The past several decades have seen unprecedented growth in the world’s population. This explosive growth has been concentrated in the poorest nations of the world, while birth rates in affluent Europe and North America have sunk to below replacement levels, particularly among the descendants of the early settlers of these Western nations. In recent decades, migration from these poor regions to the West has been encouraged and facilitated by the elites of Western nations through various economic and social incentives and other factors.
These factors include opportunities for chain migration, lowered barriers to acceptance by host countries, widespread advanced mass communications technologies, lowered costs of travel and migration, insufficient economic growth in many backward areas to accommodate rising populations, problems blamed on alleged global warming, and the turmoil and disruption in war zones and areas of ethnic and religious strife, some of which is brought on by the “perpetual war for perpetual peace” crusade engaged in by the US including its “War on Terror” which is terrorizing vast areas of Africa and Asia, and the spread of militant Islam which is terrorizing many disparate areas.
Among the Western host populations, this “global swarming” has produced a small number of well-heeled winners and a very large number of losers. The winners include the left-wing and leaning-toward-the-left entrenched political elites and their supporting institutions, foundations, NGOs, and bureaucracies; the multinational and multi-culturally oriented business elites who profit from an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive service industry labor and entry-level high-tech labor; and those who operate and control large and nearly monopolistic institutions in the media, high technology, and educational sectors and the bureaucracies that support the “Deep State”. The losers have largely been the native middle and lower classes composed primarily of the descendants of the European founding stock and the later immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.
Working breadwinners from these classes have seen their real wages stagnate or decline; taxpayers have looked on helplessly as their taxes rise to pay for government/welfare services earmarked for immigrants; normal citizens have become the victims of the increased crimes and gang activity of immigrants; and established and stable neighborhoods have been infiltrated and destroyed by hordes of invaders displacing them and making them unsafe to live in or just to enjoy.
In essence, the immigration confrontation(its more than a “debate”) has pitted the socio-economic elites against the majority of the population even if many in the host population are unaware of the economic, social, and cultural damages they are incurring, or that they are being shoved aside and displaced.
Average citizens and even mass-based interest groups have little influence on the changes being wrought by the largely unrestricted and destructive immigration invasion taking place. Examples of these largely powerless interest groups include the American Association of Retirement Persons and other retiree oriented associations, the American Legion and similar patriotic groups, the National Rifle Association, and the major auto insurance companies(immigrants are notorious for their macho, dangerous and drunk diving). When the elites and general public disagree on something, the elites invariably get their way via government diktats. The dwindling majority does not determine policy outcomes.
A recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation found overwhelming majorities in 47 countries in favor of further restrictions and controls over immigration. These sentiments are just as strong, or in some cases stronger outside Europe and North America where populations are still not inured to the presence of the alien hordes.
Despite the calumnies and indignities heaped upon them, and in view of the constant pro-immigrant propaganda inflicted upon them by the establishment and its bleeding-heart churches and charities, the populations of North America and Western Europe express positive attitudes towards third world immigrants. Nevertheless, these populations favor further restrictions on immigration by majorities ranging from 60% to 75%. This demonstrates that concern with immigration is not based on xenophobia but a realization that the the pace of the immigration onslaught represents a threat to native folkways(without their seeming to realize the physical threat to the natives themselves).
The public confrontation(“debate”) on immigration nearly always opposes “multiculturalists” to “assimilationists”. The former believe immigrants should not be required to adapt to the cultural norms of their host nations, as this would somehow demean their native cultures and hence the immigrants themselves. This conforms to the Marxist concept that whites of European stock are an oppressor class with the less fortunate racial and ethnic groups being exploited classes, and is also in line with the Marxist disparagement of nationalism and its promotion of global internationalism so that white European influence can be diluted and the distinctions among nations slowly obliterated. Assimilationists believe immigrants should learn European languages and acquire European cultural habits as soon as possible to achieve economic success and minimize conflict with the host populations.
The assimilationalist position assumes third worlders are willing and able to adopt the ways of their Western host nation, which is an untenable position and is not based on any example in history. Third worlders tend to cling to their in-groups, sometimes to a paranoid extent, and can have difficulty mixing and mingling with the general population especially if there are language barriers present. Non-whites are naturally tribe oriented vice whites who have much less racial group consciousness and tend to operate as and see people as individuals and only secondarily as members of groups.
Most non-white immigrants have difficulty being patient, putting off immediate gratifications, and engaging in long-term planning which are almost prerequisites to economic advancement in an upwardly mobile oriented society like the US. Thus, many third world immigrants join gangs, get involved with drugs, fight over drug or gang territories, get involved in illicit schemes, drop out of school, and continue their abuse of women–treating them as second class persons after they arrive in America. The fawning liberal multiculturalist oriented American judiciary helps perpetuate these proclivities.
An imprudent aspect of current American law is the provision for family reunification which includes even adult parents and siblings. Thus, a single immigrant can bring in as many as 18 relatives within a 10 year period. Such “chain migration” is the main driving force behind our current demographic displacement/replacement crisis. In 2013, for example, 44% of immigrants arrived as immediate relatives of current immigrants and another 21% arrived under “family preferences”, for a total of 65% of all immigrants. The bias for family members largely explains why the majority of immigrants come from less developed countries, which have larger families and more siblings than families from industrialized countries.
There will be little political loyalty to the US among the immigrant third worlders if they do not become more flexible in their ways. A modern state requires affective human bonds to extend beyond the limitations of kinship and face-to-face relationships. As the country becomes more populated and diverse, such bonds should expand beyond the immediate in-group in order to have a healthy society.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam performed very comprehensive sociological studies of the American scene as delineated in his book from the Year 2000, “Bowling Alone”, and subsequently. He found that the effect of diversity is worse than imagined. His findings indicated that the more there are people of different races living in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from the collective social life of the community, to distrust their neighbors, and regardless of skin color to withdraw even from close friends, and to expect the worst from their community and its leaders.
Once America loses the ability to deliver material security to its inhabitants, it can be expected to revert to a more primitive social structure. This process could get very ugly. As historian Niall Ferguson has noted, “The most intense and brutal violence in recent history has involved ethnic clashes among groups that were part of empires that were in the midst of disintegration and decline”. Whether America can avoid such a fate depends upon political decisions which will have to be made in the very near future. American politicians and leaders have been avoiding existential questions concerning the future direction of American society for a long time now, so the prospect that major problems will be squarely faced is not a favorable one.
