> California went extremely socialist (not claiming that’s a bad thing) in the past 50 years and it’s due to immigration. Extemely socialist would be: the stat

> California went extremely socialist (not claiming that’s a bad thing) in the past 50 years and it’s due to immigration. Extemely socialist would be: the state directly gets involved in construction, knocks down old buildings disregarding all cultural heritage to make space for giant butt-ugly apartmenment blocks to house everyone, public toilets, etc. that's what USSR/China/etc. did Instead there seems to be streets filled with tents and teams of people hired to pick up human excrement. It does not look like any kinds of socialism any real socialist would recognise. > Using race as a proxy for culture it’s gone from ~90% white to 60% white in 50 years (2 generations). That’s astounding. Most likely the reasons are economic -> half the jobs anywhere are service jobs and lower-end jobs. In California and megacities like London the ratio of rent to wage in such job is >100%, so you can't have a life. Why would anyone with any other options or privilge put up with this exploitation? > freeze 100% of immigration for at least a generation (perhaps two) to stabilize the country You must also consider that it would destabilise the economy - all these people grew up abroad, someone else paid for their education and childcare, they pay for their own tuition. The undocumented workers, on the other hand, are being exploited so that the corn syrop can be $0.01 cheaper per tonne. All of that will have to adjust.