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
The United States Is Not and Has Never Been a Nation of Immigrants
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
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

While the US is not and has never been a “nation of immigrants”, Israel was almost from the beginning. In the 1950s, around half–maybe more, it’s tough to tell with certainty–of those living in the country were immigrants. Still today a larger share Israel’s population is foreign-born than has ever been the case throughout the entire history of the US.

The following countries* also have larger immigrant population shares–right now, in 2017–than the US ever has at any time from 1776 to the present:
New Zealand
The United Arab Emirates
Hong Kong
Saudi Arabia

Parenthetically, while technically further refuting the “nation of immigrants” mendacity, this list largely serves rhetorical and polemical purposes.

Other things being equal, geographical size substantially factors into determining the population share of a country’s immigrants. If One Worlders had their way and the globe became a single political entity–called, say, the United Nations–the percentage of immigrants would drop to zero overnight. If the US dissolved into multiple countries, the immigrant share in each would likely (though not necessarily) be higher than was the immigrant share of the former United States as a whole.

That said, Canada is larger than the US and Australia is nearly the same size as the contiguous 48 states.

“Immigrant” is a political description and as such is of less importance than are cultural or identity descriptions. Identity is greater than culture and culture is greater than politics. Consequently, in addition to being inaccurate, referring to America as a “nation of immigrants” is ultimately a politically arbitrary designation. It’s importance is consequently limited and superficial in significance.

The culture and especially the identity of immigrants–or non-immigrants–is what matters. The immigrant in 1890 and the immigrant in 2017 have as much–or as little–in common as they have in shared–or unshared–culture and identity.

* Among countries with populations of at least one million people. The list gets substantial longer if smaller countries are included.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 15 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. "Nation of immigrants" is just another anti-white canard.

    The purpose of it is to say, "Your ancestors were immigrants, unless you're Native American, so therefore you have no right to complain about newcomers who uproot your culture and communities!"

    Of course, these same people don't use this arch-nativist argument when Muslims and Africans come to Europe. They come up with other reasons why Europeans have to make way for newcomers.

  2. You could say that post WW2 foreign policy is about knocking down every last obstacle (more or less) to rule by an cosmopolitan elite cabal whose tentacles are grown in shadowy quasi-private or pseudo-private Deep State outfits.

    There are so many layers and subtle (when taken out of context) manifestations of the whole system that it's difficult for some, to this day, to put two and tow together. What Western elites began to realize is that an insidiously "soft" form of tyranny and control, perpetrated by a variety of institutions ostensibly operating independently of each other (various governments, multi-nationals, the "intelligentsia", the press, etc.) is much better at creating an illusion of "freedom" and "democracy" than the open Statism of previous ideologies.

    The havoc inflicted by those who are sovereignty destroyers is now so terrible that more people are waking up. And yet…in our "democracy" any attempt to organize any kind of mass resistance to nation wrecking companies, governments, armies, campuses, etc. is scorned as barbaric tribalism. People are told that some of the unpleasant side-effects of diversity, mass human migration, etc. are just a part of life now that we have to accept. Prior to Trump's campaign, the worst treatment afforded to American dissidents was loss of employment/income (sometimes in entire sectors or regions) and a loss of social status. Now that Trumpism is greater than what was once anticipated, we're seeing more US liberals becoming more desirous of implementing hard control measures that other Western countries have resorted to using over the last 30 odd years. Like with Howard Dean saying that there ought to be limits to free speech.

    It strikes me that countries with greater population density, less of a history of cultural diversity, and greater extant per-capita populations of aliens had to restrict "hate-speech" faster. Canada is moderately repressive of hate speech. Canada is mostly Brit/Celtic and French, whereas America's whites are more diverse, and Canada which wasn't that big in population decided to let in a disproportionate number of aliens. Britain is tougher on hate speech than Canada, and in other respects Britain is to Canada what Canada is to the U.S.

    France is the most repressive of all, since a densely arranged group of quite homogeneous whites decided to let in massive numbers of aliens in the 70's and beyond. The friction was so obvious and immediate that the authorities had no choice but to tell whites to shut the fuck up, hoping that tension would not rise further if people kept their mouths shut. Already diverse America didn't feel the same shock from post 1965 immigration, and furthermore, America has ample breathing room to dissipate ethnic tensions (blacks chased whites out of many Eastern cities in the late 60's, but whites just decamped to the suburbs and/or the last remaining good neighborhoods in cities if they were rich and childless). When non-whites began infiltrating inner suburbs in the 90's, whites just built more rings of suburbs to alleviate potential conflict. French whites don't have this option.

    As any student of, um, authoritarianism understands, beating and jailing dissidents is a sure sign of a government (and it's proxies) that fears that it's inadequacies have created a restive populace that no longer buys what the elites are selling. The rich thing is that globalist psy-ops include massive levels of projection. Natives who reject elite policy that imposes alien people's and values across the land, often against the will of most natives, are accused of being "authoritarian" themselves. In fact, over the last 40 years, academics have developed a study of what they call "right-wing authoritarianism" to which only paranoid and ignorant whites adhere, in the minds of the elite who reject out of hand the idea that any land should remain unique.

  3. I am feeling very depressed right now. Is the wall ever going to get built? Trump made 1 promise. He was supposed to be this great negotiator. He is giving away a lot, and for what? Is he a …

  4. If people are not able to look at or touch the southern border wall for themselves by the 2020 election, Trump is not going to see a second term. No, people are not going to accept a "virtual wall" either.

    Also Trump and Sessions need to find a way to route around the Ninth Circuit. Surely they should have a fast track strategy to appeal to the SCOTUS. If they just sit on their hands and say "oh well" every time the ninth circuit intervenes, then Trump is going to have a hard time getting re-elected. Trump is supposed to be tenacious but so far I'm not really seeing it. It's three months in and all but it isn't going to get any easier from here.

  5. Sid,

    Our job is to mock and dismiss it by insinuating that anyone who would make such a blatantly stupid assertion is historically ignorant. They hate that.


    It's scorned, yes, but the scorning isn't as debilitating as it used to be. They're still yelling through the bullhorns about the emperor's exquisite clothes, but people in the crowd are texting each other about how he's naked, confirming the size of his junk, and pointing out that birthmark on his back. Control via soft power is becoming less viable.

    And while it's easy to fall into the trap of constitutional fetishism, it's hard to deny that our first amendment does matter vis a vis how much free speech is tolerated in the US compared to other Euro countries, not only legally but also in terms of informing the zeitgeist.


    That's my line in the sand. But I don't think he's going to let us down on this one.

    Random Dude,

    He's at least aware of these optic problems. Check out his tweets from today:

    Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the "ban" case and now the "sanctuary" case is brought in the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this "judge shopping!" Messy system. First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!

  6. No surprise that our host doubled down.

    "The following countries* also have larger immigrant population shares–right now, in 2017–than the US ever has at any time from 1776 to the present"

    The history of the United States has been continuous immigration. According to 2013 United Nations report by the United Nations, 19.8% of the world's immigrants live in the United States, having more immigrants than any other place in the world.

    Furthermore, 'immigrant" is a political and cultural descriptor. It is political because a government recognizes their legitimacy or illegitimacy, i.e. have they legally or illegally entered the nation? It is cultural because a government recognizes their ethnic background and may have quotas or prohibitions in place, i.e. a certain number of Russians are allowed into the nation, AND because that society recognizes a certain identity that reflects them, i.e. he speaks Portuguese, she eats borscht.

    "Identity is greater than culture and culture is greater than politics."

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion on this matter.

    "Consequently, in addition to being inaccurate, referring to America as a "nation of immigrants" is ultimately a politically arbitrary designation."

    Actually, when a government designates an immigrant as being legal or illegal, or able to enter the nation or prohibited from coming, there are specific criteria involved.

  7. Yes, there are glimmers of light.

    Hopefully the plan is to just start building. Homeland Security has a budget of $40 billion.

  8. Corvo,

    The history of the United States has been continuous immigration

    That doesn't characterize 1924-1965 well at all. Immigrant levels steadily declined from the 1930s through the mid-60s, for more than a generation.

    specific criteria involved

    That specific criteria is as arbitrary as are the political whims of the day.

  9. "And while it's easy to fall into the trap of constitutional fetishism, it's hard to deny that our first amendment does matter vis a vis how much free speech is tolerated in the US compared to other Euro countries, not only legally but also in terms of informing the zeitgeist. "

    I suppose you're right, to a degree, but in practice respect for dissent diminishes in periods of striving and cynicism. In the status secure period of 1940-1980, debate and dissent was handled with (relative) good faith. Americans reacted (rightfully so) with horror over the Kent State shootings, but by the 90's even the ostensible "Left" wing looked the other way when Clinton's minions slaughtered stubborn anti-government foes in Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    Agnostic has frequently talked about the excesses of the later 1800's and early 1900's, resulting from the cultural and political decay associated with high striving eras. Repression of speech and dissent seems to be a common excess of these periods.

    I tend to be of the view that especially in light of modern travel and communication, what affects one country isn't isolated to that country. So repression of speech is something that began to take hold across Western countries in the 80's, gaining momentum as time went on. By the mid-90's, everyone knew what PC was. Constitutionally, the 1st amendment theoretically ought to be a safeguard, but in the 90's, dissenting speakers and thinkers found themselves being cast out of institutions and branded as threats and too mentally/morally unsound to be heard in polite company. It's a far cry from the 60's, when G.I.s, Silents, and early Boomers believed in a free exchange of ideas and viewpoints and were eager to not be seen as heavy-handed enforcers of dogma.

    Losing one's job and social esteem are arguably almost as devastating as outright imprisonment, psychologically speaking. All of these things are damaging to one's status, which people are keenly aware of in high striving times when nobody wants to be a "loser".

    Writing off people, as individuals and as members of a whole groups, is much more common in high striving/status insecure eras. As is histrionic BS from orthodoxy enforcers.

    When Pat Buchanan famously launched the Culture War era in the early 90's, I think what he sensed was that America was splitting into roughly two groups who increasingly could not come to consensus on anything. Conservatives said that those who threatened religion, the nuclear family, and American hegemony could not be tolerated any longer, while liberals said that threats to civil rights, minorities, women, diversity, etc. were an evil to be vanquished.

    It may be hard to believe, but prior to high striving there was greater mutual respect between opponents, But it really isn't that surprising that a big motive for dissent crushing is one-upmanship over one's peers. Worth noting that within political/cultural movements, we started to see a lot more duplicity, bickering, bullying, lawsuits, etc. in the later 80's and especially 90's, which still happens to this day.

  10. Whose status, at least as measured by social esteem, is being threatened at the moment? Cultural elites. Young wannabe cultural elites on campuses (you don't make it to the big leagues until after college) are pissing and moaning about alt-righters sounding the alarm over the dangers of letting our current crop of elites continue to get their way.

    Stomping on lowly (at the moment) alt-righters is a show of force intended to put the losers back in their rightful place. Agnostic says that alt-right gatherings offer too much morale boosting to attendees and sympathetic onlookers. In a more equitable culture, each side would be more courteous and earnestly empathetic toward the other. Not the case these days, when each side utterly hates the other. Difference being that in the centers of cultural elitism, shitlibs got the power and aren't shy about it.

  11. "That doesn't characterize 1924-1965 well at all. Immigrant levels steadily declined from the 1930s through the mid-60s, for more than a generation."

    Of course there was ebb and flow in immigration. But overall in our nation's history it has been continuous. Another "hate fact".

    "That specific criteria is as arbitrary as are the political whims of the day."

    Going by your own metric, so is your statement how "the identity of immigrants is what matters [today]". javascript:void(0)
    Going by your own metric, so are ANY standards set forth by our government as to who is allowed or not allowed to enter our nation, including the criteria you tout.

  12. There is no such thing as a nation of immigrants(nor one of laws) because that simply isn't what a nation is.

  13. There is one thing different about Americans. Guns. Lots of privately owned firearms. Sure the trolls will all come out and shill about Martial Law, but THEY'RE LYING. Magic Mulatto woulda done it if he could. We all know the cucks would have given him a standing ovation if he did. Trump is buying time. His Reagan 2.0 act changed damn quick to Bush 3. Little Jebbie wouldn't have been coy, but little different at this point. They aren't immigrants at all. They're invaders. THEY DON'T HAVE THE TROOPS. They need dumb brown terrorists to do their dirty work. But these aren't (((their))) soldiers. That Brave New Wurld Disorder means NOTHING to these invaders. The Founding Fathers knew this would happen. They were fighting the Rothschild bankers too, you know. The Second Amendment was their prescription for when the Banker's Pawns and Whores destroyed the Rule of Law and Freedom they started.

  14. Corvo,

    "Continuous" doesn't imply consecutive decades of declines.

    Politically arbitrary does, given the context of my previous comments, imply those that are not based on either culture or identity, which are both of more fundamental importance than political designations are.

  15. "Continuous" doesn't imply consecutive decades of declines."

    There were immigrants coming to our nation even in lower numbers. As I correctly stated, continuous.

    "Politically arbitrary does, given the context of my previous comments, imply those that are not based on either culture or identity, which are both of more fundamental importance than political designations are."


Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS