The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Migration Begets Migration
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The idea that most immigrants come to the US hoping to leave the countries they hailed from behind and start anew in the land of opportunity isn’t one anyone much tries to push anymore. That’s for the better since it isn’t true. The deeper the roots, the more protective of the soil. The shallower the roots, the more they reclinate back to their native soil.

The following graph shows immigration restrictionism, calculated by taking the percentages of respondents who want immigration reduced and subtracting from it the percentages of respondents who want immigration increased, by the number of a respondent’s grandparents who were born outside of the US. For contemporary relevance, responses are from 2010 onward:

If a respondent has at least one grandparent born outside the US, he is at least to some degree a first- or second-generation American himself. If he goes native America First, he may well make grandparent cry.

GSS variables used: LETIN1A(1-2)(4-5), GRANBORN, YEAR(2010-2018)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: GSS, Immigration 
Hide 27 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is “my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people.”

    Derb is right: we are doomed.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Michael (((Medved))).  Do not underestimate his hate for you, goy.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard

    The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is “my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people.”
     
    There are people like this everywhere. "My father/wife/stepchild was an immigrant and they are good, productive people, therefore all immigrants are good, productive people."

    Some of them even get very enraged when you question this worldview.
    , @indocon
    (((Michael Medved))) along with (((Ben Shapiro))) and (((Dennis Prager))) are the biggest internal diseases in so called right side of the country.
  2. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is "my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people."

    Derb is right: we are doomed.

    Michael (((Medved))).  Do not underestimate his hate for you, goy.

  3. Wow. I am weird.

    My reasoning goes:

    1. Simply because my grandparents weren’t born here has no relevance on the optimal numbers of immigrants to the country.
    2. It’s hypocritical, sure, but I don’t see why I should vote for something that’s bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?

    • Agree: Herbert West
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?"

    I don't know...maybe it would be pointless since you set a bad example and all. I mean, I smoke cigars, and I encourage others to stay the hell out of my humidor, but otherwise I pretty much just let 'em buck.

    , @Rosie

    2. It’s hypocritical, sure, but I don’t see why I should vote for something that’s bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?
     
    How far back does that go? All the way back to the Mayflower, I assume. According to these people, Whites are never native to any place, not even the British Isles or the Scandinavian peninsula, and if none other than Whites have ever lived in a place, that won't matter either. They'll just say we're already mixed because different groups of Whites got together and had babies or something. There will always be an excuse.
    , @Herbert West
    I think the same way.

    “My grandpa, right or wrong”?

    One of my immigrant great-grandfathers was an anarchist-communist type, another spent time in prison. Objectively, they were exactly the kinds of people the 1921 and 1924 immigration acts meant to exclude from America. I guess that means I’m never supposed to favor any immigration restrictions, because... uh, help me out here, someone?

    It certainly doesn’t make me a hypocrite: I’m not an immigrant, I never made any decision to leave my country for somewhere else, and I’m not traveling around to countries that don’t want me there demanding to be let in (and also demanding subsidized housing, child care, affirmative action, etc).

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.

    The unprincipled, selfish stance is whatever is best for yourself. Unless your grandparents are in danger of being deported (say, for being illegal aliens) then I really can’t see why they are relevant to the matter.
  4. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is "my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people."

    Derb is right: we are doomed.

    The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is “my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people.”

    There are people like this everywhere. “My father/wife/stepchild was an immigrant and they are good, productive people, therefore all immigrants are good, productive people.”

    Some of them even get very enraged when you question this worldview.

  5. @SFG
    Wow. I am weird.

    My reasoning goes:

    1. Simply because my grandparents weren't born here has no relevance on the optimal numbers of immigrants to the country.
    2. It's hypocritical, sure, but I don't see why I should vote for something that's bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?

    “If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?”

    I don’t know…maybe it would be pointless since you set a bad example and all. I mean, I smoke cigars, and I encourage others to stay the hell out of my humidor, but otherwise I pretty much just let ’em buck.

  6. Recalculate this by race. Some of us have Canadian/European grandparents.

  7. I’m a foreign-born US citizen that’s half Scottish half Polish. I read that European immigrants make up less than 15% of the whole peer group. Out of that, I wonder how many vote Republican and are conservative Christians. My very existence seems to go against the (current) grain. But statistics don’t lie, and I know I’m not a real American. And neither are any other people whose ancestors didn’t contribute substantially to America’s founding culture.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The percentage of people who refer to themselves as ethnically "American" is in the single digits. I should do a post on their stats.
  8. There was a time when America needed immigrants. Now, with close to 325 million souls residing here, we need to consider putting out a “no vacancy” sign. The environmentalists sure dropped the ball on this issue. A crowded America is a polluted America. And the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English. We need to stop stealing these talented young folks from third world countries that need them.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    When was that?
    , @Mr. Rational

    the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English.
     
    You forgot "whose jobs will shortly be eliminated by robots."
  9. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    The supposed conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved is a great example of this. His approach to immigration is "my grandfather was an immigrant, and he was a nice person, therefore all immigrants are nice people."

    Derb is right: we are doomed.

    (((Michael Medved))) along with (((Ben Shapiro))) and (((Dennis Prager))) are the biggest internal diseases in so called right side of the country.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Magic Dirt Resident
    Don't forget about (((Mark Levin))) and (((Michael Savage)))
  10. @Hannah Katz
    There was a time when America needed immigrants. Now, with close to 325 million souls residing here, we need to consider putting out a "no vacancy" sign. The environmentalists sure dropped the ball on this issue. A crowded America is a polluted America. And the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English. We need to stop stealing these talented young folks from third world countries that need them.

    When was that?

    • Replies: @216
    10,000 B.C. ?

    Otoh, given megafauna extinction, maybe not.
  11. @Hannah Katz
    There was a time when America needed immigrants. Now, with close to 325 million souls residing here, we need to consider putting out a "no vacancy" sign. The environmentalists sure dropped the ball on this issue. A crowded America is a polluted America. And the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English. We need to stop stealing these talented young folks from third world countries that need them.

    the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English.

    You forgot “whose jobs will shortly be eliminated by robots.”

    • Replies: @216
    The upcoming recession will be an interesting impact on automation trends:

    Will it:

    -Increase unemployment, thus lowering real wages and creating a disincentive to adopt automation, augmented by the Regime granting amnesty to tens of millions

    or

    -Convince employers that automation is the only way to stay solvent, augmented by the Warren Occupation raising minimum wage to above 15/hr

    High inflation also discourages capital investment, and its plausible that inflation will return with a vengance, meaning higher interest rates.

    We can generally state that automation seems inevitable, as some developed countries like Japan are unable to access mounds of cheap labor due to linguistic difficulties, geography and/or bureaucratic wrangling.

    Once the "burger robot" is mass produceable, and able to adapt to a variety of burger sizes, we should expect its rapid adoption across the developed world. Current robots seem to be unable to modify the types of burger, and are too bespoke.
  12. @Mr. Rational

    the last thing we need are unskilled, uneducated, illiterate young men who do not speak English.
     
    You forgot "whose jobs will shortly be eliminated by robots."

    The upcoming recession will be an interesting impact on automation trends:

    Will it:

    -Increase unemployment, thus lowering real wages and creating a disincentive to adopt automation, augmented by the Regime granting amnesty to tens of millions

    or

    -Convince employers that automation is the only way to stay solvent, augmented by the Warren Occupation raising minimum wage to above 15/hr

    High inflation also discourages capital investment, and its plausible that inflation will return with a vengance, meaning higher interest rates.

    We can generally state that automation seems inevitable, as some developed countries like Japan are unable to access mounds of cheap labor due to linguistic difficulties, geography and/or bureaucratic wrangling.

    Once the “burger robot” is mass produceable, and able to adapt to a variety of burger sizes, we should expect its rapid adoption across the developed world. Current robots seem to be unable to modify the types of burger, and are too bespoke.

  13. @MikeatMikedotMike
    When was that?

    10,000 B.C. ?

    Otoh, given megafauna extinction, maybe not.

  14. @indocon
    (((Michael Medved))) along with (((Ben Shapiro))) and (((Dennis Prager))) are the biggest internal diseases in so called right side of the country.

    Don’t forget about (((Mark Levin))) and (((Michael Savage)))

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Michael Savage was pushing "borders, language, culture" twenty years ago. As far as mainstream media personalities go, he is about the best there is. Unfair to group him in with the rest.
  15. Seems like a good time to remind everyone that the 1965 immigration act was passed by the children and grandchildren of late 19th/early 20th century immigrants.

    • Replies: @216
    The Acts in 1986, and particularly 1990, were arguably more devastating. Also the refugee act of 1980.

    The principle of chain migration actually precedes the 1965 Act, 1952 iirc.

    The key point remains that the GOP establishment knows the math, but upon gaining a trifecta three times (2002, 2004, 2016) , chose not to pass any restrictions.

    By comparison, the feckless UK Conservative Party has actually done more at least in terms of legislation.
  16. @SFG
    Wow. I am weird.

    My reasoning goes:

    1. Simply because my grandparents weren't born here has no relevance on the optimal numbers of immigrants to the country.
    2. It's hypocritical, sure, but I don't see why I should vote for something that's bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?

    2. It’s hypocritical, sure, but I don’t see why I should vote for something that’s bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?

    How far back does that go? All the way back to the Mayflower, I assume. According to these people, Whites are never native to any place, not even the British Isles or the Scandinavian peninsula, and if none other than Whites have ever lived in a place, that won’t matter either. They’ll just say we’re already mixed because different groups of Whites got together and had babies or something. There will always be an excuse.

    • Replies: @216
    The left has never been forced to pick between "indigenous rights" and "immigrant rights". Its only possible when the "indigenous" are few in number and living in remote areas.

    Leftist politicians are generally reluctant to admit that the support for mass immigration is rooted in "colonial reparations" and "climate reparations". They won't do this until they are certain of victory, but some activists and academics down the chain will say this.

    The idea that we aren't native anywhere is just hair-splitting, confusing just enough moderates until they can consolidate power.
  17. @SFG
    Wow. I am weird.

    My reasoning goes:

    1. Simply because my grandparents weren't born here has no relevance on the optimal numbers of immigrants to the country.
    2. It's hypocritical, sure, but I don't see why I should vote for something that's bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?

    I think the same way.

    “My grandpa, right or wrong”?

    One of my immigrant great-grandfathers was an anarchist-communist type, another spent time in prison. Objectively, they were exactly the kinds of people the 1921 and 1924 immigration acts meant to exclude from America. I guess that means I’m never supposed to favor any immigration restrictions, because… uh, help me out here, someone?

    It certainly doesn’t make me a hypocrite: I’m not an immigrant, I never made any decision to leave my country for somewhere else, and I’m not traveling around to countries that don’t want me there demanding to be let in (and also demanding subsidized housing, child care, affirmative action, etc).

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.

    The unprincipled, selfish stance is whatever is best for yourself. Unless your grandparents are in danger of being deported (say, for being illegal aliens) then I really can’t see why they are relevant to the matter.

    • Replies: @216

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.
     
    Liberals are very adept at using conservative-sounding rhetoric on the immigration issue. By contrast, conservatives tend to use liberal-themed rhetoric on the abortion issue, to the detriment of the wider cause.

    What I mean here by "rhetoric" is that they like saying things like "we have a proud tradition of welcoming refugees". Appealing to family ties is also a traditionally conservative principle.

    To liberals, family and tradition are largely irrelevant, as they obstruct the idea of autonomous individuals.

    This has considerable power among certain "white ethnics". When a Kennedy is demanding more immigration, they always mention their ancestors (though normally ignoring that Kennedys have been upper class since the late 19th century).

    They also like emphasizing military service (generally low), and entrepreneurialism (rather high, but misleading).

    It also shows up internationally, where Europeans are told they can't oppose immigration because people from country x moved to US/Canada/Australia.

    The actual leftist position is based in the abstract idea of the "human right of free movement", and the concrete demand of "colonial reparations". But these don't test well, as the Labour Party in the UK is likely to find out next month.
  18. @Rosie

    2. It’s hypocritical, sure, but I don’t see why I should vote for something that’s bad for the country to avoid being hypocritical. If I smoke, should I not encourage others to quit?
     
    How far back does that go? All the way back to the Mayflower, I assume. According to these people, Whites are never native to any place, not even the British Isles or the Scandinavian peninsula, and if none other than Whites have ever lived in a place, that won't matter either. They'll just say we're already mixed because different groups of Whites got together and had babies or something. There will always be an excuse.

    The left has never been forced to pick between “indigenous rights” and “immigrant rights”. Its only possible when the “indigenous” are few in number and living in remote areas.

    Leftist politicians are generally reluctant to admit that the support for mass immigration is rooted in “colonial reparations” and “climate reparations”. They won’t do this until they are certain of victory, but some activists and academics down the chain will say this.

    The idea that we aren’t native anywhere is just hair-splitting, confusing just enough moderates until they can consolidate power.

    • Agree: Rosie
  19. @Herbert West
    I think the same way.

    “My grandpa, right or wrong”?

    One of my immigrant great-grandfathers was an anarchist-communist type, another spent time in prison. Objectively, they were exactly the kinds of people the 1921 and 1924 immigration acts meant to exclude from America. I guess that means I’m never supposed to favor any immigration restrictions, because... uh, help me out here, someone?

    It certainly doesn’t make me a hypocrite: I’m not an immigrant, I never made any decision to leave my country for somewhere else, and I’m not traveling around to countries that don’t want me there demanding to be let in (and also demanding subsidized housing, child care, affirmative action, etc).

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.

    The unprincipled, selfish stance is whatever is best for yourself. Unless your grandparents are in danger of being deported (say, for being illegal aliens) then I really can’t see why they are relevant to the matter.

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.

    Liberals are very adept at using conservative-sounding rhetoric on the immigration issue. By contrast, conservatives tend to use liberal-themed rhetoric on the abortion issue, to the detriment of the wider cause.

    What I mean here by “rhetoric” is that they like saying things like “we have a proud tradition of welcoming refugees”. Appealing to family ties is also a traditionally conservative principle.

    To liberals, family and tradition are largely irrelevant, as they obstruct the idea of autonomous individuals.

    This has considerable power among certain “white ethnics”. When a Kennedy is demanding more immigration, they always mention their ancestors (though normally ignoring that Kennedys have been upper class since the late 19th century).

    They also like emphasizing military service (generally low), and entrepreneurialism (rather high, but misleading).

    It also shows up internationally, where Europeans are told they can’t oppose immigration because people from country x moved to US/Canada/Australia.

    The actual leftist position is based in the abstract idea of the “human right of free movement”, and the concrete demand of “colonial reparations”. But these don’t test well, as the Labour Party in the UK is likely to find out next month.

    • Replies: @Herbert West

    What I mean here by “rhetoric” is that they like saying things like “we have a proud tradition of welcoming refugees”. Appealing to family ties is also a traditionally conservative principle
     
    Like Obama and his “that’s not who we are” line. So true.
  20. @EddieK
    I'm a foreign-born US citizen that's half Scottish half Polish. I read that European immigrants make up less than 15% of the whole peer group. Out of that, I wonder how many vote Republican and are conservative Christians. My very existence seems to go against the (current) grain. But statistics don't lie, and I know I'm not a real American. And neither are any other people whose ancestors didn't contribute substantially to America's founding culture.

    The percentage of people who refer to themselves as ethnically “American” is in the single digits. I should do a post on their stats.

    • Replies: @SFG
    According to the map I've seen, they're basically Appalachian Scotch-Irish:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ancestry#/media/File:American1346.gif
    , @EddieK
    Ah yes, the famed Scots-Irish, Borderdwellers, Anglo mixed Southern, old-stockers for the most part. Maybe I should claim "American Ancestry" ;)

    I would say though that those large self-identifying "German" swathes in the midwest are fairly assimilated now (maybe that wasn't the case 100 years ago). For many, all that's left of their "Deutschness" is a non-English surname and a propensity to drink beer on a certain date in October.
    ----
    RE: Michael Savage, his "borders, language, culture" mantra should be the bare minimum for maintaining America (as it was after the Ellis Island era); nowadays some 64 million US residents speak a foreign language at home. 9% of US residents speak English less than "very well". that's over 30 million people.

  21. @Magic Dirt Resident
    Don't forget about (((Mark Levin))) and (((Michael Savage)))

    Michael Savage was pushing “borders, language, culture” twenty years ago. As far as mainstream media personalities go, he is about the best there is. Unfair to group him in with the rest.

    • Agree: Rosie
  22. @216

    The principled stance to take is determined by whatever one’s principles are. The immigration status of your grandparent is irrelevant to the question.
     
    Liberals are very adept at using conservative-sounding rhetoric on the immigration issue. By contrast, conservatives tend to use liberal-themed rhetoric on the abortion issue, to the detriment of the wider cause.

    What I mean here by "rhetoric" is that they like saying things like "we have a proud tradition of welcoming refugees". Appealing to family ties is also a traditionally conservative principle.

    To liberals, family and tradition are largely irrelevant, as they obstruct the idea of autonomous individuals.

    This has considerable power among certain "white ethnics". When a Kennedy is demanding more immigration, they always mention their ancestors (though normally ignoring that Kennedys have been upper class since the late 19th century).

    They also like emphasizing military service (generally low), and entrepreneurialism (rather high, but misleading).

    It also shows up internationally, where Europeans are told they can't oppose immigration because people from country x moved to US/Canada/Australia.

    The actual leftist position is based in the abstract idea of the "human right of free movement", and the concrete demand of "colonial reparations". But these don't test well, as the Labour Party in the UK is likely to find out next month.

    What I mean here by “rhetoric” is that they like saying things like “we have a proud tradition of welcoming refugees”. Appealing to family ties is also a traditionally conservative principle

    Like Obama and his “that’s not who we are” line. So true.

  23. @Magic Dirt Resident
    Seems like a good time to remind everyone that the 1965 immigration act was passed by the children and grandchildren of late 19th/early 20th century immigrants.

    The Acts in 1986, and particularly 1990, were arguably more devastating. Also the refugee act of 1980.

    The principle of chain migration actually precedes the 1965 Act, 1952 iirc.

    The key point remains that the GOP establishment knows the math, but upon gaining a trifecta three times (2002, 2004, 2016) , chose not to pass any restrictions.

    By comparison, the feckless UK Conservative Party has actually done more at least in terms of legislation.

  24. @Audacious Epigone
    The percentage of people who refer to themselves as ethnically "American" is in the single digits. I should do a post on their stats.

    According to the map I’ve seen, they’re basically Appalachian Scotch-Irish:

  25. Perhaps true, but not relevant.

    Post-1970 third-world immigration into the United States serves one purpose: to drive wages down, and rents and profits up.

    The second that the rich decide that it is not in their interest to continue the massive influx of people, immigration will be stopped dead, just like it was after the 1929 crash (NOT 1924, thank you very much – you don’t think this has anything to do with the popular will, do you?). Until such time, the influx of third-world refugees will continue, driven by the crushing poverty and strife that always comes when people try to have more children than they can reasonably provide for, and backed up up by their potentially limitless numbers.

    Cheap labor über alles.

  26. “Cheap labor . . . .”

    And in the long run, the way we apply immigration “cheap labor” is never as cheap as its advertised. And I think your comment suggests as much —

    minus the “uber alles”

    English as the national required language

    I agree

  27. @Audacious Epigone
    The percentage of people who refer to themselves as ethnically "American" is in the single digits. I should do a post on their stats.

    Ah yes, the famed Scots-Irish, Borderdwellers, Anglo mixed Southern, old-stockers for the most part. Maybe I should claim “American Ancestry” 😉

    I would say though that those large self-identifying “German” swathes in the midwest are fairly assimilated now (maybe that wasn’t the case 100 years ago). For many, all that’s left of their “Deutschness” is a non-English surname and a propensity to drink beer on a certain date in October.
    —-
    RE: Michael Savage, his “borders, language, culture” mantra should be the bare minimum for maintaining America (as it was after the Ellis Island era); nowadays some 64 million US residents speak a foreign language at home. 9% of US residents speak English less than “very well”. that’s over 30 million people.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS