3 ms·

1 in 8 residents being immigrants is not super low. The rate of immigrants per year is irrelevant, as it adds up a lot over time. I guarantee that people would

1 in 8 residents being immigrants is not super low. The rate of immigrants per year is irrelevant, as it adds up a lot over time. I guarantee that people would complain if the immigrants were European. Because they did in the past! In the past a huge number of immigrants were from Ireland and other countries, and there was lots of hatred and anti immigration movements. It has literally nothing to do with race. People fear immigrants because they take their jobs, and see them as competition. They are also concerned about crime and increased population density, or worried about their culture being replaced, or the immigrants political influence, etc. But mainly it's economic, and I think the concern is genuine. >"most Americans saying no immigration are here because their families immigrated in the last 200 years" That's a nice soundbite, but a poor argument. All countries are descended from immigrants. Human beings have migrated and conquered other lands since the beginning of time. That's totally irrelevant to whether an immigration policy in 2016 would have a positive or negative effect on current US residents. And if they believe it has a negative effect, why would they vote for it? Because their ancestors would? So what?

vkou 10y ago
It had everything to do with race. The thing is, Irish were not considered white! They were sub-human, ape-like, violent alcoholics. Many English viewed them as such, and brought that viewpoint with them to the US. ... Racism doesn't have to make sense. And 1 in 8 is super-low for a settler nation. It's also only slightly higher then the average European state.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Perhaps, but my point is that residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups, regardless of their origin. It's not necessarily racism. I know people who oppose immigrants. They don't believe hispanics are an inferior race or anything like that. They are mainly concerned about American jobs being taken by the immigrants. You can't use "racism" as a fully general insult against anyone that disagrees with you. Europe may or may not have higher rates of immigration. It's irrelevant to US policy. And it certainly seems like they are starting to have their own problems with immigrants the last few years.
  - winter_blue 10y ago
    > residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups This is pile of nonsense. The elected representatives from the Democratic Party don't show hate towards immigrants and have generally fought their betterment, and the Democratic Party won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. That's five out the last six elections. There was a huge amount of European immigration in the 1800s , and the early 1900s. Just as there was anti-Irish sentiment, I'm sure there were people back then who believed deeply in the Lump of Labor Fallacy[1], but their will was never put into effect as law. If people freaking out about jobs had put the same limits we have on immigration today back in 1800, the U.S. population would likely be the same as Canada's, and our total GDP less than one-tenth of what it is today. We probably also wouldn't have had the economic might to win World War I and World War II, or the Cold War (e.g. Marshall Plan[2]). Instead it was white-on-white racism, and the Nordic/Aryan supremacy[3] theories of Madison Grant[4] that actually led to the first major immigration restriction legislation in the U.S., the Emergency Quota Act[5] and the Immigration Act of 1924[6], which limited immigration to people from North-Western Europe, as a majority of the Congressmen back then believed that Southern and Eastern Europeans were a lower, less worthy breed of people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      >This is pile of nonsense. The elected representatives from the Democratic Party don't show hate towards immigrants and have generally fought their betterment, and the Democratic Party won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. That's five out the last six elections. Because the democrats 1) benefit from immigrants since they tend to vote democrat and 2) represent Northerners and the upper middle class, who aren't threatened by immigrants economically. >There was a huge amount of European immigration in the 1800s , and the early 1900s. Just as there was anti-Irish sentiment, I'm sure there were people back then who believed deeply in the Lump of Labor Fallacy[1], but their will was never put into effect as law. The economy was totally different then. It was much more agricultural based, which isn't as threatened by immigrant labor. Unemployment was nowhere near as high as today. There was a general trend of economic progress that could support the immigrants, and even benefited from their labor. >If people freaking out about jobs had put the same limits we have on immigration today back in 1800, the U.S. population would likely be the same as Canada's, and our total GDP less than one-tenth of what it is today. We probably also wouldn't have had the economic might to win World War I and World War II, or the Cold War (e.g. Marshall Plan[2]). Possibly. The US population growth was pretty high until recent times. Much higher than in Europe. And population size alone is not the only factor in GDP. Especially today in the age of automation.
- internaut 10y ago
  Historically the stereotype of the Irish as being less educated, violent (esp. domestic violence) and alcoholic is accurate. I say that as an Irish person. We've made considerable progress since in the late 20th century to the present, and now we are better in most metrics than the British (and perhaps they have also fallen), but don't imagine we were all sweetness and light in the past. Present day Irish have undergone a terrific cultural shift, evidence of which would be a supposed Catholic majority country voting in gay marriage. We're still Irish, but we're mostly better than we were. Now if we could only resuscitate the courage of our grandparents we'd be in better shape yet.
  - tim333 10y ago
    There's a black academic, Thomas Sowell, who argues the same thing applies to US black culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liberals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liber...
    - internaut 10y ago
      Yes I've heard his position before. It is probably correct but very difficult to solve for, it can take centuries, which is not what most people want to hear. Cultural shifts are faster than biological evolution but are not always as fast as many people suppose. Personally I believe in the use of eugenics for both blacks and whites in order to create an improved type of human. We know high IQ has, among others, the side affect of sharply declining propensity for violent crime. We know people with good health are able to think longer term than the sickly. This goes way beyond the usual discussions but I think it is on the table whether people like it or not. I realize that the majority of people think this issue was laid to rest mid-twentieth century, but it is obvious those questions were always going to come back and it is only a matter of time. We've already been doing moderated forms of eugenics for decades except we've given it a hundred other names.
      - Houshalter 10y ago
        Eugenics is silly in an age where parents can edit the DNA of their babies. We have the technology to do this now, it just isn't widely available yet.

vkou 10y ago

It had everything to do with race. The thing is, Irish were not considered white! They were sub-human, ape-like, violent alcoholics. Many English viewed them as such, and brought that viewpoint with them to the US. ... Racism doesn't have to make sense. And 1 in 8 is super-low for a settler nation. It's also only slightly higher then the average European state.

Houshalter 10y ago
Perhaps, but my point is that residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups, regardless of their origin. It's not necessarily racism. I know people who oppose immigrants. They don't believe hispanics are an inferior race or anything like that. They are mainly concerned about American jobs being taken by the immigrants. You can't use "racism" as a fully general insult against anyone that disagrees with you. Europe may or may not have higher rates of immigration. It's irrelevant to US policy. And it certainly seems like they are starting to have their own problems with immigrants the last few years.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  > residents of a country will always oppose immigrant groups This is pile of nonsense. The elected representatives from the Democratic Party don't show hate towards immigrants and have generally fought their betterment, and the Democratic Party won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. That's five out the last six elections. There was a huge amount of European immigration in the 1800s , and the early 1900s. Just as there was anti-Irish sentiment, I'm sure there were people back then who believed deeply in the Lump of Labor Fallacy[1], but their will was never put into effect as law. If people freaking out about jobs had put the same limits we have on immigration today back in 1800, the U.S. population would likely be the same as Canada's, and our total GDP less than one-tenth of what it is today. We probably also wouldn't have had the economic might to win World War I and World War II, or the Cold War (e.g. Marshall Plan[2]). Instead it was white-on-white racism, and the Nordic/Aryan supremacy[3] theories of Madison Grant[4] that actually led to the first major immigration restriction legislation in the U.S., the Emergency Quota Act[5] and the Immigration Act of 1924[6], which limited immigration to people from North-Western Europe, as a majority of the Congressmen back then believed that Southern and Eastern Europeans were a lower, less worthy breed of people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Grant [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Quota_Act [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    >This is pile of nonsense. The elected representatives from the Democratic Party don't show hate towards immigrants and have generally fought their betterment, and the Democratic Party won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012. That's five out the last six elections. Because the democrats 1) benefit from immigrants since they tend to vote democrat and 2) represent Northerners and the upper middle class, who aren't threatened by immigrants economically. >There was a huge amount of European immigration in the 1800s , and the early 1900s. Just as there was anti-Irish sentiment, I'm sure there were people back then who believed deeply in the Lump of Labor Fallacy[1], but their will was never put into effect as law. The economy was totally different then. It was much more agricultural based, which isn't as threatened by immigrant labor. Unemployment was nowhere near as high as today. There was a general trend of economic progress that could support the immigrants, and even benefited from their labor. >If people freaking out about jobs had put the same limits we have on immigration today back in 1800, the U.S. population would likely be the same as Canada's, and our total GDP less than one-tenth of what it is today. We probably also wouldn't have had the economic might to win World War I and World War II, or the Cold War (e.g. Marshall Plan[2]). Possibly. The US population growth was pretty high until recent times. Much higher than in Europe. And population size alone is not the only factor in GDP. Especially today in the age of automation.
internaut 10y ago
Historically the stereotype of the Irish as being less educated, violent (esp. domestic violence) and alcoholic is accurate. I say that as an Irish person. We've made considerable progress since in the late 20th century to the present, and now we are better in most metrics than the British (and perhaps they have also fallen), but don't imagine we were all sweetness and light in the past. Present day Irish have undergone a terrific cultural shift, evidence of which would be a supposed Catholic majority country voting in gay marriage. We're still Irish, but we're mostly better than we were. Now if we could only resuscitate the courage of our grandparents we'd be in better shape yet.
- tim333 10y ago
  There's a black academic, Thomas Sowell, who argues the same thing applies to US black culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liberals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liber...
  - internaut 10y ago
    Yes I've heard his position before. It is probably correct but very difficult to solve for, it can take centuries, which is not what most people want to hear. Cultural shifts are faster than biological evolution but are not always as fast as many people suppose. Personally I believe in the use of eugenics for both blacks and whites in order to create an improved type of human. We know high IQ has, among others, the side affect of sharply declining propensity for violent crime. We know people with good health are able to think longer term than the sickly. This goes way beyond the usual discussions but I think it is on the table whether people like it or not. I realize that the majority of people think this issue was laid to rest mid-twentieth century, but it is obvious those questions were always going to come back and it is only a matter of time. We've already been doing moderated forms of eugenics for decades except we've given it a hundred other names.
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      Eugenics is silly in an age where parents can edit the DNA of their babies. We have the technology to do this now, it just isn't widely available yet.