Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Liberal Lies about America’s Historical Immigration Policy

I am getting a bit tired of American liberals or leftists making up lies about the history of their country in the comments section on American history.

These American liberals are saying that America was always open to immigrants from any background whatsoever and always a massive melting-pot that welcomed them as citizens.

Now is that true?

Why is it, then, that the first United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 says this?:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
As even the basic discussion of the 1790 United States Naturalization Law here points out, this legislation excluded “American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians” from US citizenship. The subsequent naturalisation acts of 1795 and 1798 did not change this basic framework.

Now I find it morally repugnant that the native American people and others were simply excluded from citizenship on this basis, and am perfectly comfortable with a minority of ethnic groups in my country with full citizenship rights, as I have I said here, but clearly American liberals are shamefully rewriting the history of American immigration policy.

As we can see from the history of United States immigration laws here, citizenship and immigration laws generally became more and more restrictive right up until the 1920s.

A sample:
(1) Page Act of 1875
This act excluded Asian and Chinese forced labourers, Asian woman engaging in prostitution, and all people who were convicted criminals in their own country. It was driven by working class hostility to Chinese coolie labour.

(2) the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
This immigration act prohibited all immigration of Chinese labourers, and like the act of 1875 was driven by socialist, trade unions and working class opposition to Asian immigration. This was extended and even made more onerous by the Geary Act of 5 May, 1892.

(3) the 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law
This law was a pro-working class measure designed “to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States.”

(4) Immigration Act of 1903 (the Anarchist Exclusion Act)
This immigration act law excluded anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes.

(5) Naturalization Act of 1906
This immigration law made the US federal government the policy maker of national immigration and naturalization policy, and stated “That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language.”

(6) Immigration Act of 1907
This immigration act excluded a vast swathe of people:
“All idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1907
(7) Immigration Act of 1917
This immigration act excluded a vast group of people from an “Asiatic Barred Zone” including much of Asia and the Pacific Islands.

(8) the (a) Immigration Act of 1924 and (b) National Origins Formula
These set strict limits on immigrants to “2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States” and essentially limited immigration to southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans; it excluded Africans, Arabs and Asians.

At the same time, from the date of June 30, 1927 it made “total immigration from all countries … limited to 150,000, with allocations by country based upon national origins of inhabitants according to the census of 1920.” This was designed to preserve the “ethnic distribution of the population” of the US. This was the foundation of the American system of immigration from 1924 to 1965.
So, quite clearly, American naturalisation policy was restricted to Europeans from 1790, which itself discouraged non-European immigration.

When non-European immigration became significant and was opposed particularly by broad working class movements, it was severely restricted from the 1870s, and right up until the 1920s.

America’s immigration policy was, then, highly restrictive from the 1920s until as recently as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula, but which, at the same time, “set numerical restrictions on visas at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota.”

It was only in the Immigration Act of 1990 that America introduced a much more liberalised immigration policy, which allowed 675,000 immigrants per year after 1994, and a “diversity” program to allow people from many different countries to immigrate to the US. The 1990 act also introduced the now notorious H-1B visas (on which, see here).

So, American liberals, are you going to admit that this is the truth about the history of immigration in your nation, instead of clinging to your liberal myths?

122 comments:

  1. LK, thank you for enlightening on the Immigration Act of 1990.

    I was a bit shocked after reading old newspaper articles from 1990 on the passing of this bill.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/04/us/immigration-bill-approved-in-house.html

    It was generally DEMOCRATS who OPPOSED this bill? And it was passed under a post-Reagan Republican government?

    Suddenly, your suggestion that open borders is a neoliberal program makes too much sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 1990 act also introduced the notorious H-1B visas. Makes you think.

      Delete
    2. The H-1B visa is for highly qualified workers often who work for a US-owned firm in one of its foreign offices. I've used it myself numerous times. It would be an extremely silly thing to get rid of. Driving down wages, it is not.

      Delete
    3. I think such visas make perfect sense. You are temporarily employed abroad for the period of your contract. I don't see them as a Trojan Horse for allowing foreign migrants. If you lose your job or your job ends, you have to leave the country and apply again.

      I have applied for work in the US and have worked there. Most businesses do not sponsor H1b visas because it is too expensive and too much hassle. American businesses will always prefer someone based permanently in the US.

      Delete
    4. On H-1B visas, I dunno, guys:

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/15/top-10-users-of-h-1b-guest-worker-program-are-offshore-outsourcing-firms/

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/01/the-new-face-of-class-war/

      Delete
    5. PCR is a crank. I've used these visas and know many other people who have. They are for firms that have offices abroad so that they can temporarily move employees to the US to work in the US office for a while. Probably also good for academics who want to teach in the US for a while.

      Trying to kill skilled labour mobility is dumb in the extreme.

      Delete
    6. Are you willing to say there is no business exploitation of these VISAs to replace American labour with third world labour?

      Delete
    7. No. I have no idea. But I require robust evidence to prove the impact that it is having.

      Most credible studies show us that the movement of skilled labour has either no impact on wages or a positive one. While the movement of unskilled labour has a negative impact on the wages of those at the lower end of the income distribution.

      This is intuitively plausible too and meets with the reality that we daily encounter.

      Delete
    8. I can't say for sure, but these are for high skilled and specialized jobs, not for everyday jobs.

      In the finance sector in Spain, it is common for headhunters to look for vice presidents and associates in Argentina and Mexico, even though Spain has a huge unemployment rate and a very difficult visa process. For specialized jobs requiring specialized people, you will find shortages even in countries with unemployment problems.

      Delete
    9. Sorry TheIllusionist, while there still may be some legitimate usage of H1bs in America, it's by and large meant to hold down wages of Americans, primarily tech workers. It's been this way too, when Robert Reich testified before Congress claiming that the H1b program has been abused as Secretary of Labor in the 1990s.

      http://www.computerworld.com/article/3037027/it-outsourcing/ahead-of-senates-h-1b-hearing-a-look-at-the-early-warnings.html

      Here's how outsourcing companies are gaming the system:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/large-companies-game-h-1b-visa-program-leaving-smaller-ones-in-the-cold.html?_r=0

      And a ton of examples of abuse:

      http://www.progressive.org/news/2016/02/188576/%E2%80%98you%E2%80%99re-fired%E2%80%99-abuses-%E2%80%98skilled%E2%80%99-worker-visa-programs

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-high-time-to-end-the-abuse-of-h-1b-visas-1462913903

      Here's the EPI pointing to a host of abuses:

      http://www.epi.org/blog/new-data-infosys-tata-abuse-h-1b-program/

      Examples in Edison IT:

      http://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it-outsourcing/southern-california-edison-it-workers-beyond-furious-over-h-1b-replacements.html

      The infamous Disney layoffs:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us/lawsuit-claims-disney-colluded-to-replace-us-workers-with-immigrants.html

      http://www.infoworld.com/article/3004501/h1b/proof-that-h-1b-visa-abuse-is-rampant-in-tech.html

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-high-time-to-end-the-abuse-of-h-1b-visas-1462913903

      Yeah, maybe the H1b theoretically plays some role for important temporary labor mobility, and I certainly think for foreign students educated in the US, some patch should exist for them. However, by and large, a vast majority of H1bs are simply given out to lower wages and displace IT workers. It's a pretty awful phenomenon.

      Also, good article LK. For some strange reason you always seem to be on the same wavelength as me. I literally looked up the 1965 and 1990 immigration acts within the past few days, wondering when it really changed.

      Delete
    10. Nice links on the H-1B visas. Thanks for this, Kain.

      Delete
  2. All true. But the actual reality was that the laws could not really do all that much.

    http://www.apa.org/Images/immigration-figure-2_tcm7-133716.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (1) is your graph showing foreign born population as % of total US population? If so, doesn't show actual annual immigration figures.

      (2) err, what about the 1920s to 1960s policy. Your graph shows the % of foreign born population declining markedly

      Delete
    2. (1) It's the same thing basically.

      (2) Depression and war. Then possibly the afterglow of the war. But that is unclear. What we do know is that during the periods you were discussing immigration was very high.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it had large scale immigration, but to say "the laws could not really do all that much" is bizarre.

      Immigration policy surely strongly affected the flow and who could be a citizen, as it become more restrictive. Also, the 19th century working class anti-coolie laws surely had a serious effect, and its well know serious numbers of immigrants actually *left* and returned to Europe in the 19th century.

      Also, please don't tell me naturalisation laws had no effect.

      Delete
    4. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. The statistics only tell us that present levels of immigration to the US are by no means unusual. The outlier period was from the Depression to the 1990 act.

      Delete
    5. Present levels *are* unusual in that they now have mass third world immigration, whereas before it was obvious oriented towards Europe.

      Could this be a problem? Yes, if *culture* matters, which it most certainly does.

      But of course few people on the left are capable of seeing the cultural issues; instead it's left to the Alt Right and others who obsess over race.

      Delete
    6. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/pope-francis-visit-catholic-history-213177

      I'm concerned about cultural integration in Europe for sure. Especially France. I also think that very large numbers of Muslim migrants to the UK will have a large impact.

      But the US? No way. Not a chance. It is truly a melting pot. Very impressive in that regard.

      Delete
    7. illusionist this is good article for your no way in the US

      http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/28/the-hispanic-challenge/

      Delete
    8. Fair enough.

      And yet that very Politio article is crystal clear that many US people had difficult accepting other Europeans -- even when they were just of different Christian denomination. It took years to assimilate and get acceptance.

      That is exactly the kind of thing that gives the lie to the liberal "America-was-a-wonderful-melting-pot-welcoming-all-people" view of history.

      Delete
    9. The Alt-Right regards race and culture as closely intertwined. "Culturists" are obviously more realistic than multiculturalists (who will accuse you guys of "discrimination" anyway) but to deny the significance of race is just politically correct nonsense. Multiracial nations can only be held together with authoritarian force in the long-term. Human beings are tribal and prefer the company of people like themselves. While some nations are ethnically heterogeneous from their inception (Singapore, for example) they regard this as a problem to be overcome, not a strength. A nation like Sweden which invites Somalis, Syrians or even a fair number of East Asians is just weakening itself and destroying its identity. Multiracialism is driven by masochism and equalist hysteria, not because it actually benefits the nation in any tangible way. Quite the reverse...

      Delete
    10. It may interest you to know I ran some numbers on the British case because I wanted to see how credible scare stories are. Here's what I came up with.

      We are being conservative and assuming zero net Muslim migration.

      We are assuming that present fertility rates remain constant. Those fertility rates are:

      Muslim: 3
      Non-Muslim: 1.8

      The outcome of this will be as follows.

      2016
      % of Pop Muslim: 4.8%

      2049
      % of Pop Muslim: 12%

      2082
      % of Pop Muslim: 27.1%

      2115
      % of Pop Muslim: 50.2%

      Those figures are somewhat silly as all such projections are. But they do tell us that the idea that Islam will become a significant political force within the UK in our lifetimes is perfectly plausible.

      Delete
    11. Yes, and an honest discussion of this is nowhere to be seen.

      More important is the age structure of society too.




      Delete
    12. Hell, Pew has the stats that predict Islam will be the majority of the world's population in about 50-75 years! I just laugh at it, because of all the Atheists that smugly prophesied the end of Religion to me a couple of years ago.

      Given the choice would I rather live in a world where Islam is the norm vs a nice clean sterile Quasi-Utopia of Atheism?

      I'll side with my fellow theists every single time. It was not Muslims who were going around demanding that my beliefs be abandoned because "Science proves them to be false."

      Funny, they aren't so smug now.

      Delete
    13. "forming instead their own political and linguistic enclaves -- from Los Angeles to Miami -- and rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream. The United States ignores this challenge at its peril"

      Sheer garbage, Daniel. I wouldn't wipe my ass with this "Anglo-Protestant" nonsense.

      Delete
    14. take away protestant from this word

      there is for example catholic britons does it really matter their religion?
      no its not their culture is identical

      and yes its the origin of the american culture and values including your own values.

      and the question stand still if other society will impose on you their values by introducing social norms values and culutre which is really different from yours and they will not care as much as white americans about diversity and pc culture so they will be pretty politicallyincorrect and intolerant for cultures of other people for example people like you kevin would you kevin feel comfortable to live in portland if thats will happen there?

      if thats will happen?

      wouldnt you start to care about the culture which you want to wipe your ass with?

      Delete
    15. Kevin musilms maybe dont force you to believe in something else.

      but muslims attitude toward other non muslims usually been an attitude of humiliation of the other and making for them some kind of second sort person.

      and in cases of war this people were always massacred first so are you sure you want to live in a muslim society and not in an atheist one?

      Delete
    16. Daniel Marmur@August 31, 2016 at 11:55 PM

      I would say that Kevin needs to read up on the word "Dhimmi":

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

      Delete
    17. take away protestant from this word

      Why? It was in the very link you cited! From the same website that I cited an article from that you tried to use to brand me as a Neoliberal, I might add.

      and the question stand still if other society will impose on you their values by introducing social norms values and culutre which is really different from yours and they will not care as much as white americans about diversity and pc culture so they will be pretty politically incorrect and intolerant for cultures of other people

      Yes, that is true. But I don't care because you see, I'm tolerant! ;-)

      for example people like you kevin would you kevin feel comfortable to live in portland if thats will happen there

      It's not going to happen here. So the question is irrelevant.

      But I'll humor you: Would I feel uncomfortable? I suppose, but I would also not be able to look myself in the mirror if I didn't live by my own principles, which is that people have a right to their own religion and culture and Westerners shouldn't criticize when they have a culture of STDs... Unwanted Pregnancies... Abortion... Divorce... Children being raised by the State.

      And you know what? I'd STILL not deny them the right to their own culture!

      But once again, it has nothing to do with this conversation AFAICS.

      wouldnt you start to care about the culture which you want to wipe your ass with

      I'd move, and I'd not sit around crying about my loss of "White American Protestantism," like you seem to think I should do.

      are you sure you want to live in a muslim society and not in an atheist one

      ABSOLUTELY

      http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/january-web-only/two-ways-christians-distort-islam-muslims-distort-christian.html

      Delete
    18. you will leave but to where kevin? only to a country which will protect its own culture there you will leave.

      people like you will ruin your country and then people like you will try to run away to other country which protected its own culture and dont listened to your advices so kevin its just show your hypocrisy ;).

      again kevin you have a lot of wishful thinking and you isolate yourself from anything that make you feel uncomfortable.

      Delete
    19. you will leave but to where kevin? only to a country which will protect its own culture there you will leave

      I see no reason to assume that.

      people like you will ruin your country and then people like you will try to run away to other country which protected its own culture and dont listened to your advices so kevin its just show your hypocrisy

      Nope. Not hypocritical in the least to stick to your principles over and against what others around you think. Does the fact that I support Universal Healthcare make me a hypocrite for living in a country that doesn't have Universal Healthcare? Of course not.

      kevin you have a lot of wishful thinking

      No, I don't think so. I'm actually more shoeleather-to-pavement realistic than you could ever hope to be.

      isolate yourself from anything that make you feel uncomfortable

      LOL Yeah ok. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

      Delete
  3. All true. But the actual reality was that the laws could not really do all that much

    Meaning Immigration has ALWAYS been the norm in US History, which is what we've been trying to put across and I think LK has widely missed the mark on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Illusionist is wrong. To say that "the laws could not really do all that much" is false.

      US immigration policy was oriented towards Europeans, and they did indeed get mainly Europeans, and certainly the citizenship laws were designed to promote this.

      Delete
    2. "instead it's left to the Alt Right and others who obsess over race"
      Yes, *all* the mainstream parties pretty much everywhere have dodged this issue. Hence the rise of Le Pen et al. Which will continue. The worst offender is even Left: Merkel.

      Canadians are incredibly hypocritical on this issue. We don't have an open border. We have a point system and try to be a bit picky. But Canadians howl with outrage when an American suggests such a travesty!

      Delete
    3. ...No, Illusionist is 100% correct. He has the stats to prove it. It's you that keeps clinging to another narrative when the raw data is staring you in the face.

      There IS no "American Culture" to return to. The reason why the "Alt-Right" are obsessing over race is because that's exactly what a Racialist does. Then they cry "Communism!" when you won't let them hang their precious Confederate Flag.

      Delete
    4. 1.the rules basically insured european immigraion only.

      2.this immigration hurt workers well being because its always been putting downward pressure on their wages (not that the wages dont increased but lets say that the main people who been profiting from this been the employers anyway.

      so what exactly illusionist graphs are proving?

      they are not refute mine and LK claims on economic and social impact of immigration and assimilation Kevin.

      Delete
    5. also why there is no american culture? what make enlgishmen spainards and frenchmen to have a culture but deny this right from americans?

      Delete
    6. they are not refute mine and LK claims on economic and social impact of immigration and assimilation Kevin

      And along with learning to write like a human being, you need to read better. The point had nothing to do with the economic impact on immigration, since this particular post is all about the larger efforts in the past to restrict it en toto. Illusionist 100% refutes LK on this, by showing that Immigration went on swimmingly well in the time periods focused on in the post.

      Somehow, you don't seem to grasp the conversation at hand very well.

      also why there is no american culture? what make enlgishmen spainards and frenchmen to have a culture but deny this right from americans

      LOL!

      This is exactly what I mean. It's like talking to either a 6th grader... or a Feminist. How can I "deny" Americans anything? I am telling you exactly what it is, and seems to be understood only by those who've been here: THERE IS NO "AMERICAN CULTURE" FULL STOP.

      I didn't legislate that into existence. It happens to be the truth.

      Delete
    7. "There IS no "American Culture" to return to."

      (1) What? there was no English-speaking majority European culture in America based on Christianity? What, never?

      (2) but more importantly we are not saying that America must return to its English-speaking culture of the 18th century. This is just a lie.

      Delete
    8. "Illusionist 100% refutes LK on this, by showing that Immigration went on swimmingly well in the time periods focused on in the post. "

      He did not such thing. He claimed that America had high levels of immigration historically, supposedly refuting the idea that immigration and naturalisation laws had little effect.

      I said: that is untrue; there were high levels of mass immigration, yes, but it was highly restricted to Europeans, and it is absurd to say that that immigration and naturalisation laws had no effect.

      I am correct.

      Delete
    9. What? there was no English-speaking majority European culture in America based on Christianity

      This is about "America Is A Christian Nation," again?

      but more importantly we are not saying that America must return to its English-speaking culture of the 18th century. This is just a lie

      I have no clue WHAT it is you guys are trying to prove or insist. Seriously! But where did I say that?

      Delete
    10. I am correct

      In order for you to be that, you need to prove that there was an impetus in the relevant time period for Immigration to the US from outside of Europe, and on a large scale that was turned back by the laws you claim worked so well.

      Delete
    11. Answers:

      (1) Chinese coolie labour (loved by capitalist exploiters)

      (2) which was then excluded by


      (1) Page Act of 1875
      This act excluded Asian and Chinese forced labourers, Asian woman engaging in prostitution, and all people who were convicted criminals in their own country. It was driven by working class hostility to Chinese coolie labour.

      (2) the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
      This immigration act prohibited all immigration of Chinese labourers, and like the act of 1875 was driven by socialist, trade unions and working class opposition to Asian immigration. This was extended and even made more onerous by the Geary Act of 5 May, 1892.

      (3) the 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law
      This law was a pro-working class measure designed “to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States.”
      -----------
      Clear?

      Delete
    12. Except that you forgot to answer the other part of my question, which was "and on a large scale that was turned back by the laws you claim worked so well."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Chinese_Americans#Statistics_of_the_Chinese_population_in_the_United_States_.281840.E2.80.932010.29

      The population of Chinese origin grew by almost 12 Million between 1870 and 1880.

      The population of Chinese origin grew by almost 13 Million between 1880 and 1890.

      The population of Chinese origin grew by just over 13 Million between 1890 and 1900.

      So again, why do you claim the laws that were passed had any real effect? They seem like a dismal failure AFAICS.

      Delete
    13. “The population of Chinese origin grew by almost 12 Million between 1870 and 1880.”

      What are you talking about?

      The Wikipedia article you cite says:

      Year Chinese Pop.
      1850 | 4,018
      1860 | 34,933
      1870 | 64,199
      1880 | 105,465
      1890 | 107,488
      -------------------
      You seem to have mistaken “Total U.S. population” for the Chinese population.

      According to the Encyclopedia of North American Immigration (ed. John Powell.; 2005), p. 60, between 1849 and 1882, some 300,000 Chinese came to America. Given a lot were in California, and the population of California was only 864,694 by 1880, this is significant.

      After 1892 Act, immigration was virtually prohibited and numbers slowed to a trickle.

      The statistics from Wikipedia also support this. It shows large immigration increases before 1850 and 1880, but then Chinese numbers levelled off after 1880, and the growth after 1880 is clearly from population growth of people already there.

      Delete
    14. You're right, I looked at the wrong column... my bad.

      HOWEVER!

      You stopped one decade too soon. Here are the raw numbers of each increase according to each census:

      1880: 41266
      1890: 2023
      2000: 11258

      Looks to me like the laws started to lose their grip in just another decade. the overall percentage of population decreased and stabilized, but by 1930 the Chinese rallied and began to increase again.

      But that's according to official numbers. The Chinese staged a resistance and began to refuse to register following the Geary act, so how can we even depend on the official census? China refused to pay to deport anyone, and it's not illogical to assume that there were a lot of invisible people not being accounted for:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geary_Act#Reaction

      "The Chinese Equal Rights League was able to gain much support from whites on the East Coast, as on September 22, 1892, more than one thousand U.S. citizens joined some two hundred Chinese merchants and laborers at Cooper Union in Manhattan to protest the Geary Act."

      It's not hard to fathom some of them helped hide Chinese as well, after all the Jews got help like that during WWII.

      Delete
  4. What we do know is that during the periods you were discussing immigration was very high

    Yes, and that's the basic point. Whether or not the government was as Xenophobic as some people are today is besides the point. The US is a Nation of Immigrants despite the Immigration has ALWAYS been the norm in US History, and this despite the lower mentality and intentions of some people.

    So if I said the Government always held it's arms open wide to everyone, then I apologize b/c that would be very wrong. But I don't think I said that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, geez.

      The *people* -- including working class people and trade unions -- were vehemently opposed to, say, Asian immigration in the 19th century because this was an economic issue.

      Read up on activism of the US labour leader Denis Kearney who organised the Workingmen’s Party of California in 1877, whose program included opposition to mass immigration.

      Also, how do you explain the restrictive acts backed by US working class support:

      (1) Page Act of 1875
      This act excluded Asian and Chinese forced labourers, Asian woman engaging in prostitution, and all people who were convicted criminals in their own country. It was driven by working class hostility to Chinese coolie labour.

      (2) the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882
      This immigration act prohibited all immigration of Chinese labourers, and like the act of 1875 was driven by socialist, trade unions and working class opposition to Asian immigration.

      (3) the 1885 Alien Contract Labor Law
      This law was a pro-working class measure designed “to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States.”

      Delete
    2. more actual history:

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/pope-francis-visit-catholic-history-213177

      Delete
    3. I don't look at history by the different initiatives pushed forth by Unions. I look at it through the lens of Quakers, Abolitionists, Suffragists, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Those that fought the vision of America the 1% tried to saddle us with in the Constitution. It didn't work.

      Delete
    4. and a lot of this quackers abolitionists and suffragists been pretty racist and xenophobic by themselves and was not going against the elite of usa.

      the elite of usa never been located at the south its never been the slavers and plantation lords but the real elite always been part of the more liberal industralised north.

      thats the point you are missing.

      Delete
    5. and a lot of this quackers abolitionists and suffragists been pretty racist and xenophobic by themselves and was not going against the elite of usa

      No, you moron. Abolitionists aren't racist, they are against slavery (though Anti-Racism probably wasn't the motivation.) Quakers are religious folk and are Anti-Racist by doctrine. Who cares about the "elite?" that has nothing to do with this conversation.

      the elite of usa never been located at the south its never been the slavers and plantation lords

      The South had one of the broadest, if not THE broadest Aristocracies in US History. Again, you know nothing of what you are talking about:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_in_the_American_South#Planter_.28plantation_owner.29

      https://teaspoonofhistory.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/the-war-on-southern-nobility

      Furthemore, there were PLENTY of slaveholders in the North. In fact it's recently been put forth by some serious scholarship that the American Revolution itself was fought because Britain was believed to be on the path to ending slavery, and nations subject to the Crown would have to get rid of it also. So the War of Independence was about protecting the Slave Trade:

      http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12266

      http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12272

      http://www.salon.com/2014/05/30/white_supremacy_and_slavery_gerald_horne_on_the_real_story_of_american_independence

      http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/27/counter_revolution_of_1776_was_us

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/9/740365

      http://zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation



      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. 1.anti slavery not equal anti racism

      a lot of abolitionists was like linkoln who were against slavery but its not made them less racist,they werent against slavery because they were anti racist but because they were against slavery and yes its can be 2 different things you moron.

      there were more than one abolitionists that prefered segregated state for blacks while keeping all other parts of america "black free"

      quackers opposed slavery because they opposed slavery its had nothing to do with anti racism.

      2.so what if there been a lot of aristocrats in the south? i will give you an example koch brothers have 80 billion dollars and yet how much influence on culture and social political do they have outside of their republican base in the southern states? almost non existent the same goes to the aristocrats of the south.

      and if in fact we will look at the policies which been adopted after the revolution.

      this policies been hamiltonian which basically means that the supported policies been oriened on the development of industry and they were essentially anti free trade policies which hurted the agriculture south and the profitability of slavery and of holding slaves.

      (so basically kevin its make no sense to protect slavery when after that the american economy went to entierely different direction of relatievely capital intensive industry which not required or employed slaves).

      actually the hamiltonian protection of industry and development of industry hurt mostly the slave holders in the south since its made them less competitve and its shrinked their purchasing power (because of tarrifs on imports).

      so the claim of horne about the so called lost cause of the american revolution, is not more reliable than the claim of neo confederates about the lost cause of the south in this sense.


      also the fact that southerners werent able to change the direction of american policy on issues such as industrial policy trade policy and of course not of the main issue the slavery just show their relative weakness compare to the real elite of the u.s which been the industrial elite.

      Delete
    8. anti slavery not equal anti racism

      Which I already alluded to #DERP~!

      quackers opposed slavery because they opposed slavery its had nothing to do with anti racism

      As I told you before the last time you made a complete fool out of yourself trying to speak for a Faith-Based group you know nothing about, you cannot split off their brains and say "they did this for this reason and they did that for that reason." It's an unbroken chain.

      Plus you're moving the goalposts away from your original claim, which was:

      quackers abolitionists and suffragists been pretty racist and xenophobic

      Idk if your referring to them as "Quackers" is your attempt at being insulting or just as a result of your shitty command of the English language, but Quakers are NOT racist by doctrine. You've done nothing to disprove me on that. You've basically argued your own point into obliteration and made a complete jackass out of yourself.

      koch brothers have 80 billion dollars and yet how much influence on culture and social political do they have outside of their republican base in the southern states? almost non existent

      LMAO!

      Beautiful, thanks for proving what a cluck you really are:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

      There are four "Koch brothers," but Charles and David are who most people are referring to. They were both born in Wichita, KS and run their father's business in the same town. As far as their influence:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers

      http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/koch-brothers-network-gop-david-charles-217124

      http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/27/myths-and-facts-about-the-koch-brothers/200570

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/9/1230049/-Koch-Brothers-Influence-Peddling-Is-Your-Alma-Mater-on-the-List

      Sure thing and that's why up until last year, they owned the Prime Minister of Canada himself:

      http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/18/opinion/canada%E2%80%99s-republican-prime-minister

      Maybe along with that Grammar-Checker, you can get someone to buy you a Map of the Globe?

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. In fact, so pervasive was the influence of Slavery in the US, that an amendment to the Constitution was almost passed which would have most likely solidified it for a long time if not forever:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

      http://joshblackman.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-original-13th-amendment-legalized-slavery

      http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html

      Oh, but the 13th Amendment that was actually passed got rid of all that, right? Guess again:

      http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/reviews/tales-show-how-slavery-lingered-after-civil-war-atlanta-journal-constitution

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/slavery-by-a-different-name-the-convict-lease-system/31176

      http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/gilmoreprisonslavery.html

      http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2012/11/the-myth-that-13th-amendment-ended.html

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/14/slavery-legal-exception-prisoners-drugs-reform-column/14086227

      http://www.pbs.org/video/2178299715

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-f-chan/america-never-abolished-slavery_b_6777420.html

      Delete
    11. so the claim of horne about the so called lost cause of the american revolution, is not more reliable than the claim of neo confederates about the lost cause of the south in this sense

      You can't even see how you contradicted yourself. Horne's thesis is not primarily about what happened after the war, and yet you're acting as if Hamilton's very existence wipes away all of verified history that doesn't suit your purposed. Plus you sound like one of those idiotic Austrian economists, trying to deny basic history by claiming that Economic Theory proves it couldn't have happened.

      Gerald Horne has extensively researched and documented everything he claims, and if you bother listening to his videos, you'll see why you are a fish out of water here. I have his book, why don't you get it? You can use it to improve your English skills.

      First off, you assume that Slavery was only a Southern phenomenon, and no one with any real knowledge of history would support that. I've already raised that point, which you ignored, but here's more:

      http://slavenorth.com

      https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/expansion-of-the-colonies-1650-1750-4/slavery-in-the-colonies-55/slavery-in-the-north-341-8627

      http://www.history.com/news/deeper-roots-of-northern-slavery-unearthed

      http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600595.html

      http://www.tracingcenter.org/resources/background/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade

      also the fact that southerners werent able to change the direction of american policy

      In fact, they were so influential that there might not have been an American War of Independence without them. The Southern Colonies were reluctant to get into a war against Britain until the British Governor of Virginia offered slaves freedom if they would come fight on the side of the Crown. This has been documented by more than one historian, including Thomas B Allen in his book "Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War."

      Or you can here him say it, right here:

      https://youtu.be/AxLS8mnLrj0?t=33m45s

      Also, Southern influence was enough to be exerted over the US Constitution itself:

      http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

      http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/constitution-and-slavery

      http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#slavery

      In fact, American Capitalism itself was built on slavery:

      http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/slavery-and-anti-slavery/resources/was-slavery-engine-american-economic-growth

      "In the pre-Civil War United States, a stronger case can be made that slavery played a critical role in economic development. One crop, slave-grown cotton, provided over half of all US export earnings. By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth. In addition, precisely because the South specialized in cotton production, the North developed a variety of businesses that provided services for the slave South, including textile factories, a meat processing industry, insurance companies, shippers, and cotton brokers."

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0131_030203_jubilee2.html

      http://www.nathanielturner.com/slaveryandtheamericaneconomy.htm

      And as I documented in the other post, the Corwin amendment was an attempt by Congress to throw the Slave states a bone by allowing it to continue in their region of the country. But Southern states had no influence? Dude, pick up a history book sometime.

      Delete
  5. America was open to relatives. Still a lot of that in the law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And that's a partial list. Didn't Truman sign a significant act in 46 too? There was a major revision in 52 that he vetoed but got overridden.

    Some of those mandated religious tests too, as they were aimed at religious persecution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First of all, congratulations for this blog. Impressive work. A good friend of mine highly recommended it to me and he did not exaggerate.

    Informative post here. I already knew this from reading Alt-Right sites, they are constantly talking about how everything got fucked up after 1965, and they also tend to underscore the "white persons" expression of the 1790 Act, just like the "for ourselves and our posterity" part in the US Constitution preamble.

    My personal take is that the "nation of immigrants" meme is a half-truth: America was indeed made through the westward expansion and the arrival of successive waves of immigrants, making it quite different to what it would be had it kept itself to the original 13 colonies. That said, those immigrants were almost entirely European, and as you expose here, deliberate efforts were made to keep it that way. "Diversity" was always limited. That is why it is disingenuous to point out to former waves of immigrants to justify the current flow, which is quite diffent in its ethnic makeup.

    By the way, I liked your succint overview of the Alt-Right.

    I think however that the "anti-Semitism" angle is exaggerated. There are some hardcore Jew-haters and plenty of tastless humor about "ovens", "lampshades" and the like (it varies depending on the specific Alt-Right outlet). Yet most of the time it is anger against the usual double standard of Jewish intellectuals who push open borders for America while expecting Israel to remain as an explicit ethnostate for Jews.

    It is true that many are former Libertarians like Mike Enoch, but at this point they would accept typically left-wing economic policies since they no longer see themselves as sovereign individuals but as members of a community. In fact, I would say that I see the general public now far more open to 'progressive' economics than, say, 10 years ago, much to the chagrin of mainstream conservative publications which now discover in horror that the Republican base is further to the left on economics than they thought. Reaganomics are probably not going to be taken for granted in the future, and as you pointed out in the Farage speech post the populist right needs to shed that poisonous legacy.

    Unlike many others you got it right, Breitbart and Infowars are just on the periphery of the whole thing. Breitbart in particular could be seen as a slightly more forceful brand of Conservatism Inc., in the brash style of its late founder, but still firmly within the civic nationalist framework: those guys with American eagle avatars, mad as hell about Obama and 'libtards' ruining the country... who 8 years and several GOP victories later started wondering what Congress had achieved, and embraced Trump as a thaumaturgic politician amidst a selection of very weak Republican candidates.

    There are other contrarian figures like Milo and Gavin McInnes who sort of ride the wave by being super edgy against feminism and related issues, but who at the end of the day are just energetic neoliberals (in the European sense).

    Some consider Neoreaction (NRx) a part of the Alt-Right, but in my opinion it is a different movement with some overlapping thinkers.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OC.VA

      alt right suffer from racism as far as i know.

      but its really funny that all this alt righters think that jewish thinkers are for open borders and against nation states but still support israel.

      i will give you enough examples of jewish thinkers which is critical of alt right movement or/and for open borders or/and against the concept of nation state and they are anti israeli.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein

      she is green party nominee she is jewish and she is against israel.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

      he is against israel and for civic state instead of israel

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein

      he is against israel as well

      so i dont know where they got they got the information that jewish thinkers have double standarts actually they are mostly not and they are the most fearsome enemies of Israel.

      Delete
    2. The best Jewish thinker on the scene today is Jill Stein #BDSnow #EndZionistAparthied

      Delete
    3. Yes, I am not sold on those views of all-encompassing Jewish influence, although it annoys me that such topic is not allowed to be discussed in public. It is impossible not to notice the Stalinesque ovations to Netanyahu in Congress.

      By "Jewish intellectuals" I meant neocons rather than progressive Jews like Chomsky; I am well aware of many Jews critical of Israeli policies and their positions, and I would certainly never generalize that all "the Jews" do this or that. Finkelstein is a very good example, and so is filmmaker Yoav Shamir, author of the documentary "Defamation" about how accusations of anti-Semitism can be politically exploited

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_(film)

      For what is worth, there is a Jewish historian critical of the conservative movement, Paul Gottfried, whom Alt-Righters respect very much (I have heard he is the first that came up with the very name "Alternative Right"). As I said above, the take on Jews varies enormously depending on the outlet. On the whole they are critical of what is perceived as overwhelmingly Jewish activism in New Left social crusades.

      Delete
  8. https://fee.org/articles/are-immigrants-still-assimilating-in-america

    Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, two of the smartest conservative thinkers today, have spilt much ink worrying over immigrant assimilation. Salam is more pessimistic, writing articles with titles like “The Melting Pot is Broken” and “Republicans Need a New Approach to Immigration” (with the descriptive URL slug: “Immigration-New-Culture-War”), which rely on a handful of academic papers for support.

    Their worries fly against recent evidence that immigrant assimilation is proceeding quickly in the United States. There’s never been a greater quantity of expert and timely quantitative research that shows immigrants are still assimilating.

    The first piece of research is the National Academy of Science’s (NAS) September 2015 book titled The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. At 520 pages, it’s a thorough, brilliant summation of the relevant academic literature on immigrant assimilation that ties the different strands of research into a coherent story. Bottom line: Assimilation is never perfect and always takes time, but it’s going very well.

    One portion of NAS’ book finds that much assimilation occurs through a process called “ethnic attrition,” which is caused by immigrant inter-marriage with natives, either of the same or different ethnic groups. Assimilation is also quickened with second or third generation Americans marrying those from other, longer-settled ethnic or racial groups.

    The children of these intermarriages are much less likely to identify ethnically with their more recent immigrant ancestors, and, due to spousal self-selection, they are likely to be more economically and educationally integrated as well. Ethnic attrition is one reason why the much-hyped decline of the white majority is greatly exaggerated.

    That decrease is less dire than he reports. According to a 2007 paper, 32 percent of Mexican-American men born in the United States married outside of their race or ethnicity, while 33 percent of women did. (I write about this in more detail here.) That’s close to the 1990 rate of intermarriage reported for all Hispanics in the study Salam favored. The “problem” (if it was a problem) disappeared.

    The second set of research is a July 2015 book entitled Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 that analyses immigrant and second generation integration on 27 measurable indicators across the OECD and EU countries. This report finds more problems with immigrant assimilation in Europe, especially for immigrants from outside of the EU, but the findings for the United States are quite positive.

    Work by University of Washington economist Jacob Vigdor offers a historical perspective. He compares modern immigrant civic and cultural assimilation to that of immigrants form the early 20th century. (An earlier draft of his book chapter is here, the published version is available in this collection.) For those of us who think early 20thcentury immigrants from Italy, Russia, Poland, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere assimilated successfully, Vigdor’s conclusion is reassuring:

    While there are reasons to think of contemporary migration from Spanish-speaking nations as distinct from earlier waves of immigration, evidence does not support the notion that this wave of migration poses a true threat to the institutions that withstood those earlier waves.

    Douthat switches back and forth between Europe and the United States when discussing assimilation, giving the impression that the challenges are similar. *****But treating assimilation in Europe and the United States as similar creates confusion, not clarity. Cherry-picking outcomes from Europe to support skepticism about assimilation in the United States is misleading*****. Assimilation is a vitally important outcome for immigrants and their descendants, but Europe and the United States have vastly different experiences.

    More @link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a minute.... Below you are defending the idea of NO assimilation.

      So which is it?

      Delete
    2. If someone wants to assimilate, great! The only thing is, there really is no American culture per se to assimilate into.

      Delete
    3. Tell me: is English the language of the majority of people (about 79%) in the US?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States#English

      Delete
    4. So language isn't a part of culture?!?

      Is language determined by genetics?

      Delete
    5. I speak English.

      A Southern Redneck sitting at a bar in Mississippi speaks English.

      A Black guy from South Africa speaks English.

      Do we all have the same culture?

      Delete
    6. Probably not.

      But many English-speaking people *within* the US, and certainly historically, did or do broadly share the same culture.

      Do many native German speaking people of Germany share the same broad culture?

      Delete
    7. Do many native German speaking people of Germany share the same broad culture?

      Apples and oranges. You narrowed it to a specific geographical region and shared history and culture by most if not all it's native inhabitants. So of course, they share the same culture. Language alone doesn't seem to make it though, especially under the conditions I describe.

      Delete
  9. Funny how Daniel cherry-picked an article off this same site, but I found this:

    What Enrique Peña Nieto Should Tell Donald Trump

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/31/what-enrique-pena-nieto-should-tell-donald-trump-mexico-immigration-border-wall/?wp_login_redirect=0

    "Taxing Mexican goods to pay for a border wall will tank Mexico’s economy, spike immigration into the United States, and boost the drug trade."

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/should-immigration-require-assimilation/406759

    "A close evaluation of Hispanic acculturation data suggests there was scant reason to worry that their growing presence in the country would dilute America’s national identity or lead to cultural separatism. The 2000 Fairfax County survey of Salvadoran immigrants like Call found that while 83 percent had arrived in the United States with no English at all, most of their children by the time of the survey spoke English well enough to translate for them. In a 2007 article, four political scientists examined available data for Hispanic immigrants and found that they “acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly beginning with the second generation” and that their educational attainment and political attitudes suggest “a traditional pattern of political assimilation.” A scholar at the RAND Corporation, after comparing the trajectories of various ethnic groups in America, found that “education advances made by Latinos are actually greater than those achieved by either Europeans or Asian migrants,” meaning that as a group their educational attainment rose steadily from generation to generation. Hispanics were joining the American mainstream, just as previous immigrants had."

    "Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist famous for his analysis of how and when Americans bond with each other, addressed the issue in a 2006 lecture he titled “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century.” Noting the increased ethnic diversity in the United States and other advanced countries due to rising immigration, Putnam said the consequence in the short run was reduced social solidarity. “New evidence from the U.S.,” he wrote, “suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods, residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” But this was only a short-term phenomenon. “In the long run,” he said, “successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of solidarity and more encompassing identities.” Social behavior in this vein featured what he called “bridging” interactions between individuals of different cultural backgrounds, and he saw this as an area that could be supported by public policy and institutions. “My hunch,” he said, “is that at the end we shall see that the challenge is best met not by making ‘them’ like ‘us,’ but rather by creating a new, more capacious sense of ‘we.’"

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/life_16.html

    The popular perception is that, in the past, immigrant groups were homogenized into the American culture in a huge "melting pot," losing their separate identities as ethnic minorities. But that perception ignores the thousands of rural churches that celebrated religion in the "old country" tongue well into the 20th century, and it ignores the millions of Catholic and other parochial schools that still exist.

    The melting pot may have been more like a gumbo with lots of different ingredients thrown in, all maintaining their separate spicy flavor in an eclectic mixture of different tastes.

    Yet, it is true that the United States remained united even with millions of immigrants funneling through Ellis Island before the 1930s. The question is, will we remain united under the strain of this new migrant stream.

    Professor David M. Kennedy thinks we will. He says that *****today's Latin American immigrants are still a relatively small percentage of the overall population*****, and, on balance, they provide a positive economic benefit to the U.S. Kennedy argues that if America wants to grow its economy at the rate of three percent a year, we "must find somewhere between 5 million and 15 million more workers than can be supplied by domestic sources." So, we need Latino and other workers.
    Professor Kennedy believes there won't be economic turmoil between U.S. citizens and the new immigrants. However, he suggests that Latino immigrants may be better able to hold on to their old cultural ways than other immigrant groups. For one thing, they're holding on to their language. According to the U.S. Census, 97 percent of immigrants from Mexico and the Dominican Republic do not speak English at home. About 52 percent of all foreign-born residents say they speak English less than "very well."
    In the American Southwest, particularly California and Texas, Latinos are almost a third of the population. They are also still geographically close to their former homelands, not separated by a vast ocean but only porous borders. In those cultural enclaves, it's possible to live your life in Spanish. Kennedy says, "They could also undertake to do what no previous immigrant group could have dreamed of doing: challenge the existing cultural, political, legal, commercial and educational systems to change fundamentally not only the language but also the very institutions in which they do business."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Kennedy argues that if America wants to grow its economy at the rate of three percent a year, we "must find somewhere between 5 million and 15 million more workers than can be supplied by domestic sources." "

      No, that is a ridiculous neoliberal lie. That is a recipe for a low wage economy, fierce competition for scare jobs, loss of social cohesion and overpopulation.

      Delete
    2. "For one thing, they're holding on to their language. According to the U.S. Census, 97 percent of immigrants from Mexico and the Dominican Republic do not speak English at home. About 52 percent of all foreign-born residents say they speak English less than "very well."
      In the American Southwest, particularly California and Texas, Latinos are almost a third of the population. They are also still geographically close to their former homelands, not separated by a vast ocean but only porous borders. In those cultural enclaves, it's possible to live your life in Spanish"


      So you are saying mass immigration is turning large parts of America culturally into Mexico? And you are define with that.

      Question: what if the majority of people in America are not fine with this?

      Delete
    3. No, that is a ridiculous neoliberal lie. That is a recipe for a low wage economy, fierce competition for scare jobs, loss of social cohesion and overpopulation

      At 4% of the population? Seriously?

      Also, can you prove that inflation isn't being kept in check by the lowered labor costs that comes from Undocumented Workers?

      Delete
    4. what if the majority of people in America are not fine with this?

      I'll turn into a Crybaby Libertarian and whine about how "Democracy is Mob Rule!" ;-)

      Actually, if Democracy brings it about, that's another matter.

      Delete
    5. (1) Yes, mass immigration on the level will do it.

      (2) controlling inflation by a low wage economy is NOT a left heterodox policy, that is a neoliberal or free market policy.

      Delete
    6. Yes, mass immigration on the level will do it

      I wouldn't call a trickle like 4% "Mass Immigration."

      controlling inflation by a low wage economy is NOT a left heterodox policy, that is a neoliberal or free market policy

      1) But I asked - is it working or isn't it?

      2) What is a Left/Hetero policy that seeks to control inflation?

      Delete
  12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0525a.htm

    In fact, the very concept of assimilation is being called into question as never before. Some sociologists argue that the melting pot often means little more than "Anglo conformity" and that assimilation is not always a positive experience – for either society or the immigrants themselves. And with today's emphasis on diversity and ethnicity, it has become easier than ever for immigrants to avoid the melting pot entirely. Even the metaphor itself is changing, having fallen out of fashion completely with many immigration advocacy and ethnic groups. They prefer such terms as the "salad bowl" and the "mosaic," metaphors that convey more of a sense of separateness in describing this nation of immigrants.

    "It's difficult to adapt to the culture here," said Maria Jacinto, 32, who moved to the United States 10 years ago with her husband, Aristeo Jacinto, 36. "In the Hispanic tradition, the family comes first, not money. It's important for our children not to be influenced too much by the gueros," she said, using a term that means "blondies" but that she employs generally in reference to Americans. "I don't want my children to be influenced by immoral things."

    Over the blare of the television in the next room, she asked, "Not all families here are like the Simpsons, are they?"

    Among socially conservative families such as the Jacintos, who initially moved to California from their village in Mexico's Guanajuato state, then migrated here in 1988 to find jobs in the meatpacking industry, bad influences are a constant concern. They see their children assimilating, but often to the worst aspects of American culture.

    Her concerns reflect some of the complexities and ambivalence that mark the assimilation process these days. Immigrants such as the Jacintos are here to stay but remain wary of their adoptive country. According to sociologists, they are right to be concerned.

    "If assimilation is a learning process, it involves learning good things and bad things," said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at Michigan State University. "It doesn't always lead to something better."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Endless mass immigration of different cultures + non-assimilationism = cultural suicide.

      Are you in favour of cultural suicide?

      Delete
    2. Are you in favour of cultural suicide

      What suicide?

      Delete
    3. Deliberate policies which reduce the English-speaking people of America to a small minority, just as the Tibetan people of Tibet might be reduced to small minority by Chinese mass immigration into Tibet, and in which large parts of the country would become effective cultural enclaves of other countries.

      We've already had this argument.

      E.g., would you be in favour of bringing in 600 million Latin Americans into the US by the end of the year?

      Delete
    4. I still have no clue why you keep asking those questions. But now... I have ceased to care.

      Delete
  13. LK, you'll probably get on me about the link I shared re Trump in Mexico that had a negative comment about him ending NAFTA. I didn't notice that until after I started reading it, but I'd like to know what you think about the other stuff that was discussed on that blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Kevin Wayne

      i showed you also a lot of articles that are speaking about how assimiliation dont work much for the hispanic community in the u.s

      and the article in foreign policy you showed me just confirm the fact (surprise surprise) that you are neoliberal.

      since if you really followed the LK blog you will understand how much free trade is harmful to development of a country and actually thats what killed the economy of mexico in the first place (its killed the mexican miracle era).

      and if mexico will use its power to restrict the flows of capital it will able to develop its economy much better than by exporting immigrants to the u.s or by so called free trade agreement so the article you showed me is basically not proving anything.


      the fact that intermarriage occur in more diverse neighborhoods or the fact that if there is enough intermarriage the third generation will most likely will not speak spanish is not surprising.

      but its not showing that there is rapid assimiliation of people which live in isolated ghettos (and huge percentage of latin americans are living in this ghettos)

      but unlike other immigrants the size of their community (specially the mexican) allow them to have a high capability of self reliance as independent community.

      and because of this self reliance the measures that work for other smaller immigrant groups like how well second generation know english or what is the rate of intermarriage (without showing how much is the rate of intermarriage of people which living in segregated neighborhoods like hispanic ghettos)

      is not proving anything and if you will read the articles i showed you and i gave you more than one of this articles you will see more explanations about that.


      now about assimilation of course its about confirmity and its about abandoning your old culture traditions and customs in order to accept the ones that are dominant in the host country.

      its a painful not comfortable process which immigrants if they will have a choice will most likely will try to avoid.

      and of course that the worship of diversity pc culture and multiculturism make it easier for them not to be asimiliated into the host country culture

      and if we are speaking about a big self reliant community like the mexican one the weakened pressures to assimiliate because of multiculturism are close to zero.


      now about different churches so what if there been different churches and religions?

      in order to beassimiliated you dont have to be protestant and in order to be american culturally you dont have to be protestant either so come on is ridicouls if its their strongest arguement about how assimiliation failed.

      Delete
    3. i showed you also a lot of articles that are speaking about how assimiliation dont work much for the hispanic community in the u.s

      Yes, and those articles are wrong.

      and the article in foreign policy you showed me just confirm the fact (surprise surprise) that you are neoliberal

      LMAO! Whatever. A Neoliberal who voted for Ralph Nader 3 times and is going to vote for Jill Stein. Amazing.

      since if you really followed the LK blog

      Funny, I have comments ALL OVER this blog, because I go back and read older articles quite frequently. Plus I've cited links from this blog all over the place. Ask LK. Then go wipe the egg off of your face.

      and if mexico will use its power to restrict the flows of capital it will able to develop its economy much better

      Good for them! So?

      but its not showing that there is rapid assimiliation of people which live in isolated ghettos (and huge percentage of latin americans are living in this ghettos

      That does absolutely nothing to the points that were raised. Most ghettos in the US are Black or Hispanic, that isn't even news Try again.

      but unlike other immigrants the size of their community (specially the mexican) allow them to have a high capability of self reliance as independent community

      I seriously doubt you read any of the materials I cited, because that very point is discussed in at least one of them. And I say: So what? Good for them that they can paddle their own boat!

      is not proving anything and if you will read the articles i showed you and i gave you more than one of this articles you will see more explanations about that

      I can't recall which articles cam from who, but I know one of them was Right-Wing nonsense, so I stopped reading.

      and of course that the worship of diversity pc culture and multiculturism make it easier for them not to be asimiliated into the host country culture

      Because America is historically a nation of Immigrants and Cultural Diversity. And neither you nor LK have proven otherwise. Deal with it.

      in order to beassimiliated you dont have to be protestant and in order to be american culturally you dont have to be protestant either so come on is ridicouls if its their strongest arguement about how assimiliation failed

      I have no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
    4. LOL kevin basically when i refute your points you are playing yourself a dummy and you are going from red herring to no true scotsman.

      give me a favour kevin stop using all this logical fallacies to justify yourself and instead start to argue
      constructively.

      Delete
    5. when i refute your points

      You've not refuted one.

      you are playing yourself a dummy

      Nope. I really, really, really don't get what you guys are going on about.

      start to argue constructively

      As soon as you do.

      Delete
    6. Start to argue constructively means to explain your points well instead of tellin us like a 6 grader that your arguement is correct because of your intuition/i cant understand it like you/i am wrong or all other people wrong.

      You have to explain your arguement and not make it as if its ad hoc statement because its fit your political views.

      Delete
    7. I'm pretty certain I've done due diligence in all those things. You on the other hand see me say something about the year 1990 and go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, and would have been understood had you read my link.

      Tu Quoque, Daniel.

      Delete
    8. Sorry but its not true i read your links with mostly dubious sources and i answered your questions and yet your strongest arguements are because i know better or you dont know nothibg.

      Sorry kevin is not working well.

      Delete
    9. Sorry Daniel but it is true. On the other blog post, I mentioned something about the year 1900. You respond with a hearty "LOL!" Which is fine, since obviously I do it all the time. But then you go on to refute an argument I wasn't even making.

      Also, clean up your grammar, punctuation, capitalization and sentence construction, please. I find reading your posts quite tedious and annoying and I'm sure I missed your points quite frequently on here.

      Delete
    10. from red herring to no true scotsman. give me a favour kevin stop using all this logical fallacies

      Every cock and bull con artist arguing on the internet today throws logical fallacies about and declares victory. They miss the fact that 1) fallacies do not prove someone wrong - that's known as the "Fallacy Fallacy." 2) There are other aspects of reason and logic, such as "Reference to the best possible explanation," "Negative and Positive Sufficient Condition tests," "Negative and Positive Necessary Condition tests," etc. My point about what my basic life patterns are vs. your Neoliberal accusation - which has about as much sense as "Commie!" as far as I'm concerned - that is called Inference to the Best Explanation. It's called Inductive Logic. Study it sometime.

      Delete
    11. you are neoliberal

      I might point out here: I plainly pointed out when I started following this blog more seriously in the last few months that I don't know jack shit about Economics. So I try my best to watch videos and read up on stuff and little by little, it's starting to click. If you have an explanation as to why something is Neo-Liberal or whatever, feel free to offer it [in cleaned up English.] What I'm not interested in is your accusations. I mainly come here because of the economics even if the politics specifically concerning Trump doesn't appeal to me. Whatever, better here than Mises or some other Austrian site. Although I have plenty of blogs bookmarked now - I just got through a portion of a looooonnng piece on Economics and Finance in Mike Hudson's latest blog post. My eyes are bleeding too much to take you seriously, here.

      Delete
    12. Yes so throwing at me or LK that keeping real wage low to sustain inflation is good is not neoliberal?

      To tell us that low skilled immigration is a keynesian stimulus is not neoliberal?

      To share articles which speaking about the virtues of free trade is not neoliberal kevin wake up you wrote here so many neoliberal myths so why shouldnt i tell you that you are neoliberal in tjis case?

      Also when i spoke about cultural assimilation you suddenly started to talk about how not evetyone became protestant like somehow i spoke about the importance of being a prptestantbto be assimilated into american culture (its red herring kevin).

      And when you are saying that there is no american culture and i ask you why not?

      Your arguement is basically because i said so (and you are doing so after you are putting on america some kind of bo true scotsman which easilu debunked by me and LK)

      Delete
    13. Yes so throwing at me or LK that keeping real wage low to sustain inflation is good is not neoliberal

      Nope, never said that. What I've said is that inflation is kept down by lowered costs of production. And if you think that's not true, feel free to come back at me on it. It's not like I'm wedded to the idea.

      To tell us that low skilled immigration is a keynesian stimulus is not neoliberal

      So instead of berating me for this, acknowledge that I said Small Business should be exempt, not large ones, and then explain why you think small businessmen shouldn't get a break.

      Also when i spoke about cultural assimilation you suddenly started to talk about how not evetyone became protestant like somehow i spoke about the importance of being a prptestantbto be assimilated into american culture (its red herring kevin)

      Nope, I don't believe that's how that conversation went at all. I believe what I was saying is that Religious Faith is far more of a legit "Culture" than anything you'll find in the US - or at least anything you might call "American Culture." Therefore, the adherents of other than Protestantism didn't convert, therefore they didn't fully assimilate.

      And when you are saying that there is no american culture and i ask you why not

      No that isn't what you asked. You asked me an assnine question about why would I allow the French or the British have a culture but deny it to Americans.

      And if K-Mart, McDonalds and Britney Spears amounts to "culture" in your mind, then I guess we do have a culture.

      Your arguement is basically because i said so (and you are doing so after you are putting on america some kind of bo true scotsman which easilu debunked by me and LK

      There's something that's got to be more than a little ironic when a guy who's pounding the pulpit that immigrants must assimilate into the local culture, and that this means learning the language, and yet you seem incapable of writing clear and coherent sentences. Can you get hold of an English grammar checker or something?

      Delete
    14. no true scotsman

      I've actually been over this a year and a half ago with someone before on a completely different topic, but you need to learn what that is before you use it:

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman#Well-defined_Scotsman

      "Noteworthy is that the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires, and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie" or "no theist can be an atheist" and so on). Thus, the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason."

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

      http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman

      That isn't even close to what I said. I didn't say "No true Neoliberal would vote for Jill Stein or comment on LK's blog." What I did was point to the highly unlikeliness of such a thing. It's called Inference To The Best Explanation:

      http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/best_explanation.html

      Delete
  14. Pretty sad the founders would't even let native americans become citizens. I'm glad we're more open minded these days. Irregardless, we need to get our immigration system in check and develop a model to determine the number of people we can allow in the country each year. The model should be based on things like available housing, projected growth in the job market and other related things. I imagine the US might be able to handle ~100,000 people coming in a year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, broadly true:

      http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/11/open-borders-within-and-into-europe-is.html

      Delete
  15. Isa 40:7-8 When a wind from the LORD blows on them, the grass dies and the flower falls. Yes, all people are like grass. (8) Grass dies and flowers fall, but the word of our God lasts forever."

    Dan 4:32 You will be forced to go away from people. You will live with the wild animals and eat grass like an ox. Seven seasons will pass before you learn your lesson. Then you will learn that God Most High rules over human kingdoms and gives them to whoever he wants."

    Psa 46:6 Nations will shake with fear and kingdoms will fall when God shouts and makes the earth move.

    1Pe 1:24-25 The Scriptures say, "Our lives are like the grass of spring, and any glory we enjoy is like the beauty of a wildflower. The grass dries up and dies, and the flower falls to the ground. (25) But the word of the Lord lasts forever." And that word is the Good News that was told to you.

    Psa 37:1-2 A song of David. Don't get upset about evil people. Don't be jealous of those who do wrong. (2) They are like grass and other green plants that dry up quickly and then die.

    So to basically recap all of my points, because I have now gotten to where I can't keep up with what questions or comments supposedly respond to anything I've said, or what some of the questions being asked of me have to do with anything, and I've lost track of who posted what link to what comment:

    *Nations, Cultures, Peoples, etc etc are not worth being concerned about, because they'll eventually fall and be replaced by someone else.

    *The United States does not have an immigration problem. 4% of the total population is not enough to harm any culture (assuming there is one) or economy or civilization.

    *There is no such thing as an "American Culture." We are a nation of immigrants.

    *Prattling on about the evil Diversity and Multiculturalism is a pastime for bigots.

    *There may have been bigots in the past that tried to stop the US from being inhabited by whatever Brown Skin they didn't want here, but they lost. Too bad.

    *I do not fear the globe being overrun by Islam, because I would rather live in a culture they are in charge of than an Atheist one.

    *As a side note, I'd rather be a Christian or a Jew in Muslim Spain than a Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza strip, because I know I would be treated more humanely. Same thing with being a Christian in 1st century ACE that was ran out of they Synagogue by Jews.

    *I could care less if people come here and stick to their own enclaves and not speak English. Only bigots care about something so piddly and inconsequential.

    *Open borders and mass immigration may be a problem but it's nothing Americans need concern themselves with.

    And nothing anyone has said here has given me any reason at all to change my views. Not. one. thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd rather live in an Islamic society than an atheist one? Name one Islamic country worth living in. One. Would you rather live in Saudi Arabia than Sweden? Egypt than Norway? Syria than Finland? Libya than the UK? Sudan than Canada? If so, you're nuts. While you might find us atheists annoying, we're not chopping people's heads off willy-nilly. Religious countries have more poverty, more crime, are less free, and are more economically backward.

      Delete
    2. "Nations, Cultures, Peoples, etc etc are not worth being concerned about, because they'll eventually fall and be replaced by someone else."

      Most people don't think like you. And you are going to learn that in future years.

      Delete
    3. "Open borders and mass immigration may be a problem but it's nothing Americans need concern themselves with."

      So a simple question: would you be in favour of completely abolishing national borders tomorrow?

      Delete
    4. While you might find us atheists annoying, we're not chopping people's heads off willy-nilly

      http://i.imgur.com/WtElEJU.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/3jAmt27.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/JKMeCWg.jpg

      Delete
    5. Most people don't think like you. And you are going to learn that in future years

      My good Sir, I am turning 57 later this year. I think I'm quite aware of the fact that others don't think the same way I do. Even a lot of theists don't. Oh, wellll.

      It's just that after giving it some thought, I decided to lay out exactly why I don't take institutions that seriously. There may be a place for governments, but not to the point where I'm going to get my undies in a wad over 4% of the total population.

      So a simple question: would you be in favour of completely abolishing national borders tomorrow

      Seems like I've answered variants of this same question on several occasions. What I've said all along is we need to keep the laws as they stand but work on a path to citizenship for those here illegally. It's more logical, more humane and certainly more cost effective.

      I've yet to hear you address the logistics of Trumps wall or the financial costs of mass deportation. Strange LK, you cover the bases better than that, usually.

      Delete
    6. "I do not fear the globe being overrun by Islam, because I would rather live in a culture they are in charge of than an Atheist one. "

      Atheists tend to be secularists, and secularists are in favor of the separation of church and state. (i.e., people can practice their religion privately, but religious dictates are forbidden from being enshrined in law)

      Modern Islam is generally theocratic, and supports Sharia Law.

      So you're basically saying--whether you realize it or not--that you'd rather live under Sharia Law than secular law.

      So you basically support, among other things:

      Making criticism of Muhammad or claiming that he is not the prophet acts punishable by death

      A non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman is punishable by death

      A man can divorce his wife at whim, while a woman needs consent from the husband to divorce

      homosexuality is punishable by death

      ...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

      Whether you realize it or not, you are more comfortable with rescinding all sorts of basic civil rights for women, sexual minorities, and non-Islamic religious groups than living under secularist rule, under which these civil rights are generally enforced, as the record of most countries with secular law generally demonstrates.

      Whatever the merits or lack thereof of your other views, if you value basic religious, intellectual, and social freedom, then your view on this issue is totally asinine and poorly thought out.

      Delete
    7. So, Kevin has continued to dodge important questions. He failed to answer my question about whether he'd rather live in Sweden or Saudi Arabia, because he knows the answer, and it contradicts his original statement of preferring Islam over atheism. He has also failed to say whether he supports open borders, instead talking about legalizing people who are here illegally. That's a dodge, because it's perfectly possible to support immigration control (even tighter immigration control) and still support legalizing some of the people who are here illegally.

      Delete
    8. He failed to answer my question about whether he'd rather live in Sweden or Saudi Arabia, because he knows the answer, and it contradicts his original statement of preferring Islam over atheism

      Huh? I never saw the question but my answer is this:

      http://www.whyileftsweden.com/?p=248

      http://theantifeminist.com/julian-assang-sweden-is-the-saudi-arabia-of-feminism

      http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110301,00.shtml

      And as I said before: Muslim Spain was a lot more humane for Christians and Jews than Israel is for Palestinians.

      He has also failed to say whether he supports open borders

      That is a lie. I have answered that question several times on here.

      That's a dodge, because it's perfectly possible to support immigration control (even tighter immigration control) and still support legalizing some of the people who are here illegally

      Of course it is. That doesn't mean I want blatant unconstitutional racists like Trump at the helm.

      Delete
    9. Atheists tend to be secularists, and secularists are in favor of the separation of church and state. (i.e., people can practice their religion privately, but religious dictates are forbidden from being enshrined in law

      This is what happens when you put an Atheist in charge:

      http://i.imgur.com/WtElEJU.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/3jAmt27.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/JKMeCWg.jpg

      Whether you realize it or not, you are more comfortable with rescinding all sorts of basic civil rights for women, sexual minorities, and non-Islamic religious groups than living under secularist rule, under which these civil rights are generally enforced, as the record of most countries with secular law generally demonstrates

      So Atheists have been the only ones to ever have implemented Secular Law. No Christians were ever involved in the process. Is that what you are saying?

      Whatever the merits or lack thereof of your other views, if you value basic religious, intellectual, and social freedom, then your view on this issue is totally asinine and poorly thought out

      Nope. My choice is between:

      An Atheist Society <-----> A Muslim Theocracy

      There are other options as well. The statement I made was in the context of options having run out - or the planet overtaken by Muslims.

      It wasn't so very long ago that Atheists were DEMANDING that Christians give up their beliefs because "Science has proven God doesn't exist" (or some variation thereof.) Strange, but you never hear most Muslims say things like that.

      Also:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Iran

      Very mild persecution compared to Stalin or Mao.

      http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/january/marrakesh-declaration-muslim-nations-christian-persecution.html

      This week, Roberts traveled to Marrakesh, Morocco, alongside more than 250 Muslim religious leaders, heads of state, and scholars, for a groundbreaking summit. On Wednesday, the Muslim leaders released the Marrakesh Declaration: a 750-word document calling for religious freedom for non-Muslims in majority-Muslim countries.

      “I’m blown away,” Roberts told CT from Morocco. “This is a Muslim conference put together by the top sheiks, ministers of religion, the grand muftis of the top Muslim majority nations, and they came up with a declaration, literally using the language of religious freedom to declare that violence cannot be done in the name of Islam.”

      Led by 80-year-old United Arab Emirates sheik Abdallah Bin Bayyah, who leads the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, and sponsored by the government of Morocco, the summit looked to Muhammad’s Charter of Medina when drafting the declaration. From the seventh century, the document gives instructions for governing a religious pluralistic state, and was issued shortly after Muhammad arrived in Medina.

      In particular, the declaration references the charter’s “principles of constitutional contractual citizenship” and “freedom of movement, property ownership, mutual solidarity and defense, as well as principles of justice and equality before the law,” in regards to Muslims and non-Muslims.

      “The objectives of the Charter of Medina provide a suitable framework for national constitutions in countries with Muslim majorities, and the United Nations Charter and related documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are in harmony with the Charter of Medina, including consideration for public order,” states the Marrakesh Declaration.


      Delete
    10. So, Kevin prefers Saudi Arabia, a country where women are forced to cover head to toe, where music is illegal, where homosexuals are beheaded by the state, where adulterers are beheaded by the state, where thieves have their hands cut off, where anyone who disagrees with the government is tortured/jailed/executed, which funds terrorist groups like ISIS, and where those who leave the Islamic religion face execution, because Sweden has drunk a little too much of the feminist Kool-Aid? Besides, these BS false accusation cases happen in the great Chrisitian USA as well. Would you prefer that Sweden be like the UAE, where women who report rape are jailed for having pre/extra-marital sex? http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/20/world/meast/uae-norway-rape-controversy/

      Delete
    11. BS false accusation cases happen in the great Chrisitian USA as well

      Anyone who refers to the United States as "Christian" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Thanks for clearing that up ;-)

      When you 1st started ranting and raving on this topic, you listed Sweden, Norway, Finland, UK & Canada as supposed examples of "Atheist" countries. 1st off, Sweden was founded by Christians and Britain has an official state church. All these nations function as democracies so even if Atheism is the dominant "Religious Affiliation" of in any of the places you mentioned, Christians still participate.

      The contrast I was making was between a Muslim Theocracy and a literal Atheist State.

      This is what happens in the latter:

      This is what happens when you put an Atheist in charge:

      http://i.imgur.com/WtElEJU.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/3jAmt27.jpg

      http://i.imgur.com/JKMeCWg.jpg

      In the former, Muslims can point to Spain, which they ruled for 800 years and by comparison, Christians and Jews were treated more fairly. Sure it wasn't perfect, but neither is my country which is the biggest arms exporter in the world and is currently involved in as many as 134 wars around the globe. We don't kill people directly, we hire brown-skinned people to do it for us.

      Delete
    12. (1) You didn't answer his question. Do you have any objection to turning America culturally into Saudi Arabia?

      (2) Spain in the period you are talking about was a horrible period in which Christians and Jews were reduced to second class citizens, made to pay an extortionate tax, and where there was at least one murderous Jewish pogrom:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre
      ------
      So you are telling us you want to live in a society like that?

      Delete
    13. On Spain:

      Fernandez-Morera, Dario. 2016. The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain

      Delete
  16. "Families, friendships, marriages etc etc are not worth being concerned about because they will eventually end." Life is lived in temporary arrangements! In the long run we're all dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk?t=2m16s

      Delete
    2. That stupid video doesn't answer Ken B's point. If families or marriages end by death at some point, does this mean they don't matter?

      Delete
    3. Oh have a sense of humor. And no, of course not.

      Delete