Did you know that in 1965, Teddy Kennedy radically changed US immigration policy? Previously, immigration made sense. Immigrants to the US were educated and hard-working people who aspired to the American dream. They spoke or learned English. They came here because they wanted to be Americans. They received less welfare than native Americans (no I don't mean Indians – I'm an example of a person who is American and a native to America, i.e. a "native American"). They didn't fill up our prisons. The US used to accept immigrants who benefited the country.
It's pretty hard to get Americans to vote for Democrats. It's much easier to get ignorant third world peasants to bloc-vote Democrat – especially if they don't speak English, so they can't read books like Adios America.
The Democrats say we need "diversity" – by which they mean mostly Mexicans who vote Democrat in unison. No more whites allowed.
America used to be a melting pot. Assimilation made sense. You could come here if you liked and benefitted America. You changed yourself to fit in. We didn't change America for you.
Now we bring in a mob of "multicultural" child rapists who keep their own primitive cultures.
These are facts. Ann Coulter is a top scholar and documents this in the book. Read it.
The truly scary part is how much we accommodate this nonsense. A Hmong immigrant demanded – in US court – money to buy animals to sacrificially murder. An American was ordered to pay up, and lost on appeal.
What do you suppose animal rights activists think of bringing people to the US to brutalize American animals? Do they want them to assimilate the American value of not killing animals in shamanistic rituals?
Instead of criticizing the Hmong’s house pet holocaust, the head of Fresno’s Humane Society, Don Pugh, called Americans racist for objecting to it. Pugh told the LA Times that he got more calls about animal sacrifice than he found animal carcasses. Thus, he concluded, complaints about Hmong clubbing dogs to death was “racism, pure and simple.”I'll leave you with a true story that would come off as unrealistic in Atlas Shrugged:
Mohammed Salameh, another terrorist convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was also in the United States because of [Chuck] Schumer’s special agricultural worker amnesty. The unskilled nineteen-year-old first came to the United States on a tourist visa because, as the U.S. consulate later explained, someone in the office “took a chance” on Mohammed. Mohammed not only had never worked on a farm, but he was not even in the country until 1988, two years after the special amnesty became law, though it was explicitly limited to those who had worked on farms in the United States in the year before May 1, 1986.
By the most basic definition of the law, Mohammed was not eligible, but he was allowed to stay in the United States and obtain a work visa—while the INS processed his petition. Moving with the lightning speed of a government agency, the INS rejected his petition for amnesty as a farmworker three years later. Then, Mohammed applied for a general amnesty, claiming he had been living continuously in the United States from 1982 to 1986. Actually, he was a teenager in Jordan then, but again, Mohammed was allowed to stay while the INS considered his request. As it was considering, Mohammed bombed the World Trade Center.
Even if someone at the INS had promptly rejected his application, noticing that Mohammed only arrived in the United States in 1988—he still couldn’t have been deported. Schumer had included a provision prohibiting the INS from taking any action against any immigrant who merely applied for agricultural amnesty. That might discourage fraudulent applications! No matter how laughably fictional, Mohammed’s request for a farmworker amnesty immunized him from deportation. He would still be setting off bombs as a frustrated farmworker had he not returned the van used in the bombing to the Ryder rental agency to get his deposit back. Gosh, we really are getting the smartest immigrants.
> ... a tighter labor market would give individual workers more flexibility in switching between jobs and in securing free speech protections in their current jobs.
After reading the above, I realized that mass immigration leads to a weaker labor market, which, in turn, weakens free speech. Here's why: in a weak labor market, employees are more easily replaceable, which puts them at greater risk of being fired merely for speaking their minds.
#17746 If there are more people, wouldn't that make employers more easily replaceable too? Why do you think it's asymmetric?
You should look more into immigration history, and the genealogy of nation states and their policies.
Coulter is not a scholar, she's a political pundit, you should read scholars for this sort of thing.
Knowledge is good, to not end up an accidental bedfellow to the KKK, Start with these:
- Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality by Eric J. Hobsbawm
- Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Revised Edition)
by Benedict Anderson
#17761 Do you have a criticism of something Coulter said? Is there something you think I believe which is incorrect?
I did Coulter fact checking. You accuse her of being a bad scholar with no evidence or argument. http://curi.us/archives/list_category/80
#17747 Good question. Maybe the answer has to do with assimilation. Here are a few (previously unstated) ideas that may help make the argument work:
- Unassimilated immigrants are relatively more effective as employees than they are as employers, compared to Americans or assimilated immigrants.
- It takes many immigrants and their families multiple generations to fully assimilate.
In short, American-style immigration brings in people who are not as good at starting companies as Americans or assimilated immigrants. But the immigrants can compete for some jobs, which loosens the labor market for those jobs.
My impression is that the kinds of immigrants that get tech visas seem to be fairly well assimilated in the ways that matter for starting companies, so the argument wouldn't apply to tech employees.
> Good question. Maybe the answer has to do with assimilation.
You're making up reasons that maybe your original claim is true. This is biased.
#17837 I don't understand bias well, so you may very well be right about that.
That said, I believe I answered the question from #17747 as asked:
> If there are more people, wouldn't that make employers more easily replaceable too? Why do you think it's asymmetric?
I gave some reasons why more people might not make employers more easily replaceable too.
Maybe I should have referred to the ideas in my answer as *ideas that I came up with in answer to the question* rather than as "previously unstated" ideas. The latter implies, falsely, that those ideas were in my mind all along.