fbpx

America’s Complicated Demographic Destiny

At least since the 2002 publication of The Emerging Democratic Majority, “demography is destiny” has increasingly been the battle cry of the left. Barely hidden behind the wonky platitude is the sinister wokey threat, “We can’t transform the country in the way we want to just yet, but wait until we have obtained a ‘majority-minority’ population.” Ethnic (and by implication, cultural) churning will transform our democracy over time, leading the United States in a direction different from the one it has taken for the past 240 years.

You don’t have to attend closed-door meetings at the Center for American Progress to hear this message. Just turn on the TV. “You’re watching the metamorphosis of Texas, Chris,” former Democratic Presidential candidate Julian Castro triumphantly told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, in those heady days before this year’s election when Democrats thought Joe Biden would flip the Lone Star State.

Like the related concept of declinism—the idea that America’s role as a superpower will soon disappear, also embraced by the left—demography’s ascendancy is a policy choice. It does not need to happen. In fact, the 2020 election offers a window as to how Americans might avert this future. Some of the reasons to be optimistic that America does not need to change because its demography does actually came in Castro’s home state of Texas.

Its Rio Grande Valley is the heartland of Tejano country, rural communities where Mexican-Americans comprise over 95 percent of the population. Surprisingly, especially to the media and activist elites constantly making the “demography is destiny” argument, several of the RGV’s counties—Cameron, Starr, Willacy, Webb, and Hidalgo—all went over 40 percent for Donald Trump on election day. Indeed, the president beat Joe Biden outright in another one of those counties, Zapata. These were all massive swings of 40 percentage points or more from the support Hillary Clinton received in 2016 and that Barack Obama in 2012. 

This came atop an apparent 40-percentage point win by Trump among Florida’s Cuban-Americans, and an improved performance in heavily Puerto Rican Osceola County in central Florida. Oh, and Chinese-American parents, mostly immigrants, organized a revolt against the attempt to introduce racial preferences in California. Someone appears to have thrown a monkey wrench in the gears of Julian Castro’s plans.

Mind you, demography and democracy are intimately related; they just don’t always work the way that people such as Castro prefer. The two words have roots in classical Greek. Demos means people, while graphy and kratos roughly mean, respectively, measurement and rule. One therefore means the study of people and the other rule by the people. One supplies the grist for the other one’s mill. What they have in common is the demos. At least in theory, the people are the actors who play the lead role.

Demography provides the raw material for the government and policies that democracy manufactures. America has combined a long-standing, inordinate attachment to liberty with a constantly churning demography, and the continuity of this attachment has been provided by what has been called, without embarrassment until recently, Americanization.

The phrase All Men Are Created Equal, the animating spirit at the heart of the nation’s concept of itself, is of universal application. Up to this point, what has mattered is not the DNA aspect of demography, but the cultural one. What many Americans—and particularly those animated by identity—often miss is that America has been multi-ethnic since before it became a country. The leftist organizers who salivate at the thought of being able to finally transform the country tend to argue that multi-ethnicity began with the Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which opened the door to immigration from Asia and Africa (it is often mistakenly believed that it did so for Western Hemisphere countries as well, but there were not quotas for Latin American countries prior to 1965).

Always Multi-Ethnic, Never Multicultural

These activists are wrong. There were, of course, Africans, Native Americans, and Europeans living in the Plymouth and Virginia colonies almost from the start. But even within the “white” population, ethnicity was diverse. First there were the German and Swiss Pietists and other persecuted religious minorities who started settling in Pennsylvania and Virginia in the 1670s. Then came the heavily Presbyterian, or Church of Scotland, Scots-Irish from Ulster (an American term used by them to distinguish themselves from the Irish Catholics; in their home counties they would have been more likely to call themselves “Ulster Scots”). They began to settle in the colonies in large numbers in the first decades of the 18th century, coinciding with the expiration of their 99-year leases back home. 

At the turn of the last century, the Transnationalists sought to make ethnic groups supreme and to transfer to them the moral autonomy previously enjoyed by the individual and the nation.

The mid-19th century saw the start of heavy immigration from Germany (some seven and a half million German immigrants between 1820 and 1870), from other Catholic principalities, Scandinavia, and heavily Catholic Ireland (in the last instance, because of the potato famines). Then, in the 1892-1924 Ellis Island period we saw a gaggle of people from Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucuses—Sicilians, Greeks, Hungarians, Macedonians, Lebanese, Chaldeans, Armenians, Jews, and Poles. These were the great unwashed of the three polyglot, cosmopolitan empires of Europe—the Russian, Hapsburg, and Ottoman Empires. They were second-class citizens of those regimes and came here seeking opportunity.

The (largely uninformed) woke of today will think that this long story of diverse immigration cannot be related to the experience of today, because these were “white” immigrants, very different from today’s gaggle of Koreans, Indians, Cubans, Chinese, Nigerians, Peruvians, and Pakistanis. This analysis gets almost everything wrong. First, the earlier lot were not all considered “white” by any means, while many Latin Americans were; second, religion was at least as great a differentiator then as race is today; and, third, the treatment meted out to these immigrants was not exactly a welcome wagon.

On the last point, the German wave of the 17th and 18th centuries was seen as an ethnic force that would change the country, and not for the better. “Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours?” asked a famous resident of Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin. “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion?”

The Scots-Irish, meanwhile, were so insufferable that Boston in 1720 passed a law that ordered “certain families recently arriving from Ireland to move off.” Nine years later, Puritan mobs rioted in Boston to prevent new ships from Ulster to dock. In Pennsylvania, the colonial governor James Logan asked them to move in, thinking the warlike Scots-Irish could create a useful buffer state between the equally warring Indians in the west and pacifist Quakers in the east, but he soon grew tired and asked them to leave. “A settlement of five families from the North of Ireland gives me more trouble than fifty of any other people,” the exasperated Logan wrote a friend in 1730. Finally, in Virginia, the Anglican authorities in Williamsburg told these Ulstermen that they could practice their Presbyterianism, but only in the mountains to the west—where many of their descendants still live.

The German, Irish, and Scandinavian immigrants of the mid-19th century did not fare better. Much is known about anti-Irish discrimination, because of popular movies like Gangs of New York and the like. As I take pains to describe in my new book, The Plot to Change America, Germans were treated perhaps worse. It was opposition to immigration by both groups that gave birth to the Know Nothing Party in the 1850s. Know-Nothings set fire to the houses of German-Americans and to a brewery in Louisville on August 6, 1855, an election day known as “Bloody Monday,” killing 10 German-Americans. Anti-German riots took place in other cities. The hatred of Germans—who were seen as socialist agents, as indeed their leaders had taken part in the failed revolutions of 1848 and were known as Forty-Eighters—continued for decades. Almost 18,000 German-Americans were prosecuted for speaking German in public during World War I, a crime in many states.

And of course, hatred of the Southern and Eastern Europeans, and others deemed worse, of the Ellis Island period is so well known that it hardly merits mention here. They were seen as intellectually, not just culturally, inferior. Aversion to their arrival, to the threat of their “contamination” of the existing stock, was so strong that it led to the effective end of immigration from anywhere but Northwestern Europe in 1924. This law stood pretty much intact until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

Now, at every point in this history, America could have decided to create minorities out of these immigrants, have their members instilled with grievances, and weaponize them to transform the country. This could have been tried with the German religious refugees of the 1670s, the Potato Famine Irish of the 1840s, and the Sicilians of the 1910s—and every group in between. Our leaders decided against this approach because the first law of nature famously is self-preservation, and societies, as individuals and all systems, have built-in mechanisms that work against self-destruction.

That does not mean it was not proposed (some people do mutilate their bodies, after all). A group of intellectuals (of course) did promote this form of national suicide at the turn of the last century. They were known as the Transnationalists, and among their main thinkers were Randolph Bourne, Horace Kallen, Louis Adamic, and Leonard Covello. They sought to make ethnic groups supreme, to transfer to them the moral autonomy previously enjoyed by the individual and the nation. “Before the American people at the present time there are two ideals of American nationalism, sharply focused and emphasized by the war. One is that of the traditional melting pot, the other is that of a co-operation of cultures,” wrote Bourne at the height of World War I.

The Transnationalists were crushed, however. Assimilation was embraced by leaders of both parties, just as it always had been in the nation’s history. America was able to always be multi-ethnic because it was never multicultural. Of course there were ethnic enclaves, especially in the big cities, and regional differences persisted—Texas and New England retain quite different cultures. But everyone was enjoined to accept that All Men Are Created Equal, that man was endowed with some pre-political rights by nature or by God, that there were to be no privileges granted by government because of caste membership (the exception being the legal and cultural deprivation imposed upon blacks, though legal segregation has now blessedly ended), that hard work ensured self-sufficiency and self-rule, etc. This credo was preached to immigrant children by the Common Schools in the 1800s, first in the East, and then in the Southwest after 1848. And this credo was preached to the Ellis Islander children by the New York City Public Schools and to their parents by the factories where they worked.

Not Today

In recent years we have dramatically departed from this tradition. On his 90th birthday in 1972, the longest-lived of the Transnationalists, Horace Kallen, was able to glimpse the future and exclaim, “It takes about 50 years for an idea to break through and become vogue.” The catalyst was the Civil Rights Movement. As the color-blind promise of that era quickly devolved into color-conscious pursuit of privileges for identity groups, leftists who sought to transform the country seized the moment and created a panoply of other categories by falsely analogizing the suffering of blacks to the newly created “Hispanics,” “Asians-Americans,” “LGBTQIA,” etc. Even the experience of white women was compared this way, and a law review article of the time was pointedly titled, “Jane Crow and the Law.”

This past Election Day offers a challenge to this view. Voters in the Rio Grande Valley, in Hialeah, in Tampa, or the Chinese-American parents who organized in the Golden State to defeat the effort to bring back racial preferences, clearly saw themselves as Americans and eschewed the victimhood label. They acted more as the Armenian-American did in the 20th century, the German in Ohio in the mid-19th century, and the Scots-Irish of Appalachia in the 1700s. The young Andrew Jackson was aware of his parents’ birth in Ulster, and his mother raised him with the steely resolution of that warring breed, but when he volunteered to fight in the Revolutionary War at the age of 13 in 1780, he was an American patriot. Will conservatives and liberals adopt this view of our present-day immigrants?

Conservatives have become comfortable with the concepts of multiculturalism, the victim categories, anti-racism training, etc., because they fear being called “racist” if they buck these worrisome trends.

The left is giving some indication that it is absorbing what happens, even if it does it in its usual comical way. Matt Yglesias, in one of his last posts at the leftist publication Vox, was finally struck with the blindingly obvious when he wrote, “Looking at Democrats’ problems with Cubans and South Americans in Florida in the context of their struggles with Mexican Americans in Texas suggests a different diagnosis. What if many U.S. Hispanics simply don’t see the racial politics of the Trump era the way intellectuals—whose thinking and writing on structural racism and white supremacy have gained broad influence in recent years — think they should?” (Indeed, what if that is the case…?) 

Even John Judis, one of the co-writers of the Emerging Democratic Majority, is starting to have second thoughts. “‘People of color’ is a term that’s been adopted by the cultural left as a way of arguing that if these groups proportionately voted Democratic in the past, they will do so in the future,” Mr. Judis told the New York Times recently. “I don’t see how you can make the argument.”

Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to gladly speak of “people of color.” They have too often allowed their minds to be colonized, and it isn’t clear that what Trump achieved—or how, or why—will sink in. Minority leader Kevin McCarthy, for example, has complied with the opening of an “Office for Diversity and Inclusion” in the House of Representatives, even though it should be equally blindingly obvious to him that these endeavors are expressly intended to further the left’s project. Conservatives have also become comfortable with the concepts of multiculturalism, the victim categories, anti-racism training, etc. They think nothing of continuing to allow the government to impose ethnic categories through the census and other surveys, to endorse the racial preferences of affirmative action that suborn individuals to victim groups, and, until Donald Trump finally banned it, of supporting indoctrination through Critical Race Theory sessions that pass for anti-racism training.

They do because they fear being called “racist” if they buck these worrisome trends. That is not an insignificant fear. But Trump was called that for four years by a press that used the term in straight-up news articles, not just in op-eds and editorials, and he won a larger share of these groups than any Republican since the 1960s.

Conservatives should understand that the second-class citizens of the Ottoman, Russian, and Hapsburg Empires came in search of prosperity and liberty here because in this country we have no official castes, as those empires did. We did only with Americans of African descent, and the Civil Rights Movement finally and thankfully destroyed legal discrimination. Ironically, the same movement produced, through its entitlement dispensations, a new caste order in America. Conservatives must shed their fear of proclaiming this truth to all Americans, otherwise, they will lose what Trump gained, rather than expand it.

Demography is only destiny if we allow it to be, by accepting the left’s transformation of culture. Until now, conservatives have thought only of the DNA part of demography, and have not minded the culture as much. Understanding that the DNA churned from 1670 on, but that the Bournes and Kallens had to be defeated, is the mental challenge going forward. If the left understands that today’s immigrants don’t see the racial politics the way the elites think they should, the left is sure to do something about it. What will conservatives do?

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on December 02, 2020 at 12:26:40 pm

Fine, fighting essay!

I hereby bestow honorary Scots-Irish status on Mr. Gonzalez and all freedom-loving Hispanics, blacks, Jews, Asians and women and who embrace the montani semper liberi spirit of populist republican mountaineers rather the vote-for-pay attitude of herd-like, rent-seeking, urban Democrats.

Gonzalez asks what will "conservatives" do to meet the challenge of their first-in-history Trumpian opportunity.

I say that the cowards, "conservative" only as self-described, will revert to their post-Reagan modus operandi of crypto-liberalism. They will resume the political posture of the Bushes, McCain and Romney and continue to appease, retreat and surrender to the twin evils of fake multi-culturalism and enforced racial diversity. That way is, after all, their path to personal prosperity and power-sharing.

But 74 million American patriots will stand and fight, like Jackson, for their country.

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
on December 02, 2020 at 14:45:20 pm

Cuppla thoughts:
1) Fine essay by Mr Gonzalez providing a succinct and accurate history of America's ACTUAL experience and unqualified acceptance of *diversity* of background, ethnicity and religion, albeit, regrettably not of race which was ultimately corrected.
2) Shakespeare was wrong when he opined that "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." Lawyers are simply a subset of a broader class of "intellectuals / academics." Why is it that throughout history, discord / disunity is FIRST announced, then promulgated and then instituted by academics and their deluded hangers-on and later the multiplicitous bien pensants. What is it about the narcissistic souls of academics that compels them to seek acclaim and recognition for their alleged brilliance?
3) Whatever it is, it is unduly corrosive of social comity.
4) Racism as defined by these academic types is a badge that all reasonable people ought be willing to accept as in, " I AM a racist BECAUSE I believe that all Men are created Equal." I happily accept such a badge of *honor*.
5) I have previously asserted that past immigrants "were as welcomed as they themselves were welcoming of their new culture."
Sadly, today's immigrants are not given such an opportunity. Instead they are immediately assaulted with rhetoric calculated to negate any positive perception of the immigrants new environment / neighbors, especially white males. In return they are promised AND provided innumerable goodies from the Democrat Party created cornucopia of "entitlements" and informed that ONLY by asserting their racial / ethnic status of victimhood will these benefits continue to be forthcoming.
And we expect them to assimilate - another toxic word / precept - and forsake their homelands and its peculiar values.
6) Ain't happening, kiddies.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 02, 2020 at 14:56:40 pm

Oops, I forgot.
7) The hangers-on and bien pensants are TEACHING your children and grandchildren from K-16.
We observe how that has worked out over the past two generations.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 02, 2020 at 21:21:03 pm

Democrats will win everything eventually, unless immigration is halted permanently. What made America great was our ethnoculture of ordered liberty, which was a product of: 1) innate white individualism, 2) Western Christianity, esp Protestantism, 3) the Constitution, and 4) the frontier experience. That ethnoculture is "pre-political", but determinative of political support for liberty under law, which is the source of our greatness, in power and in high quality of life. By importing "genetic Democrats", we are rendering the GOP irrelevant, if not in the 2020s, then by the 2030s or 40s. It will be an uneven process, but the end result if foreordained - the leftist ruination of America, unless we halt the unwanted invasion of Ilhan Omars and AOCs.

read full comment
Image of Leon Q. Haller
Leon Q. Haller
on December 02, 2020 at 19:00:27 pm

A minor correction concerning my community, Mr. Gonzalez. Armenians in the period you identified did not come to the United States merely because they were second class in the Ottoman Empire and were seeking opportunity. In fact, we did not come as immigrants in the normal sense at all. We arrived as either refugees from massacres and genocide or even as expelees towards the end of the period you described. We came to survive. This has implications for our location vis a vis the country, and to be frank, it has not been the friendliest, and that is being generous.

read full comment
Image of Jack Kalpakian
Jack Kalpakian
on December 02, 2020 at 21:01:17 pm

Your comment does not "correct" Mr. Gonzalez's thesis. It's impossible for you to know exactly why each person came to the USA. And now there are myriad people from all over the world claiming asylum due to some alleged threat. They are coached as to what to say in order to make an asylum claim. As to why a "friendly" welcome might not be forthcoming (from how many decades ago?), from the hard working Americans who are being ordered to support [you], what would you do if asked to provide housing, medical, transportation, food, etc., for "immigrants" planted into your neighborhood without your consent, when you might not be able to provide for your own? You sound ungrateful. Did someone promise you a rose garden?

read full comment
Image of Holli
Holli
on December 02, 2020 at 21:15:10 pm

I wrote a very long comment, which I was about to post, and which somehow got erased, even though I had copied it, just in case. Unbelievable. Well, forget it.

In lieu of what I'd written in extensive refutation of this (classical) liberal (but decidedly NOT conservative) essay by Gonzalez, I would suggest readers read and reflect upon the following books (with approx publication dates, from memory, so I may be a year or two off):

Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1972)
Brent Nelson, America Balkanized (1994)
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1995)
Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996)
David Conway, In Defence of the Realm (2003)
Samuel Huntington, Who We Are (2004)
Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests (2005)
Byron Roth, The Perils of Diversity (2010)
Jared Taylor, White Identity (2012)

These books are less anti-immigration tracts than anti-diversity scholarship. "Diversity" is NOT a tenet of conservatism (it is not really one of classical liberalism, either; though conservatives are positively AGAINST diversity, whereas classical liberals are more neutral about it). Gonzalez above merely assumes the continuation of mass immigration, which is what has made America "diverse" in the way that is most most meaningful - racially. But this Great Replacement of the historic American people is a matter of public policy - call it the ultimate "Big Government program" - and that policy can be reversed, and obviously ought to be, if we wish any aspect of the American Way of Life, including liberty and Constitutional government, to endure.

Contra Gonzalez, needless mass immigration-imposed racial diversity is driving America to the Far[thest] Left. Consider some of the newest members of the Progressive (Marxist-Multiculturalist) Caucus in Congress: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rasheda Taleb, Pramila Jayipal, Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Judy Chu. Notice anything? All non-African American Third World immigrants, all militants of the Far Left, both socialist and racist (antiwhite). Granted, there are also plenty of white-hating, socialist blacks (and older Hispanics) in Congress, with more (eg, Mondaire Jones) just added. That is YOUR future, if you imbibe the "don't worry" apologetics of non-leftist nonwhites like Gonzalez. DO worry.

My own state of CA in my own voting lifetime has gone from Reagan Country 1980 to a place where the GOP cannot win statewide office. This political transformation has occurred solely because of mass immigration. In 1970, there were over 400,000 more whites in CA in absolute terms than in 2015. In 2015 there were also more than 24 million more nonwhites than in 1970, virtually all a function of unwanted, totalitarian-imposed post-1965 immigration (today there must be at least 25 million nonwhites here). The Democrat goal is to do to the US what has already been done to CA; expect similar political results. Democrats understand demography (which ABSOLUTELY IS destiny, esp in the US). GOP conmenservatives continue to peddle this type of "don't worry" garbage. When will these fools ever wake up? (Answer: never; it is in their Cheap Labor Donor Lobby interest not to.)

What must be done? At a minimum, end all immigration, legal as well as illegal. If legal immigration cannot be terminated fully for reasons of lack of political will, at least reduce it as much as possible, end family reunification insanity, stop bogus asylee claims, and then reconfigure it towards skilled immigration, which will increase the percentage of white immigrants. Physically secure the borders, tighten visas, and deport all 30 MILLION illegal aliens. End America as an immigrant recipient state, permanently. Also, grant national independence to Puerto Rico, Guam, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands - and that other relic of US imperialism, Hawaii. Ensure DC never attains to statehood, which would violate the constitutional order as well as merely give us two black radical leftist senators and a radical congressman. Push for Calexit -or USAexit from CA (which is economically viable as its own country, at least until its progressive idiocy ruins it). With these changes, it might then become possible for the GOP to start voter outreach and then to make inroads among minority voters. Without them, it's game over for America - not only White (or Real) America, but for America as a land of liberty and capitalist prosperity. It will be California Democrats writ large - forever. When will people ever wake up?!

read full comment
Image of Leon Q. Haller
Leon Q. Haller
on December 03, 2020 at 01:00:23 am

Mr. Gonzalez is quite right when he distinguishes between what he calls "DNA demography" and "cultural demography." To this I would add three observations:

I. Aspiration

One of the reason that Democrats, and progressives in general, seem to have been surprised by Mr. Trump's inroads among ethnic minorities is that those progressives seem to think political motivation other than their own is limited to panem et circenses, i.e. the very basics of subsistence and leisure. They seem to assume that immigrants, non-white minorities and their descendants have no ambitions other than what progressives think they should have. The progressives therefore pander with variations on the promises of bread and circuses, and seem to have been surprised that people have their own ambitions and dreams beyond that which certain ideologies think they should be allowed. It seems not to have occurred to the left that a promise of Medicare for All in exchange for dreams of building a family legacy does not seem like a good deal to everyone. It does not seem to have occurred to the academics that assuring the cafeteria worker that his job slinging slop is safe under Democratic stewardship is not compelling when what that worker really wants is the opportunity to try to build his own business.

A similar idea is seen in Mr. Kalpakian's comment. The progressive does not seem to distinguish between people who move to the United States and people who flee here. They likewise do not distinguish between people whose presence in this country is a simple fact of where they were born, and those who are here as a result of conscious acts of hope or desperation. It should be expected that people who came to the United States to escape the totalitarian tendencies of socialist, communist, or fascist regimes, would be less receptive to political theories that share the same provenance. We should not be surprised that Cubans will be more skeptical of "Democratic Socialism" than would Scandinavians, and that immigrants who grew up in East Germany will be less receptive to paternalistic Governors who solicit informants among neighbors.

The unifying issue is this: The far left does not think that ethnic minorities care as much about personal liberty, economic opportunity, or the sanctity of the family because the far left does not value those things. The far left thinks ethnic minorities do not care about those things, because it thinks only the self-described elite cares about anything more than "bread and circuses."

II. Culture

The word culture is ambiguous, because as it is used in everyday language may mean different things. There are two meanings in particular that should not be confused. We may think of these as "executive culture" and "external culture." Executive culture contains the values and mores of people within that culture and most importantly affects how that culture interacts with others who are not part of it. External culture is the observable rituals and traditions that distinguish cultures, and which are the objects of that asinine notion of "cultural appropriation." Executive culture is the more significant, for the very significant reason that cultures clash. Cultures may differ in irreconcilable ways in terms of such things as approach to dispute resolution; the relative importance between dignity and honor; tradeoffs between safety, justice and liberty; concepts of duty and shame; the role of family and the view of aging and death, etc., etc. These differences are not genetic. They arise because cultures arise from different environments, and cultures are not easily transplanted, especially when they are placed among cultures that have adapted to the new environment. Cultures survive because they consist of useful institutions and traditions, not because they evoke nostalgic pride or sentimental admiration. Cultures survive because they adapt to different environments.

III. Corruption

One readily observes that the movement of immigrants in the world is generally from areas of greater to lesser corruption. People leave corrupt states for the simple reason that the fact of corruption suggests that a better life is possible elsewhere. People notice this, and they are smarter than perhaps they are given credit for. Perhaps people who come from countries with histories of corrupt governments notice the number of coincidental hard-drive crashes that seem to have occurred in government computers in 2016, or the number of elections in places like Washington, Oregon and Minnesota that were determined by ballots that were fortuitously "found" in the trunks of cars, behind radiators, or in non-descript boxes. Maybe they notice when government officials flaunt their own rules and orders. Maybe solemn assurances that "there is no conclusive evidence" of any particular type of mischief is not enough to allay the anxieties of people who are only too familiar to the effects that corruption, proven or not, might have on their lives and their prosperity. Maybe these concerns do not neatly correlate with "demography."

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on December 03, 2020 at 01:12:41 am

Should be "flee to here."

read full comment
Image of z9z99
z9z99
on December 03, 2020 at 15:36:09 pm

Some further thoughts / responses:
1) Let us be mindful that the evidence of some deceptive claims for asylum does not indicate nor much less prove that ALL such claims are equally false. Mr Kalpakian may very well speak from personal experience, or as with my own family is able to repeat the oral histories provided by ones own ancestors. There is no doubt that Armenians were AND ARE NOW victims of Islamist genocide. One should add that the current oppression of the Armenians by the Islamist Turks has precedents going back more than a millennium. One ought not to be so dismissive of such claims without a review of the history of the region NOT to mention current news reports.
2) Z9 references the "aspirational" hopes of many immigrants to this nation. My previous comments on the expected blessings of the "Democrat Party cornucopia" notwithstanding, many arrive in this country with such aspirations, as did millions of earlier immigrants. Again, Z9 is correct in asserting that the Proggies willfully ignore this component of immigrant psychology. Two points on this matter:
1) The problem of "free riding" by newly arrived immigrants is compounded by the Proggies preference for low skilled, low educated, "people of color" migrating from dysfunctional regimes and whose *aspirations* may be limited to simply feeding their families, a salutary objective but distinctly different in form and motive than those from functioning regimes with somewhat higher aspirations. The former are far more susceptible to accepting the Proggie vision of "government paternalism."
2) The Proggies unwillingness to even countenance aspirational motives in the underclass is as, if not even more evident in their attitude towards native Blacks and other minorities. Evidence for this is the reproach commonly directed at Blacks who, God forbid, are conservative, believe that they control their own fate and seek advancement OUTSIDE of the "government - social service - educational" complex.
3) As for tradition, how is it that one would expect that those immigrants from dysfunctional / corrupt regimes would embrace a tradition, American cultural traditions of which they are unaware, not having observed, practiced or conformed to any similar tradition in their homelands. I would argue that this is precisely what the Proggies desire - a mass of culturally un-American (I do not mean to imply "un-patriotic) potential voters dependent upon government largesse and acclimated in their homelands to autocratic governance. Compounding this imposed epistemological condition is the unending rhetoric designed to instill in these new arrivals a sense of victimhood AND withering waves of Critical Race Theory based assaults upon the American regime and its traditions.

This must end. It may be time to repeal Ted Kennedy's handiwork, the 1965 Immigration bill which denied or disparaged the immigration of Northern Europeans in favor of Third World immigrants. If the Proggies are truly interested in "diversity" then let us afford Northern Europeans more opportunity to "diversify" newly arriving streams of immigrants.
Yep! That must be "racist" - so what! Everything is nowadays.
But I am not interested in observing the last of valued, effective and proper traditions be destroyed before I pass on.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 04, 2020 at 04:07:54 am

It's so much easier just to halt immigration (to our already ecologically overpopulated nation). Then we don't have to engage in complex what-ifs about whether or how immigrants might be persuaded to be Republicans in the future. Just end the invasion. Once ended, GOP can begin a long campaign of persuasion directed at nonwhites. But the best thing we can do to defeat the totalitarian Left is to stop Democrat Voter Importation, which is doing to USA what it has already "accomplished" in CA. This should not be controversial in 2020.

read full comment
Image of Leon Q. Haller
Leon Q. Haller
on December 03, 2020 at 16:42:39 pm

And another thought that bubbled up (literally as I was making my pasta sauce).
Some thirty + years ago, I had a Vietnamese Quality engineer, H. Cao working for me. He related a story about a friend of his, another Vietnamese immigrant. The latter asked Cao who he was voting for. Cao replied that he was voting Republican to which his friend inquired, Why, the Democrats look out for the poor man." Cao responded, "I vote Republican BECAUSE I do not want to be poor."

Presently, I have a Vietnamese neighbor, a general contractor, whose nephews are sold on the "new" history of America and are solid Proggies having attended, and been inculcated in CRT, etc.

it would appear that the Proggie hostility toward aspiration in immigrant populations has finally seen the fruit of their rhetorical efforts in some immigrant communities.
YET, the aspirations of many immigrants can not, and WILL NOT be denied or extinguished. witness the performance of Asian students at university.now W e observe clear evidence of discrimination against these hard working, bright and ambitious (aspiration) students.
And what is the response of our Academic and Political Elites. It is to deny that any discrimination is occurring; that Asians are not underrepresented as a group and that Affirmative Action for compliant minorities, "people of color" must continue to be enforced.
Notice that it is only THE GROUP, racial, ethnic, sexual, now that is entitled to aspirational goals - NOT the individual. Victims may be allowed to aspire to higher achievement but not those not favored with such a badge of victimhood. Importantly, such progress in achieving aspirational goals will be, indeed, must be presented as the fruits of Progressive policies and practices. It should also be pointed out that such progress may only be attempted and attained in the "proper fields of study" and it must be accompanied by a complete acceptance of the prevailing ideological contradictions and fantasies.

In a nutshell, that is the difference. Mr Cao of 30 years ago vs the nephew mentioned. The Proggies accept and encourage only the aspirational goals and efforts that are in conformance with their Gestalt. Mr Cao would more than likely be denied acceptance at university today owing, of course, to "personal life criteria" that *informs* the university selection process.
To what, nowadays, should one aspire?

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on December 04, 2020 at 15:59:32 pm

What might be the relevance of this fact.
Since Roe v Wade, over 60 million abortions have been performed in the USA (as of late last year).
Since Roe, approximately 61 million immigrants, both legal and illegal have made it to our shores.

What impact has this had on our demographic "destiny?

read full comment
Image of Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
Guttenburgs Press and Brewery
on December 19, 2020 at 15:40:55 pm

Warm congratulations to Mike Gonzalez for his appointment yesterday to President Trump's "1776 Commission on Patriotic Education."

read full comment
Image of paladin
paladin
Trackbacks
on December 03, 2020 at 18:26:07 pm

[…] is destiny” has long “been the battle cry of the left,” Mike Gonzalez writes at Law & Liberty — the idea that immigration “will transform our democracy over time.” Yet “the 2020 […]

on December 03, 2020 at 18:36:50 pm

[…] is destiny” has long “been the battle cry of the left,” Mike Gonzalez writes at Law & Liberty — the idea that immigration “will transform our democracy over time.” Yet “the 2020 […]

on December 03, 2020 at 18:42:12 pm

[…] is destiny” has long “been the battle cry of the left,” Mike Gonzalez writes at Law & Liberty — the idea that immigration “will transform our democracy over time.” Yet “the 2020 […]

on December 03, 2020 at 18:47:15 pm

[…] is destiny” has long “been the battle cry of the left,” Mike Gonzalez writes at Law & Liberty — the idea that immigration “will transform our democracy over time.” Yet “the 2020 […]

on December 03, 2020 at 19:27:42 pm

[…] is destiny” has long “been the battle cry of the left,” Mike Gonzalez writes at Law & Liberty — the idea that immigration “will transform our democracy over time.” Yet “the 2020 […]

on December 18, 2020 at 19:24:41 pm

[…] found this passage, quoted in an essay by Mike Gonzalez at Law and Liberty […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.