilized European cultures...". Are there any Europeans who are civilized left? The destruction of Christendom and the repaganization has been progressing.

You will also find the theory of liberty in some of the Spanish and other Scholastics and in the Church (the Latin inquisition actually had procedural safeguards, Canon law is actually designed along lines looking for truth and justice).

Natural law can point to the virtues necessary for liberty, but only Christ can redeem men so it can become possible to create a free and just society. As Christanity continues to backslide, gets distracted, and otherwise collapse, liberty disappears. The dignity recognized as the freedom in Christ Jesus is gone, so they will allow themselves to be raped (literally in the case of the TSA) when someone mentions wealth or security, or some other temporal bauble which will prove to be a facade.

Liberty is a creed more than it is genetic. Perhaps cultural, but cradle Christians seem to do less well than converts. The problem is that the immigrants (including the ag workers from the nordic countries via the railroads and Irish in the 1800s) did not come in because they were seeking the liberty the original nonconformists did.

If the USA were the equivalent of a christian church (why do I want to say Episcopalian), the doors would be open to anyone and people would be dancing naked while smoking holy weed, beating their chests, and spilling blood while the preacher tried to read from the bible to a small number in the corner.

Anonymous Azimus August 08, 2012 2:20 PM  

Vox August 08, 2012 1:15 PM
You simply don't know what you're talking about. The Germans and Dutch had absolutely no concept of the rights of Englishmen, except for that which they picked up from their fellow colonists of English descent. That's why there are so many references to "the rights of Englishmen" in the works of the Founding Fathers.


I would never claim perfect knowledge of history, that's what makes discourse like this thought-provoking and educational. But is it a requirement of a liberty-minded man to follow one particular culture's flavor of codified liberty?

Just to pick up on the Dutch, they both threw off the shackles of their imperial master and set up a republic 125yrs before The Colonies did, helped the Colonies' fight for independence to their own disadvantage (the disasterous 4th Anglo-Dutch War), and attempted to (admittedly in vain, crushed by the Prussian Army) bring a Constitutional Republic in the American bent to Europe a year before it was popular in Paris with the Patriot Revolt of 1788. Now it's true, none of this was done with any kind of homage or fealty to English Common Law but what does that matter? It certainly passes the smell test with me...

Anonymous Azimus August 08, 2012 2:26 PM  

paradox August 08, 2012 1:55 PM
I'm positive if the Confederacy had won, Texas would have withdrawn first followed by others.


This sounds like an American version of the Holy Roman Empire... shifting allegiences, court intrigue, spheres of influence, and perpetual war or threat of war.

No sooner or later the Confederacy would've transformed into a drawling (incidentally drawl is another German word) version of the Union... or ceased to exist, like the Holy Roman Empire.

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic August 08, 2012 2:26 PM  

The population equivalent of Philadelphia PA (1.5M) moves to the US each year. Two-thirds of them are legal immigrants.

No coherent nation-state can survive such an invasion. Like Peter Brimelow says, it will all end in tears.

Anonymous Josh August 08, 2012 2:32 PM  

Liberty has been downhill since 1066.

Damn normans...

Anonymous Sojourner August 08, 2012 2:39 PM  

Well as a man of French Canadian makeup I am absolutely flabbergasted at how I arrived at this blog and have come to agree with almost all sentiments expressed here (except the current trend of saying the word "fucking," as it is losing its power with repetition).

Anonymous Poli_Mis August 08, 2012 2:40 PM  

But here are my instinctive answers: Politically, 1865. Economically, 1930. Demographically, 1965.

Man. That pretty much sums it up.

Blogger Joshua_D August 08, 2012 2:53 PM  

Sojourner August 08, 2012 2:39 PM

Well as a man of French Canadian makeup I am absolutely flabbergasted at how I arrived at this blog and have come to agree with almost all sentiments expressed here (except the current trend of saying the word "fucking," as it is losing its power with repetition).


Do you ignore all the comments and posts on how limited, low immigration can be helpful, and how there are always statistical outliers, and self-selction bias?

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 08, 2012 2:59 PM  

@ Lysander Spooner August 08, 2012 2:06 PM

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Will the 'REAL' Lysander please stand up ?

I guess it is just the two of us ;)

Great quote BTW, and yes "HE" did in fact make that statement.

Anonymous paradox August 08, 2012 3:26 PM  

Azimus August 08, 2012 2:26 PM
No sooner or later the Confederacy would've transformed into a drawling (incidentally drawl is another German word) version of the Union... or ceased to exist, like the Holy Roman Empire.


The Confederacy would have either dissolved into separate countries, via states voluntary leaving... or continued and Cuba might have became a member, but empire was never in it's future.

Anonymous Sojourner August 08, 2012 3:32 PM  

Do you ignore all the comments and posts on how limited, low immigration can be helpful, and how there are always statistical outliers, and self-selction bias?

Of course I do, I am French Canadian! I thought that would be self evident...

Anonymous Azimus August 08, 2012 3:38 PM  

paradox August 08, 2012 3:26 PM Azimus August 08, 2012 2:26 PM
The Confederacy would have either dissolved into separate countries, via states voluntary leaving... or continued and Cuba might have became a member, but empire was never in it's future.


Empire would've been in the confederacy's future… a part of someone else's empire... OK enough with my OT.

Blogger Joshua_D August 08, 2012 3:39 PM  

Sojourner August 08, 2012 3:32 PM

Of course I do, I am French Canadian! I thought that would be self evident...


Touché!

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 08, 2012 3:43 PM  

Vox you talk about free trade and make good points. Why don't you call out people who support open borders and the free flow of labor and services while supporting tariffs on goods?

If some free traders are inconsistent, then protectionists like Ian Fletcher are inconsistent too.

Anonymous T14 August 08, 2012 3:44 PM  

Outside of intensely liberal Northeast enclaves, where would one even find a sizable (pure) Anglo-American population? Are we counting the pitiable Scots-Irish?

Anonymous RedJack August 08, 2012 4:01 PM  

You can't count any Celtic peoples (Scotch, Irish, Welsh). They are not Anglo Saxons. Their culture is different, and some may say more free.

Anonymous Noah B. August 08, 2012 4:02 PM  

Not entirely OT, here is a story about epic fiscal mismanagement in California.

I wouldn't be surprised if this also turns out to be a scam to prop up CALPERS.

Anonymous Anonymous August 08, 2012 4:42 PM  

"Outside of intensely liberal Northeast enclaves, where would one even find a sizable (pure) Anglo-American population? Are we counting the pitiable Scots-Irish?"

Huh? There are few Anglo-Americans in the Northeast. The south is full of Anglo-descended whites.

Anonymous VD August 08, 2012 4:47 PM  

Vox you talk about free trade and make good points. Why don't you call out people who support open borders and the free flow of labor and services while supporting tariffs on goods?

Who does that? Fletcher doesn't.

Anonymous Big Bill August 08, 2012 6:00 PM  

The Sikhs and Hindus have learned the magic trick of getting a green card because they are so smart, and then importing their dumb relations and elderly parents and signing them up for SSI. The more creative and intelligent Sikhs and Hindus will then send their parents back home, deposit their SSI checks in their parents' bank accounts, and let their parents withdraw the funds in India to pay for their servants and nursemaids back in their homelands. They have strong family values, you see. Very, very strong. Damn near unbreakable. And they go on and on and on, for generation after generation after generation, God bless 'em.

Anonymous 11B August 08, 2012 6:46 PM  

Vox you talk about free trade and make good points. Why don't you call out people who support open borders and the free flow of labor and services while supporting tariffs on goods?

If some free traders are inconsistent, then protectionists like Ian Fletcher are inconsistent too.


As far as I am concerned it goes hand in hand that anyone who wishes to conserve the historic population of the USA would also want to help ensure those people are gainfully employed and that the nation is relatively self-sufficient, even if that entails paying higher prices for goods made here than imports from China.

I cannot imagine a guy who would go against the grain on trade, after all if you don't support free trade you are an outcast, but then revert to the establishment position on immigration. I would think if a guy is that concerned about trade, he'd be just as concerned with the changing demographics as well. Think Patrick Buchanan.

I don't know Ian Fletcher. But the main hypocrites I see are the Israeli firsters who advocate a strict immigration policy for Israel while supporting open borders in the US and the West. BTW, before any Israelis jump on me, I fully support your right to exclude anyone you wish. I just wish you'd publicly decry those among you who push open borders in my country.

Blogger R. Bradley Andrews August 08, 2012 6:56 PM  

How can the US be a country in any of the definitions here if it only existed for such a short time. Japan has been Japan for quite a while....

Anonymous CatDog August 08, 2012 7:00 PM  

What's pitiable about the Scots-Irish?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) August 08, 2012 7:08 PM  

Ian Fletcher doesn't mention immigration at all in his book. That makes no sense since the free flow of labor is intrinsic to free trade.

I ask again, how come no one calls Fletcher out on ignoring immigration?

Anonymous physphilmusic August 08, 2012 9:07 PM  

According to family stories, part of the Beale family came from Maidstone, Kentshire, England. The surname is probably Norman French but the meaning of it is unknown. The Beale family may be found as far back as the 1860's in Texas and 1840's in Kentucky.

Dammit, Vox, your family history and genetics are just perfect. Pure bred Anglo-Saxon for generations. You definitely have claim to be a citizen of the US.

However, it's a bit shitty for those of us who find your ideas interesting and support liberty and freedom, but aren't from pure-bred Anglo-Saxon stock. What should we do? Yeah sure, we're statistical outliers with regards to the other members of people of the same ancestry, but do I have an obligation to leave America if I'm half German? How about half Asian? Quarter black? Just one drop of non-Anglo Saxon blood? Does Jartstar have an obligation to go back to Denmark or Germany?

Again, your remarks are always novel (I never thought of a German immigration-statism link before), but it just isn't clear what are you pushing for here, practically speaking. What should a second-generation immigrant do, if he finds himself sympathetic to the ideas of liberty, freedom? He can make the best effort to assimilate and contribute towards US civilization, but he can't change his ancestry.

Blogger Desert Cat August 08, 2012 11:26 PM  

For all this bashing of Germanic roots, someone is forgetting that the Angles and Saxons are themselves Germanic tribes.

Anonymous Hong Hu Shi August 09, 2012 2:06 AM  

Dammit, Vox, your family history and genetics are just perfect. Pure bred Anglo-Saxon for generations. You definitely have claim to be a citizen of the US.

What, are you simple? You think the origin of one's surname makes one pure-bred in its culture? What about the other 7 lines of decent (if one reaches back only three generations ago)?

You're trying to rival Azimus's ridiculous belief that, because he doesn't like the Confederacy idea, it would've therefore become everything that Confederacy supporters hate or would've become the world's bitch.

Anonymous physphilmusic August 09, 2012 2:34 AM  

What, are you simple? You think the origin of one's surname makes one pure-bred in its culture? What about the other 7 lines of decent (if one reaches back only three generations ago)?

That was half sarcastic, dude. The point is, Vox seems to be in a good (genetical) position to tout the superiority of his Anglo-Saxon background.

Anonymous VD August 09, 2012 3:38 AM  

According to family stories, part of the Beale family came from Maidstone, Kentshire, England. The surname is probably Norman French but the meaning of it is unknown. The Beale family may be found as far back as the 1860's in Texas and 1840's in Kentucky.

You have the wrong branch. I'm from the East Coast branch that was here before the Revolutionary War. My great-whatever grandfather died in it.

Again, your remarks are always novel (I never thought of a German immigration-statism link before), but it just isn't clear what are you pushing for here, practically speaking.

I am pushing for the realization that immigrants do not integrate, for the most part, not for the first, the second, the third, or even the fourth generation. They transform. It is difficult for the mid-witted to grasp, but most of my points are abstract rather than practical.

Anonymous Marcus Marcellus August 09, 2012 7:56 AM  

So Judge Andrew Napolitano does not understand the Constitution but Chief Justice Roberts does? And the late Chief Justice Warren did? God save us from the Anglo-Americans who set up and run the CIA.

Your post betrays your lower middle class status. If you were close to the ruling class, you would know better; you would know who really runs the show, their backgrounds and what they hope to achieve. You are not part of the plan, my Baptist (!) friend.

Thankfully, I am not Anglo-American. Enjoy the open air prison of Anglo liberty.

Blogger Joshua_D August 09, 2012 8:51 AM  

physphilmusic August 08, 2012 9:07 PM

However, it's a bit shitty for those of us who find your ideas interesting and support liberty and freedom, but aren't from pure-bred Anglo-Saxon stock. What should we do? Yeah sure, we're statistical outliers with regards to the other members of people of the same ancestry, but do I have an obligation to leave America if I'm half German? How about half Asian? Quarter black? Just one drop of non-Anglo Saxon blood? Does Jartstar have an obligation to go back to Denmark or Germany?


What should you do? The same thing that Anglos should do. From a practical standpoint, we could limit the federal government, limit welfare, enforce our current immigration laws, repeal "civil rights" laws and allow private citizens and businesses to freely congregate and hire/fire whomever the wish without fear of lawsuit, etc.

In short, we could theoretically undo what has been done let people decide on their own. Most people naturally self segregate, and there is nothing wrong with that. The point to simply not allow people into your society who do no want to become part of your society.

Of course, there is the question of how long that is possible, and the larger question of whether we can return to that society.

I guess most importantly, you could stop sympathizing and nodding your head when your immigrant friends and relatives say things that are anti-liberty. And this applies to Anglos as well.

Blogger Joshua_D August 09, 2012 8:53 AM  

Not saying that you sympathize, philly. I'm just saying that if you and I support liberty, we need to speak out and talk with our friends and relatives about why we support liberty, why mass immigration isn't a great idea, etc.

Blogger Gregg August 09, 2012 8:55 AM  

"The English tradition is that anything not explicitly banned is permitted. The German tradition is that anything not explicitly permitted is verboten."

When I lived there an old German (former Waffen SS Viking division) explained it to me this way, Americans always talk about their rights rarely do they speak of their responsibilities. We say if you fulfill your responsibilities, a person's rights are properly addressed.

Anonymous Azimus August 09, 2012 9:34 AM  

Hong Hu Shi August 09, 2012 2:06 AM
You're trying to rival Azimus's ridiculous belief that, because he doesn't like the Confederacy idea, it would've therefore become everything that Confederacy supporters hate or would've become the world's bitch.


I'm not sure what you mean. I myself support the vision of Jefferson's America, decentralized, agrarian, etc., which the Confederacy certainly started out looking like. I have no problem with the concept of States' Rights.

I am simply using history as my guide - the Confederacy couldn't have existed in a vacuum - and I find the Holy Roman Empire to be a good example of what would've happened to a collection of loosely federated, wealthy states with large and powerful empires salivating about carving it into little satellites.

Anonymous Orion August 09, 2012 10:32 AM  

The bit about Scots and Irish supporting the South is a bit amusing. Appalachia from the Pennsylvania to Georgia was for the Union. My paternal line is German and looks to date back to near the American Revolution in the Carolinas.
While my sympathies lie more with the South as I get older, the entire slavery question is still an issue. If you want 3/5th of a vote for your slave, why not for dogs, pigs, and cattle? That and the shear brutality of it has always make me think that it puts a stain on your soul. Before you go into the bit about them being better off, what about those that revolted? Slave uprisings were not unknown or unusual in the South. Francis Marion was an example of how a plantation could run better without slaves.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 09, 2012 2:03 PM  

My relatives came to this country in 1683, not as immigrants. The British who came to the colonies were assured that this was British America and they would not lose any of the rights of Englishmen by coming to the colonies. They kept the same laws, same church, same money, same citizenship...as loyal subjects of the Crown. They were not immigrants but merely colonists and the land they occupied was claimed by the Crown and part of the domain.

Simply saying that a person came to this country from Europe does not mean they were assimilated into the nation. There are some wild and uncivilized parts of Europe, even today. Some people are not interested in the least in becoming part of the larger society here but insist on continuing with their own culture, language, traditions, etc. This is possible if they can isolate themselves in the body of this country and maintain neighborhoods or colonies that have little contact with the surrounding society, so we get Little China and Little Italy and French Cajuns and Spanish Harlem. It does take a determined effort to assimilate in this country. It does not happen automatically nor does it happen is X many years. It is apparently an option for many and they have chosen not to bother.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts