The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Since "Chain Migration" Is Racist, Let's Call It "Blood Migration"
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

From the New York Times:

The Facts Behind the Weaponized Phrase ‘Chain Migration’
By LINDA QIU JAN. 26, 2018

As Congress considers a deal to provide relief for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, President Trump and his Republican allies are demanding an end to what they call “chain migration,” or family-based immigration.

The term itself has become a point of contention. Democrats and immigration advocates claim it is a pejorative phrase that demeans recent arrivals. Republicans argue it’s a useful shorthand for family sponsorship. …

“Chain migration” was originally a neutral, if not dry, phrase used by academics to describe the immigration process. …

In scholarship, the term appears to have emerged in the 1960s before tapering off in recent years, and even being eclipsed by the more recently established “family reunification.”

But popular use of the older phrase has skyrocketed. According to Google Trends search data, there were only modest spikes in user queries while immigration policies were debated in 2005 and 2015, before a spike in December 2017.

Why the sudden uptick?

The White House and allies have deployed the phrase to label existing policy they find undesirable. In talking points and white papers, they have stated a preference for a merit-based system while labeling the current sponsorship process as “chain migration.”

Democrats, meanwhile, prefer the term “family reunification” and say the practice is a reflection of American values.

The Trump Administration is emphasizing nuclear family reunification, while the Democrats want to preserve “clan reunification” or “tribal reunification.” They should call it “blood migration” for privilege blood relatives. It’s a “blood and no soil” immigration system.

Discussing DACA negotiations on Jan. 12, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, called the term “offensive.” Though he has actually used it himself as recently as 2010 — a time when it appeared to be less of a loaded phrase between the two political parties.

Let’s not mention Durbin’s hilariously stupid rationalization for calling “chain migration” “offensive.” From iSteve:

Durbin continued: “When it came to the issue of, quote, ‘chain migration,’ I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe they migrated to America in chains and when you talk about chain migration, it hurts them personally.

[Trump] said, ‘Oh, that’s a good line.’”

Back to the NYT:

Leo Chavez, a professor at the University of California at Irvine who studies media representations of immigration, said he had seldom heard ”chain migration” in public discourse until the debate over immigration intensified in the last few months.

It’s almost as if the public is learning more about the subject of immigration policy and is learning to speak of more sophisticated concepts such as “chain migration,” rather than just the usual lowbrow schmaltz about Muh Huddled Masses.

“It’s an attempt to sway public opinion,” Mr. Chavez said, adding that the once-scholarly term has taken on negative connotations as “if it’s a conspiracy, a plot, a threat to the changing demographics.”

Obviously, no Democrats ever speak among themselves about how immigration policy can used for their benefit to tilt future elections in their favor. They are not trying to change demographics. That’s a conspiracy theory! Instead, there’s just “the changing demographics” which don’t have anything to do with people like Durbin, Schumer, and Gutierrez.

Try to keep this straight, people: “climate change” requires massive policy changes. “Demographic change” is just a fact of nature like gravity. Nothing nobody can do nuthin’ about, except we’ve been talking and have a few ideas for how to speed it up to elect more Democrats.

It is not unlike “anchor baby,” “the browning of America” or even “Dreamers,” on the flip side, Mr. Chavez said.

“or even “Dreamers” … No, there’s nothing “weaponized” about Dreamers, it’s a traditional usage going back to the Preamble of the Constitution:

We the Dreamers not of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Non-Americans are who we are as Americans.

 
• Tags: Sapir-Whorf 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Why stop there, Linda Qiu?

    Why not go full throttle to “DNA migration”?

    Then mebbe we can start putting empirical data to human movement trends instead of all this postmodern poetical religiosocial political rhetoric.

    And mebbe even start to model the DNA migration politics and interests behind the DNA migration phenomenon of global people trafficking.

  2. Jonathan Alter recently tweeted about the need to refrain from calling chain migration ‘chain migration’. Now this NYT piece does the same. Internal polling must be showing them that chain migration is not a winning issue for their side.

    Recommendation: Continue to use chain migration in the immigration debate.

    • Agree: syonredux
  3. They want America to be a “world country,” the country where everyone goes when the going gets tough; they never even think about the source countries. For example, I don’t think reform in El Salvador is possible, however, because 1/2 the country is already in the US. Who is going to fight for reform? Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can’t other countries do the same?

    No one ever seems to focus on the seemingly little known ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for disbursing refugees all over this great land. How do they make these decisions? What are the criteria? Does anyone know, indeed, is it even possible to know?

    I’m also constantly amazed how the R’s never try and make the D’s eat their own cooking. I mean the D’s put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don’t the R’s force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @ASF


    why don’t the R’s force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees.
     
    Because the R's who are member of Congress and the people who fund their political campaigns live in those neighborhoods too. I don't doubt when Steve King retires from Congress he is going to move back to his farm in Iowa, but that is the exception to the rule. Most of them stay in Washington permanently and don't return to their home state. Most of the R's aren't on their voters side on this issue, a few have slowly adapted due to voter anger, but they still think they can get away with "demographic change."
    , @Samuel Skinner
    @ASF


    Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can’t other countries do the same?
     
    Because they killed all the native in Costa Rica but slept with them in the rest of Central America.

    I’m also constantly amazed how the R’s never try and make the D’s eat their own cooking. I mean the D’s put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don’t the R’s force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.
     
    For the same reason why Democratic regions are able to remove their blacks and dump them in Republican regions- the left controls the permanent government.
    , @Travis
    @ASF

    all the sanctuary cities should be forced to accept all the refugees...

    , @Redman
    @ASF

    Word up! Nothing like some old fashioned NIMBY on the elites in blue states to get them to snap to attention.

    As a resident (in exile) of a very blue town in a very blue county outside of NYC (i.e. Westchester), I can say that nothing drives these people crazier than suggesting they live near some of the more diverse. Or send their dear children to a school a little more diverse, like the ones they fled from in NYC.

  4. The Trump Administration is emphasizing nuclear family reunification, while the Democrats want to preserve “clan reunification” or “tribal reunification.” They should call it “blood migration” for privilege blood relatives. It’s a “blood and no soil” immigration system.

    I kinda like “tribal migation.” Although “national migration” also has a nice ring. And we could always revive Völkerwanderung….

    It is not unlike “anchor baby,” “the browning of America” or even “Dreamers,” on the flip side, Mr. Chavez said.

    One of the reasons why I go with “alien minors.” Hey, it’s part of the DREAM act acronym….

  5. I like calling it concatenate migration. Definitely unremarkable, except for the few Latin scholars who’ll note that the root of concatenate is catena, meaning chain.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    @Tipsy

    Intersectionality could lead to con catamite migration.

  6. With communication instant and nearly free, the sending of money easy, and air travel fast and cheap compared to even fifty years ago, what reasonable grounds are there for chain migration?

    Let the lucky visa winners visit their family at the home country, send them money and blow them Skype kisses. Aren’t the home country families blessed enough by that? Why does all the good fortune accrue by chain migration to those who already have some good fortune via relatives in the US?

    Or you could take a more hard-line, nativist, what’s in it for us and our posterity, our first duty is to our own citizens attitude, as every non-Western nation does, but if you thieving, preening, barren bastards have to be profligate with your inheritance and my children’s inheritance – sprinkle it about Bangladesh and Nigeria, don’t pour it out on a few clans.

  7. @ASF
    They want America to be a "world country," the country where everyone goes when the going gets tough; they never even think about the source countries. For example, I don't think reform in El Salvador is possible, however, because 1/2 the country is already in the US. Who is going to fight for reform? Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can't other countries do the same?

    No one ever seems to focus on the seemingly little known ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for disbursing refugees all over this great land. How do they make these decisions? What are the criteria? Does anyone know, indeed, is it even possible to know?

    I'm also constantly amazed how the R's never try and make the D's eat their own cooking. I mean the D's put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don't the R's force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Samuel Skinner, @Travis, @Redman

    why don’t the R’s force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees.

    Because the R’s who are member of Congress and the people who fund their political campaigns live in those neighborhoods too. I don’t doubt when Steve King retires from Congress he is going to move back to his farm in Iowa, but that is the exception to the rule. Most of them stay in Washington permanently and don’t return to their home state. Most of the R’s aren’t on their voters side on this issue, a few have slowly adapted due to voter anger, but they still think they can get away with “demographic change.”

  8. Ms. Qiu and Mr. Chavez just might have a personal interest in keeping the current ‘chain migration’ going. There are still lots of people in Latin America, Africa and Asia who could fulfil their dreams in the land of plenty, around 7 billion people.

    Based on the last 30-years of data, a simple calculation suggests that 3-5% of those 7 billion are only two nodes in the chain away from landing in US (in-laws, siblings, cousins, aunts…). That would be 200-350 million new immigrants (legal). Of course only a percentage of them will take advantage of this opportunity, so maybe only 50-100 million would actually come.

    The logic of chain migration says that the 3-5% sponsorship based on the blood chain is permanent. Only the domain over which it is applied grows as new migrants in turn make their relatives eligible. And so on, and so on…

    Maybe Dick Durbin just likes crowds. Or has no interest or concept of the future. In any case, unless the Almighty intervenes, in two generations United States will have 500 to 700 million people, mostly of recent Third World origin. Good luck.

    • Replies: @bomag
    @Beckow


    in two generations United States will have 500 to 700 million people, mostly of recent Third World origin
     
    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

    Durbin sounds like the guy that arranged all this.

    , @Anonymous
    @Beckow

    Once the economy collapses and the vast majority have third or fourth world living standards, immigration will cease. There will be a die off, and the population will level off. We will be like South American countries.

    Replies: @Beckow

  9. @ASF
    They want America to be a "world country," the country where everyone goes when the going gets tough; they never even think about the source countries. For example, I don't think reform in El Salvador is possible, however, because 1/2 the country is already in the US. Who is going to fight for reform? Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can't other countries do the same?

    No one ever seems to focus on the seemingly little known ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for disbursing refugees all over this great land. How do they make these decisions? What are the criteria? Does anyone know, indeed, is it even possible to know?

    I'm also constantly amazed how the R's never try and make the D's eat their own cooking. I mean the D's put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don't the R's force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Samuel Skinner, @Travis, @Redman

    Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can’t other countries do the same?

    Because they killed all the native in Costa Rica but slept with them in the rest of Central America.

    I’m also constantly amazed how the R’s never try and make the D’s eat their own cooking. I mean the D’s put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don’t the R’s force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    For the same reason why Democratic regions are able to remove their blacks and dump them in Republican regions- the left controls the permanent government.

  10. And we could always revive Völkerwanderung…

    You beat me to it, this is what it really is and what it really should be called.

  11. Chain Migration: If only there were actual chains involved!

    How about Hole in the Dike Migration?

  12. When the Left is losing, they very often start to try to control the language and suddenly make certain words either verboten or change meaning. Hence why now, clearly losing on the immigration issue, they are desperate to force everyone on the other side to stop saying obvious phrases that can be easily googled and studied in history and therefore everyone can see the strong national borders guys are right.

    Newspeak is their idea. make something unthinkable by removing the words/meaning of it. Sapir-Whorf?

    Now the Left will do this language policing when starting an offensive, too, but they do it this desperately in the midst of a losing battle.

    This means we’re winning. They’ve lost the moral high ground, the momentum, and the statistical arguments. They’ve taken to trying to sabotage our tanks.

    Fire again!

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  13. @ASF
    They want America to be a "world country," the country where everyone goes when the going gets tough; they never even think about the source countries. For example, I don't think reform in El Salvador is possible, however, because 1/2 the country is already in the US. Who is going to fight for reform? Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can't other countries do the same?

    No one ever seems to focus on the seemingly little known ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for disbursing refugees all over this great land. How do they make these decisions? What are the criteria? Does anyone know, indeed, is it even possible to know?

    I'm also constantly amazed how the R's never try and make the D's eat their own cooking. I mean the D's put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don't the R's force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Samuel Skinner, @Travis, @Redman

    all the sanctuary cities should be forced to accept all the refugees…

  14. Linda Qiu is an Asian who wants to swamp the United States with non-White foreigners. Linda Qiu is an anti-White agitator who writes anti-White propaganda for the New York Times. Linda Qiu supports the use of weaponized mass immigration as a means of attacking the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    This lady is more to my liking:

  15. OT
    Shooting in Netherland, still waiting for details. Betting on “a mentally ill person who just happens to be from a historically majority Muslim country, but not terrorism.”

  16. Democrats, meanwhile, prefer the term “family reunification” and say the practice is a reflection of American values.

    If it’s not a serial migration, long known as chain migration, they could be reunited with their families, clans and tribes by going back home. That would preserve American values and help their own people prosper.

  17. Don’t speak of the immigrant’s pain;
    He came here for greed and for gain.
    ‘Twill be “Anchors Away!”
    On that bright sunny day
    When America breaks from her chain.

  18. @Tipsy
    I like calling it concatenate migration. Definitely unremarkable, except for the few Latin scholars who'll note that the root of concatenate is catena, meaning chain.

    Replies: @Ivy

    Intersectionality could lead to con catamite migration.

  19. Let’s also call it something else that it is: unequal rights under the law. The essence of chain migration is that it gives more say over who gets to come to the US to immigrants than it gives to native born citizens. My ancestors were all in this country prior to the Civil War. I have no relatives I fan sponsor. But Achmed from Oman can sponsor all 15 of his brothers and sisters (or “brother” and “sisters”) and I have no legal right to object and if I do will be called a racist. FTS.

  20. “In scholarship, the term appears to have emerged in the 1960s before tapering off in recent years, and even being eclipsed by the more recently established “family reunification.””

    I’ll let them use “family reunification” in place of “chain migration” if they let us replace “immigration to the US” with “tearing families apart.” Think of all the families we’re tearing apart by allowing in a million immigrants a year. Think of the tens of millions of aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, grandparents, and third cousins twice removed who are left behind because we let immigrants move to the US and thus “tear their families apart.”

  21. Call it “polymer migration.”

    Or “infinite loop migration.”

    “Welcome to the United States. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? If yes, bring them in. If no, that’s impossible; you must have a cousin somewhere.”

    “Welcome relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in.”

    “Welcome relatives of relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in.”

    “Welcome relatives of relatives of relatives…”

    It won’t take too many iterations to get to all 7.5 billion cousins of cousins of cousins in the world…

    • Replies: @academic gossip
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "Recursive migration" or even "fractal migration".

    Passports within passports.

    "Divine Right of Migrants".

    "It's migrants all the way down."

    , @academic gossip
    @Buzz Mohawk

    "Russian doll migration"

  22. I can certainly appreciate the Democrats’ displeasure at the substitution of the emotionally loaded word “chain” for the emotionally neutral “family”. But we already have a term for benefitting from family connections – why not “nepotistic immigration”?

  23. Getting better traction in the snow by putting chains on your tires (which are black) is racist, because it’s putting blacks in chains. Further instances of the racism of the word “chain” in a ruling dominance hierarchy are found in mathematics, with its “chain rule” for computing derivatives in calculus and for computing probabilities.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_rule_(probability)

  24. @ASF
    They want America to be a "world country," the country where everyone goes when the going gets tough; they never even think about the source countries. For example, I don't think reform in El Salvador is possible, however, because 1/2 the country is already in the US. Who is going to fight for reform? Central America has a good governance model in Costa Rica, why can't other countries do the same?

    No one ever seems to focus on the seemingly little known ORR, Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for disbursing refugees all over this great land. How do they make these decisions? What are the criteria? Does anyone know, indeed, is it even possible to know?

    I'm also constantly amazed how the R's never try and make the D's eat their own cooking. I mean the D's put refugees in all kinds of red places, why don't the R's force the rich white regions of this land to take refugees. I guarantee that if you make Bethesda Chevy-Chase high school take a sizable portion of Somali children, the eruption from the white homeowners in the area may rival Mount Vesuvius.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Samuel Skinner, @Travis, @Redman

    Word up! Nothing like some old fashioned NIMBY on the elites in blue states to get them to snap to attention.

    As a resident (in exile) of a very blue town in a very blue county outside of NYC (i.e. Westchester), I can say that nothing drives these people crazier than suggesting they live near some of the more diverse. Or send their dear children to a school a little more diverse, like the ones they fled from in NYC.

  25. Why don’t we just jump to the end of the euphemism carousel now and call it “warm and fuzzy migration”?

  26. Anonymous [AKA "Stephen Marld"] says:

    “Dreamers” is hilarious because it refers to the Dream Act, which never passed. The act in question — well, it’s an executive action, not a lawl — is DACA. So we could call them Dackers, not Dreamers.

  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Obviously, no Democrats ever speak among themselves about how immigration policy can used for their benefit to tilt future elections in their favor. They are not trying to change demographics. That’s a conspiracy theory! Instead, there’s just “the changing demographics” which don’t have anything to do with people like Durbin, Schumer, and Gutierrez.

    But, guyth, they would vote GOP if the GOP wasn’t so racist. Maybe Republicans have won short-term thanks to Trump but they’ve branded themselves as the party of immigrant hate for the next few decades — and that’s the demographic of the future! The GOP has signed its own death warrant.

  28. @Beckow
    Ms. Qiu and Mr. Chavez just might have a personal interest in keeping the current 'chain migration' going. There are still lots of people in Latin America, Africa and Asia who could fulfil their dreams in the land of plenty, around 7 billion people.

    Based on the last 30-years of data, a simple calculation suggests that 3-5% of those 7 billion are only two nodes in the chain away from landing in US (in-laws, siblings, cousins, aunts...). That would be 200-350 million new immigrants (legal). Of course only a percentage of them will take advantage of this opportunity, so maybe only 50-100 million would actually come.

    The logic of chain migration says that the 3-5% sponsorship based on the blood chain is permanent. Only the domain over which it is applied grows as new migrants in turn make their relatives eligible. And so on, and so on...

    Maybe Dick Durbin just likes crowds. Or has no interest or concept of the future. In any case, unless the Almighty intervenes, in two generations United States will have 500 to 700 million people, mostly of recent Third World origin. Good luck.

    Replies: @bomag, @Anonymous

    in two generations United States will have 500 to 700 million people, mostly of recent Third World origin

    And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given to them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

    Durbin sounds like the guy that arranged all this.

  29. I don’t know about Chain Migration but I think China has Chan Migration to Xianxiang.
    I think the arrival of all those Chans is pissing off the Uighurs who are being supplanted and replaced.

    Progressives used to condemn ‘Manifest Destiny’ for whitewashing what was ethnic cleansing of Americans. But how nice to call new ethnic cleansing as a ‘dream’.

    Do all these people of color ask why they are so eager to run from their own kind and live in white-made nations? Do they ever ask why they hate the idea of being sent back to their own people and culture? If indeed they loathe being with their own kind, why should whites welcome them?

  30. @Beckow
    Ms. Qiu and Mr. Chavez just might have a personal interest in keeping the current 'chain migration' going. There are still lots of people in Latin America, Africa and Asia who could fulfil their dreams in the land of plenty, around 7 billion people.

    Based on the last 30-years of data, a simple calculation suggests that 3-5% of those 7 billion are only two nodes in the chain away from landing in US (in-laws, siblings, cousins, aunts...). That would be 200-350 million new immigrants (legal). Of course only a percentage of them will take advantage of this opportunity, so maybe only 50-100 million would actually come.

    The logic of chain migration says that the 3-5% sponsorship based on the blood chain is permanent. Only the domain over which it is applied grows as new migrants in turn make their relatives eligible. And so on, and so on...

    Maybe Dick Durbin just likes crowds. Or has no interest or concept of the future. In any case, unless the Almighty intervenes, in two generations United States will have 500 to 700 million people, mostly of recent Third World origin. Good luck.

    Replies: @bomag, @Anonymous

    Once the economy collapses and the vast majority have third or fourth world living standards, immigration will cease. There will be a die off, and the population will level off. We will be like South American countries.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Anonymous


    Once the economy collapses and the vast majority have third or fourth world living standards, immigration will cease.
     
    The living standards have already worsened, and yet the migration has accelerated. The difference between West and Third World is so dramatic that it will go on even after the 'collapse'. These are very motivated people, and there is a lot of them. They are coming for the plumbing, even if many of them don't plan to use it...
  31. Would “sausage link migration” be more acceptable?

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps the most accurate term is ‘colonization’, with the term ‘colony’ being used in its original, accurate sense, and not in the commonly used 19th century mis-use of the term.

    ‘Colony’ , of course refers to the ancient Roman practice of settling Roman army veterans in tracts of conquered territory by the means of granting them tracts of land to farm as an inducement – by that means it was intended that the conquered lands would eventually be entirely populated by ‘good Roman stock’ and thus become an integral part of Empire.

    The modern, lefty/Economist practice of encouraging the wholesale movement of whole clans/tribes/nations etc based upon ‘familial anchors’ in the virgin territory, bears more than a passing resemblance to that ancient Roman practice.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @Anonymous


    ‘Colony’ refers to the ancient Roman practice of settling Roman army veterans in tracts of conquered territory by the means of granting them tracts of land to farm
     
    Good analogy, but there is a difference. The Roman colonists, or the European 'colonists' in America, were coming to do farming. Or productive work akin to farming, like building, making things, etc... That is real. What we have today is people being imported to mostly 'sell things to each other'. As in: migrants buy cheap toilet paper and Chinese-made phones, let us also import more migrants to get low-paid jobs to sell it. Or making cappuccinos for each other.

    This is a height of economic insanity. Importing more and more people to staff already mostly redundant low-cost selling and 'services' is a definition of an absurd economy. It cannot go on.

    (Yes, there are 'farming-like' exceptions among what the migrants do, good for them. But most don't work at all, or sell stuff to each other. How can that be of any benefit to the host countries?)

  33. @Anonymous
    @Beckow

    Once the economy collapses and the vast majority have third or fourth world living standards, immigration will cease. There will be a die off, and the population will level off. We will be like South American countries.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Once the economy collapses and the vast majority have third or fourth world living standards, immigration will cease.

    The living standards have already worsened, and yet the migration has accelerated. The difference between West and Third World is so dramatic that it will go on even after the ‘collapse’. These are very motivated people, and there is a lot of them. They are coming for the plumbing, even if many of them don’t plan to use it…

  34. @Anonymous
    Perhaps the most accurate term is 'colonization', with the term 'colony' being used in its original, accurate sense, and not in the commonly used 19th century mis-use of the term.

    'Colony' , of course refers to the ancient Roman practice of settling Roman army veterans in tracts of conquered territory by the means of granting them tracts of land to farm as an inducement - by that means it was intended that the conquered lands would eventually be entirely populated by 'good Roman stock' and thus become an integral part of Empire.

    The modern, lefty/Economist practice of encouraging the wholesale movement of whole clans/tribes/nations etc based upon 'familial anchors' in the virgin territory, bears more than a passing resemblance to that ancient Roman practice.

    Replies: @Beckow

    ‘Colony’ refers to the ancient Roman practice of settling Roman army veterans in tracts of conquered territory by the means of granting them tracts of land to farm

    Good analogy, but there is a difference. The Roman colonists, or the European ‘colonists’ in America, were coming to do farming. Or productive work akin to farming, like building, making things, etc… That is real. What we have today is people being imported to mostly ‘sell things to each other‘. As in: migrants buy cheap toilet paper and Chinese-made phones, let us also import more migrants to get low-paid jobs to sell it. Or making cappuccinos for each other.

    This is a height of economic insanity. Importing more and more people to staff already mostly redundant low-cost selling and ‘services’ is a definition of an absurd economy. It cannot go on.

    (Yes, there are ‘farming-like’ exceptions among what the migrants do, good for them. But most don’t work at all, or sell stuff to each other. How can that be of any benefit to the host countries?)

  35. @Buzz Mohawk
    Call it "polymer migration."

    https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/690.jpg

    Or "infinite loop migration."

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_F7vpRIjAvYI/TIU7VpNlbzI/AAAAAAAABoI/s2clJ4LoWO0/s1600/image.png

    "Welcome to the United States. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? If yes, bring them in. If no, that's impossible; you must have a cousin somewhere."

    "Welcome relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in."

    "Welcome relatives of relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in."

    "Welcome relatives of relatives of relatives..."

    It won't take too many iterations to get to all 7.5 billion cousins of cousins of cousins in the world...

    Replies: @academic gossip, @academic gossip

    “Recursive migration” or even “fractal migration”.

    Passports within passports.

    “Divine Right of Migrants”.

    “It’s migrants all the way down.”

  36. @Buzz Mohawk
    Call it "polymer migration."

    https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/690.jpg

    Or "infinite loop migration."

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_F7vpRIjAvYI/TIU7VpNlbzI/AAAAAAAABoI/s2clJ4LoWO0/s1600/image.png

    "Welcome to the United States. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? If yes, bring them in. If no, that's impossible; you must have a cousin somewhere."

    "Welcome relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in."

    "Welcome relatives of relatives. Do you have any relatives in a foreign country? Bring them in."

    "Welcome relatives of relatives of relatives..."

    It won't take too many iterations to get to all 7.5 billion cousins of cousins of cousins in the world...

    Replies: @academic gossip, @academic gossip

    “Russian doll migration”

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS