mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
We Want Out
Brexit and the Immigration Question
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Gary Hemminger

    This piece, along with today’s other piece from Dr. Mead, hits the nail directly on the head. I am a well educated Democrat living in Silicon Valley, and I am becoming more convinced every day that the progressives are out of control in America. I welcome, live, work, and play with immigrants from around the world and appreciate what they have done and will do for this country. But what I see the progressives do with respect to immigration is really worring me. They appear to have no idea of the instability they are causing, or simply don’t care and want to ram down our throats that if we worry about this instability we are all racists and rubes. What really bothers me are these sanctuary cities, where essentially they completely violate US Law. And the other thing that is really getting to me is this incessant, obnoxious, and quasi-religious orthodoxy that we must all believe in global warming or we are anti-scientific idiots. Along with Computer Science, I studied physical geography at UC Berkeley, and I remember the “Global Cooling” scare in the 70’s and now see the same thing with “Global Warming.” But essentially our leaders are acting like doomsayers on the environment. If you don’t believe their orthodoxy with respect to immigration and global warming, you are a racist, anti-science, idiot.

    I really don’t see how all of this is going to end well. I don’t trust the progressives and their social justice, equality for all theories, and I don’t trust Donald Trump and the Republicans either.

    • Nevis07

      Nice to see there are Democrats that haven’t completely lost it, Gary. I have no problem with immigration if done legally and legislatively done in a responsible way. I think that’s how most people feel, but the progressive crowd has made even the discussion of potential border control into a vitriolic debate of nothing but racism name throwing.

      I think we’ve gone down the path of globalization so far and for so long, that it’s gotten out of control. I mean it’s one thing to want even trade and capability for immigration to move effectively, but in the way it’s been implemented in this country is pure insanity with our laws being completely taken advantage of. Britain has seen this too and the vote is reflection of this. Between, the progressive agenda of pushing their victimized group of the month to abusing terrorism to pushing their views on guns to illegal immigration to birth their future demographic (usurping democracy in my opinion), they’ve effectively built in an incredibly weak social cohesiveness in this country. I suspect the same is in Britain and much of Europe.

      People like to say that the US has some special ability to assimilate immigrants. It’s not true. The gangs of New York is just a simple example. The US simply is a larger country with more people so immigration is less noticeable, but even the US has limits. Personally, I think the US needs to slow down immigration significantly for a time. Successful integration and assimilation is most effective when done by immigrants of similar culture in smaller numbers. This is my primary reason for wanting only a small number of Muslim immigrants to come here, for example – their views on the world and society are often extremely different than those of me and my neighbors. Trying to force the failed concept of multiculturalism on the rest of us is having disastrous results in our societies and producing backlash against against many groups – again Brexit is an example. The more and more we force this globalized progressive agenda to lead us down the rabbit hole, the more and more we’re going to find that divisions in our society, whether it be age, race, sexual orientation, immigration status, (self) identified status, or whatever other victimization hashtag you can think of will continue to become more and more bitter and divisive and seen as a zero sum game among competing groups.

      Regarding Trump, I don’t know if Brexit will actually help him or not, some people seem to think so. I know one thing for certain, however, and that is that Brexit sure does not help Hillary.

      • Andrew Allison

        Multiculturalism is a prescription for disaster.

        • Nevis07

          Yep. And what’s really insane is that it’s generally acknowledged that it’s a failed concept and yet we continue pursuing it. Even Angela Merkel famously said that’s a effectively a failed policy.

          • Andrew Allison

            Only “progressives” pursue it.

          • adk

            … and right after then, she welcomed hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners into Germany & EU. Go figure.

        • f1b0nacc1

          Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Democracy

          Pick any two

          • Andrew Allison

            Come now! Immigration (with assimilation) has been very good for this country. What’s tearing it apart is tribalism, er multiculturalism. Democracy is a whole different kettle of fish. The intrinsic problem is that to which de Tocqueville alluded (bribing the voters with their own money), compounded in our case by the “only the things that I agree with” attitude.

          • f1b0nacc1

            My point exactly….you can have immigration and democracy without multiculturalism, or immigration and multiculturalism without democracy….but not all three…

          • Andrew Allison

            I got it. My point was that democracy is inherently self-destructive.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Sadly yes, but the alternatives are worse.

          • Andrew Allison

            The alternatives are, unfortunately, inescapable. It may be the best choice, but, as we see from the simulacrums which exist today, it needs to be re-booted periodically (c.f. I’ve got a pen and a phone).

          • f1b0nacc1

            Perhaps, but it must have looked grim in the 30s as well. Likely you are correct (I take no pleasure in that), but I wonder sometimes if hope (not blind hope, mind you) is a better strategy. If the Brexit shows us anything, it shows that the political class is not all powerful, and that the citizens can take things back responsibly.

            We have new tools to make it work, we just need to adhere to our principles, rather than submit to the sort of feeble reasoning you see from some on this blog.

          • Jim__L

            We’ll see how democratic open borders are.

  • QET

    Despite the writer’s frank presentation of the enormity, numbers-wise, of the recent immigration to the UK, despite use of appropriate terms like “mass” and “wave,” he still refers to the matter as the immigration “question.” As though it were a matter for duelling policy papers by Oxbridge degree holders in secured office buildings, for the “building by leaders of a broad-based consensus,” for “reform.” These Kennedy School banalities are not applicable to the present situation, and that is why the elites continue to be surprised and flanked. Nor is harking back 1,000 years to the Norman Conquest apt; the concept of “demographic change” did not exist then. The Norman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxon conquests before it, the Moorish conquest of Spain, the Gothic “immigration” to Roman Europe–today’s elites would characterize the resistance by the inhabitants as “xenophobia and “racism.” And yet one of their predecessor elites–Francis Jennings–famously re-characterized English immigration to North America as an “invasion.” I don’t ever recall any of our elites accusing Amerindians of xenophobia or racism. It doesn’t surprise me that “university educated” types, especially kids, went heavily for Remain. Their so-called educations have equipped them only to conform, not to think.

    A couple of questions: what, exactly did Karl Marx contribute to British culture? I have read him extensively and this is the first I’ve ever heard someone make that claim. It’s not as though contribution to one’s host country’s culture is a requirement for residency there, but it almost sounds as though Gallagher is conforming himself to the current “university educated elite” piety that *of course* the mere presence of a non-native is a positive contribution to native culture (someone dig Jennings up and tell him that), and anyone who says or even thinks different is per se racist/xenophobic. Second, in what respect are the UK and US “weaker” now than a week ago? This, too, seems like simple conformity to a prejudice, to a preconceived notion of what progress is.

    • Nevis07

      They’re all brainwashed in the University system these days. And between Facebook and Google ‘filtering’ the debate, as well as the mainstream media accusing anyone with a thought not in line with the SJWs views as racist or xenophobic, it’s no wonder why the young have the view they hold.

    • Andrew Allison

      You’ve brilliantly nail the existential problem faced by Europe and the US, namely that matters of live and death are being debated in the abstract.

      • Boritz

        Excellent observation. It reminds me of the scene in Reds where Reed and Zinoviev are arguing fine points of Communist doctrine when a cannon round comes through the wall.

  • Pete

    Nobody in their right mind — unless their vested interest is great — wants to see their country turned into a dumpinng ground for the 3rd
    World.

    • Jim__L

      That’s a loophole you can drive a limousine through.

  • Anthony
  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Britain, the European Union, and the United States are in a much weaker state today than they were a week ago.”

    This just isn’t True. Via Meadia fails to recognize the stagnation and decay present, and talks about London as if it is growing and thriving for some other reason than that it is bleeding the rest of the nation dry. Through out history Capitol Cities have grown fat at the expense of the Nation as a whole, as taxes flow in but much less flows back out.
    What is now happening in all Western Nations is a centralization of power and wealth. As the Big Government Monopoly grows ever fatter, the productive wealth creating free market private sector that supports this leviathan, grows ever weaker under the ever increasing burden. So, separating themselves from the leeches in Brussels, reduces the burden on the UK and makes it stronger not weaker.

    • ljgude

      That line stuck in my craw too. What is true is that Britain and EU are very different than they were yesterday. The US, not so much. No one knows how it will work out, certainly not Mr Gallagher and certainly not me. But my money is on Brexit allowing Great Britain to resume its traditional role as a counter balance to continental powers vying for dominance. For that, it needs to be independent. It also can properly resume its role in the Anglosphere and trade with the Commonwealth and the US unrestricted by EU rules which are designed to protect European interests and don’t suit the country that created the first global empire. Yesterday they couldn’t engage the Angolsphere, today that way is open. I also like the observations about capital cities enriching themselves at the expense of their hinterlands. New York’s dominance of upstate NY has always shown that tendency within the state and along with Washington, NY has been the financial capital of the US with similar results.

      • Jim__L

        They have a much lessened capacity for collective action.

        But if it’s not collective action their constituencies want, it’s a good thing that they don’t have that option anymore.

        • ljgude

          Do you mean collective action in the Marxist or Socialist sense and by ‘they’ do you mean the British people? Off the top of my head I would say that the British voters took collective action in a generic sense and increased their power to act collectively through their own Parliament without interference from Brussels. Could you clarify please?

          • Jim__L

            Would “Concerted action” be a better term? With connotations of the old “Concert of Europe” of the post-Napoleonic era, rather than connotations of Soviet collectives.

            The defeat of the Axis counts as concerted action. As does the pressure to end Apartheid in South Africa. So would responding to Russia’s actions in the old Soviet region. Sometimes it’s worth it.

  • jeburke

    I’d like to see more in-depth analysis of the obvious fact that mass immigration from the Third World, as well as virtually uninhibited movement across borders among the advanced countries, is directly responsible for stagnant wages and rising income inequality. This possibility has been ruled out of “elite” discourse.

    • JustData

      I’m not sure if any of this info will be of interest; it’s not comprehensive even for direct costs and includes no indirect costs nor opportunity costs at all. It does start to fill in the picture about the very high costs and who gets clobbered with those costs while the rich get richer faster.

      The CBO reports that Dems’ S.744 comprehensive amnesty drives down wages for at least a decade and drives up unemployment for most of a decade (from The Economic Impact of S.744… at http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44346-Immigration.pdf.
      Democrats and pro-illegal Repubs are making high unemployment and stagnant wages WORSE for American workers and American families. But those effects aren’t evenly distributed. Wages are driven down most on unskilled and low-skilled Americans -the working poor and working class- who are disproportionately minority.

      The report also notes that S.744 increases the return on capital for two decades, which means that those who have the capital to invest will make more on their money for the next 20 years. Passing the Dems’ S.744 would make the rich even richer even faster.
      (Exact quotes are provided at end of comment)

      The US Commission on Civil Rights reports that illegal immigration has had disastrous effects on working class Americans and particularly on Black workers. In fact, the USCCR report describes the effects of legal status plus family reunification as “economically devastating” to Black workers specifically.
      http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf
      TITLE: The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers
      “Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men” (p3).
      “Dr. Hanson‘s coauthored research suggested that a 10 percent immigrant-induced increase in the labor supply is associated with a 4 percent decrease in black wages, a 3.5 percent decrease in the black employment rate, and a 0.8 percent increase in the black incarceration rate” (p5).
      “Dr. Briggs stated that about 12 million illegal immigrants are currently in the U.S. labor market, … and that in his view, further legalization of such immigrants with family reunification would be economically devastating to low-wage workers of all races and black workers in particular” (p8).
      “Dr. Briggs also stated that the inflow of immigrants has resulted in low-skilled wages not rising over time. He viewed the reduction of both wages and jobs as a massive violation of the civil rights of all low-skilled workers, and of black workers in particular” (p9).
      “Dr. Briggs objected strongly to what he viewed as the use of public policy to drive down wages artificially. Dr. Jaynes agreed on that point, noting that this is indeed a civil rights issue, since such policy was being used to trample on the rights of all workers by driving down wages and avoiding employment rights…. Dr. Briggs responded that it was, since deliberate failure to enforce the law was responsible for the wage suppression, and such action was indefensible” (p13).

      The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments
      https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

      “In general, state and local governments bear much of the cost of providing certain public services—especially services related to education, health care, and law enforcement—to individuals residing in their jurisdictions. Such programs constitute a major portion of those governments’ annual expenditures…”

      “However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes.”

      P. 2 “In terms of public education, unauthorized immigrants who are minors increase the overall number of students attending public schools, and they may also require more educational services than do native-born children because of a lack of proficiency in English. Analyses from several states indicate that the costs of educating students who did not speak English fluently were 20 percent to 40 percent higher than the costs incurred for native-born students”

      QUOTES from CBO on S.744 amnesty (remember that this “solution” only cuts illegal immigration by about 25% according to the CBO; they’re literally making the illegal alien problem and stagnant wages problem permanent).

      “… which would pull down the average wage and per capita GNP; at at the same time, the income earned by capital would increase” (p4)
      “As the labor supply initially increased under the legislation … would reduce average wages relative to those under current law” (p5)
      “Wages would be lower than under current law through 2024” (p6).

      “Because the bill would increase the rate of growth of the labor force, average wages would be held down in the first decade after enactment… and therefore lower their wages, on average, relative to what would occur under current law” (p 7-8).

      “CBO estimates that S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020, relative to the rate projected under current law….” (p9).

      “That effect … would lead to an increase in the rate of return on investment in capital. According to CBO’s estimates, those rates of return would remain above current-law projections throughout the next two decades”(12).

      “CBO expects that the return on investment would remain above current-law projections throughout the next two decades” (p15).

      “CBO’s estimates of the additional budgetary impacts of S. 744 also account for other effects, such as how changes in the mix of labor income and capital income would affect revenues and how the estimated changes in workers’ relative wages would lead to slightly higher government transfer payments to low-income households (in the form of food assistance and medical benefits, for example) and slightly lower income tax revenues (16).
      http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44346-Immigration.pdf

      Amnesty drives down wages on honest American workers who are already struggling and who are disproportionately minority. Those low wages increase the return on capital which makes the rich even richer even faster.

      Now you know why multi-millionaires like Obama, Clintons, McCain, Warren, Pelosi, Schumer, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Gates, the Koch brothers and Wall Street all want amnesty so much.

  • Jim__L

    “UK leaders failed to do the hard work of building a broad-based
    consensus for the policies they were rolling out. When challenged, these
    same leaders often fell back to a posture of self-righteousness.”

    If these guys want to retain power in a democracy, *when challenged*, politicians should be willing to *change their own minds*.

    Sometimes to get a broad-based consensus for policies you have to CHANGE THE POLICIES.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service