Diversity, Immigration, recent

Immigration Is Changing America Less than You Think

Few issues dominate current American politics more than immigration. Images of migrants illegally crossing the southern border, and the detainment of those caught by the border patrol, animate both the Left and Right. Central to this debate is America’s large Hispanic and Latino population, mostly driven by decades of immigration from Mexico and Central America. (The terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” largely but not entirely overlap). The famous “melting pot” metaphor for assimilation has given way to more sectarian hopes by Democrats that the new arrivals will amplify their numbers, and to fears by Republicans that they will be outvoted.

The hopes of the Left were perhaps most famously encapsulated in Ruy Teixeira and John B. Judis’s highly influential 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which forecast a new progressive era largely based on demographic changes. On the Right, white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.

Yet from a certain standpoint, the influx of immigrants has changed America far less than imagined. One measure is demographics. While activists on the Left decry Trump’s alleged racism against “brown” immigrants from south of the border, the majority (53 percent) of America’s 52 million Hispanics and Latinos self-identify as white on the Census. Other surveys show an even higher rate (65 percent) at which Hispanics self-identify as white.  And indeed, most Hispanics and Latinos descend partially or entirely from Europeans who emigrated to the New World in centuries past. They also are overwhelmingly Christian, like most other Americans. So, it is not at all clear that whites—which includes Hispanic whites—will ever be a minority in America.

As Thomas Edsall has observed in the New York Times, “When Hispanics who identify themselves as white are added in, the white share of the population actually grew modestly between 2000 and 2017 from 75.1 percent to 76.6 percent.” [emphasis added] Yet even otherwise careful analysts continue to conflate race and ethnicity. In a recent analysis of the upcoming election, for example, Pew Research Group writes that “a third of eligible voters will be nonwhite in 2020.” (Pew’s analysis repeatedly categorizes all Hispanics as “nonwhite” even though it acknowledges in a footnote that, in fact, “Hispanics are of any race.”)

An even more interesting phenomenon is that, the longer they live in America, the more Hispanics begin to self-identify as white. For example, an estimated 1.2 million Americans of Hispanic or Latino origin chose to change their racial identification from “some other race” to “white” between the 2000 and 2010 Census. Similarly, more than half the children of white-Asian couples identify as white. There are antecedents a century ago, when Italians, Arabs, Jews, and others came to be considered “white” in America, after initial resistance from the mostly Protestant white majority.

Intermarriage is another indicator of the already blurred lines between whites and Hispanics—white-Hispanic marriages (42 percent of the total) eclipse the number of white-Asian (15 percent) and white-black (11 percent) intermarriages. If these statistics seem surprising, it is because there is nothing visually distinctive about most of these marriages—most Hispanics are already considered (or consider themselves to be) white. Ironically, some of the polarization over immigration stems from Hispanic groups’ advocacy in the 1970s to create new identity categories for the US Census. Starting in 1980, the government created a category (Hispanic/Latino) based on ethnicity, which it listed alongside traditional racial categories (white, black, etc.). From this sprang the widespread use of political labels such as Hispanic, which activists on the Left later recast—often incorrectly—into terms such “brown” or “person of color” for Hispanics.

These labels ultimately capture very little that is accurate or relevant. Hispanics, of course, can be of any race—white, black, Asian, or indigenous, or any combination of those. Peru’s former President Alberto Fujimori, the son of Japanese immigrants, is considered Hispanic under the US government definition, just as Polish Jews who emigrated to Brazil in the twentieth century are considered Latinos. Under similar logic, descendants of African slaves living in Mexico who intermarried with indigenous people are labeled as Hispanics. The government’s definition of Hispanic is not even limited to people who emigrated from the “south”—surprisingly, it also includes people from Spain itself.

It is also worth pointing out that many of these immigrants come from countries with a history of electing right-wing governments. While there is, of course, no direct overlap between American and overseas domestic political parties, there are some similarities. While immigrants historically have tended to vote Democratic, it is far-fetched to assume that immigrants with conservative political views will automatically support a left-wing political party in their new country.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that the predictions in The Emerging Democratic Majority have not aged well. While the foreign-born population of the US has continued to increase, this has not borne much fruit for the Democratic Party. Outside of California, even some states with large Hispanic populations, such as Texas and Florida, remain largely Republican or competitive for Republicans. And the Republican Party has controlled either Congress or the White House for all but two of the 17 years since the book was published.

Part of this is, of course, due to the stronger identification of non-Hispanic whites with the Republican Party in recent years. In a more diverse America, ironically, it is actually the Democratic Party which has been weakened. Historically, the Democratic Party was at its most dominant—and enacted the most significant left-wing programs—between 1933 and 1968, a time when the electorate was around 90 percent white. Since then, the two major parties have largely alternated in their control of the federal government.

In the 2016 election, Trump received 28 percent of the Hispanic vote, despite running on issues which were widely expected to doom his candidacy with that group. His share of the Hispanic vote was slightly larger than his percentage of the Asian-American vote (27 percent), and far larger than his share of the black vote (9 percent). These aggregate numbers mask some notable nuances, such as that Trump performed about as well among Hispanic men (32 percent) as he did with college-educated white women (35 percent).

In other major races with less polarizing figures, such as the 2016 North Carolina Senate race, the Republican won more Hispanic votes than his Democratic rival (49 percent versus 48 percent). The Florida Senate race the same year saw the Republican take 48 percent of the Hispanic vote, about the same as his Democratic opponent (50 percent). Notably, on the same Florida ballot, Trump received 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, indicating that while his rhetoric turned off some Hispanic voters, others remained drawn to his message.

The drama surrounding immigration in America is largely based on labels that confuse more than they enlighten. The enormous level of immigration to the United States has actually done little to change the overall demographics of the country over the past 20 years. Nor has it changed the overall political balance of the country in any significant way. Perhaps the most notable fact about this wave of immigration is just how little it has reshaped the American demographic and political landscape.


John Litwinski is a former attorney and entrepreneur living in the United States.


  1. Good points, many of which have been made piecemeal by Fred Reed on his commentary site, fred-on-everything, recently migrated to the UNZ review: http://www.unz.com/author/fred-reed/
    On a more personal note, I am a 50 year first immigrant from Europe and from the very first disavowed my native heritage. My wife is Brazilian and REALLY gets annoyed when she is typecast as Mexican. If even half of the immigrants have a spark of good old fashioned individualism in them, they will fail to fit into molds and that is what we are (or should be) all about; a nation of misfits

Continue the discussion in Quillette Circle


Comments have moved to our forum


  1. Farris says

    Very informative and enlightening article. What often gets lost in the immigration debate is that it is not immigration to which the opponents object but rather illegal immigration. Concern about illegal immigration has nothing to due with the race of the entrant but rather with security of the borders and being able to monitor and ascertain who is coming in.

    • E. Olson says

      Exactly right as usual Farris. As long as LEGAL immigrants have the means to support themselves without government assistance, and are willing and eager to assimilate and adopt American values (i.e. support for the Constitution, capitalism, personal responsibility), and don’t depress wages or displace jobs from current citizens, there are very few Americans who are not willing to let reasonable numbers of qualified people in.

      • old geezer says

        Who are you going to believe, me or your lyin’ eyes ?

        I was born and raised and, for now, still live in the peepuls republik of commiefornia.

        This article is complete B S, period.

        • Memetic Tribe says

          No one wants to discuss the the environmental imprint of immigration. We are one the few well managed countries in the world that is in the unique position to protect its wild lands, conserve its resources, etc. We had been on that road once, before all environmental ideology got swept up into global climate change rhetoric.

          What we need is a stable population, not a stabily increasing population.

          We don’t need a slab of concrete paved from sea to shining sea. And if migrants trample all over their own countries, well whatever. We dont have to allow them to do so in ours.

          We can still have minimal, highly vetted immigration. We have to, as American women seem to have collectively decided to stop creating children on the name of feminism. (Modern feminism and immigration are the same issue, as far as I am concerned)

      • Farris says


        Well said. The charges of racism serve to deflect from the debate about how immigration should be managed. Rather than have a civil discussion the open borders would prefer to just scream racism. Some believe the open borders position is actually alienated blue collar union workers.

    • No sharia says

      Pure nonsense ….. it has
      everything to do with race. The vast majority of southerners crossing illegally are not white.

      • BrainFireBob says

        That’s because the vast majority of people who can cross illegally from the southern border aren’t white. One can either have an issue with who is immigrating or that there is so much illegal immigration; they are both separate positions.

    • Geary Johansen says

      @ Farris and E. Olson

      Great comments. What most Democrats don’t realise is that they are sleepwalking into a Republican majority for the next 20 years. Post-Trump, all they really need to do is propose a candidate like Dan Crenshaw, to articulate a message that unchecked immigration harms the hardworking Latino/Hispanic population that is already in America legally, as citizens.

      Unskilled or low-skilled labour in excess supply harms labour rates, especially if it is ‘off the books’ and exempt from the tax system. Other than welfare, public service spending can only be diluted by people who are not net contributors- most people don’t realise that when one accounts for economic transfers it’s only when you are in the top 40% of the income distribution that you begin to contribute. And, unless you are hardworking enough to master a highly technical and demanding trade skill, this usually entails at least two generations behind you sacrificing as stable families to give you the opportunity to succeed. Liberals really should study those ‘dead white men’ more- Thomas Hardy laid it all out pretty well in ‘Jude the Obscure’.

      So, what Democrats don’t realise that it only takes a slight re-framing of concerns over immigration, to shift what is reported to be a 30% share of the latino/hispanic vote (but is probably higher), to a 70% share of this key demo. All you have tell them is that unfettered immigration will harm their children, both in terms of the educational resources that will be available and the jobs market they will face. With an example like California, it shouldn’t be hard to make the case.

      • old geezer says

        a brilliant, very persuasive analysis.
        i have been listening to the same crap for over 40 years.

        here’s another extremely brilliant method, first proven in commiefornia, now being replicated through out north america and western europe

        if you don’t like your electorate, import a new one. make the ones you want to get rid of pay for it.

    • Geary Johansen says

      @ Farris and EO

      I have been watching Institute for Justice on YouTube, as a result of pieces featuring them on Reason TV. Well worth a watch and pretty inspiring stuff about lawyers taking on Rent-seeking bureaucracies- I can’t believe it’s possible in the US, for government to foreclose on your home, simply because you neglected to mow your lawn for a few weeks, whilst out of town. That’s crazy- no wonder you guys don’t like Government.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @Geary Johansen

        Not after a few weeks but how about if your property has become derelict? I saw a documentary about this that had me hoisting the hammer and sickle outside my place after it was over: Picture yourself in a once respectable working class black neighborhood in Detroit in ’09. The meltdown is happening, but folks are desperately hanging on to their blocks. But a house is foreclosed and goes derelict, the copper thieves rip out the wiring and plumbing. The gangs move in and use the place as a crack house. Values on the block plummet. Folks find themselves holding underwater mortgages and walk away, loosing not only their only real asset, but dooming the block because this sort of thing is self accelerating. As the saying is: ‘There goes the neighborhood’.

        So various commie governments were trying to contain the cancer by attempting to pass laws that any property in danger of going derelict would be seized and immediately rented out at some affordable rate to some family who just got booted onto the street when their Fanny/Freddy mortgage collapsed. (Yes E, it was the commies who started the Fanny/Freddy mess.) It is one of those things where what is good for each individual bank — eviction and resale — dooms the neighborhood and thus the banks as a whole do not do well and neither does anyone else except the drug gangs. Capitalism occasionally does produce this sort of self-eating frenzy and it should be controlled.

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ Ray Andrews

          Most of this appeared to be plain rent-seeking by local government although one instance detailed a government in cahoots with a developer, keen to upscale a blue collar neighbourhood at the expense of its current neighbourhoods. The FDIC thing certainly needs looking into though, because a number of local judge have bravely denied standing to third parties who bought the mortgages from the Fanny/Freddie mess. This is a ticking time bomb there for many mortgage holders, as often the terms of the resale to the third party allowed them to repossess for relatively slight infractions, often making more money as the length of the mortgage gets closer to it’s final repayment.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Geary Johansen

            Nothing is ever simple. There is no good thing that can’t be abused. But the doc I saw showed decent folks just trying to save their neighborhoods.

  2. Morgan Foster says

    “It is also worth pointing out that many of these immigrants come from countries with a history of electing right-wing governments.”

    Many of these same immigrants have a history of electing corrupt right-wing governments. Something we all need to think about.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Morgan Foster

      No, no, no! Only the left can ever be corrupt. Ríos Montt believed in small government therefore he could not have been corrupt, and his death squads were run with admirable efficiency and probity on free market principles. Elizabeth Warren’s-death-squads-to-come will no doubt be sorry examples of big government bloat and waste.

    • Right wing is such an ambiguous term. It can be applied to Strict Constitutionalist, authoritarian nationalist, libertarians, social conservatives and outright racists, especially as every country and culture has a different interpretation and sometimes overlap occurs. I can opposed illegal immigration and support more liberal, merit based immigration (i.e. easier immigration for needed fields). This means that I can support stricter border enforcement and internal enforcement (with the correct protection for due process). A neo-nazi also supports stricter border enforcement, but for different reasons. We’ll both be labeled right wing but our mindsets are completely different. I support strict interpretation of the Constitution, and when not overturned by subsequent amendments, support strict originalist interpretations. I also tend to be fairly libertarian on a variety of social issues, but do not support unhindered abortions, and unfair trade labeled “free trade” that is detrimental to America (or other western nations). I also support strongly politicians (American) who place emphasis on America first (as I would expect British politicians to do the same) whenever feasible. I support a strong military but believe military adventuresome should be reined in. The binary options of conservative or progressive are so incorrect that it boggles the mind. Just because a country has a “right wing” goverernment doesn’t mean it would be considered right wing in America or be consistent with American conservative ideals.

  3. Andrew Scott says

    “On the Right, white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.”

    I suppose I knew this was true. I’m just surprised to see it stated so openly. Are white Americans really afraid of becoming a minority? If so, why?

    Fear is an emotion. Emotions come from thoughts. Thoughts may or may not be rational. We can put them to the test by putting them into words:

    As a white American, I’m afraid that white people will become a minority because ________.


    As a white American, it’s important to me that white people are a majority because ________.

    What fills in those blanks? Is it rational?

    The latter part of the sentence suggests that some Americans feel strongly enough about this that they will elect politicians who they hope will act to preserve a white majority. Is that true? It’s a bit disturbing. If it is true, those people should be able and willing to complete at least one of those sentences.

    • They are afraid because they think they will be treated badly if they become a minority. They imagine a Zimbabwe kind of situation, I guess. Of course their fears are most likely exaggerated. It’s kinda unlikely that whites will become a minority anyway as more and more Hispanics will identify as white.

      • South Africa seems intent on following Zimbabwe’s example. And we have seen certain steps by some progressives and progressive policies that do punish whites (and Asians) because of their skin color, though rarely blatantly stated as such.

    • BrainFireBob says

      Illegal immigration causes problems with vaccinations (public health), social welfare programs (those with money don’t immigrate illegally), human rights abuses (they lack legal recourse outside the networks that foster them), tax based (reporting income as a non registered citizen?), and yes, crime- smuggling and flight from the law in native countries both benefit mightily from illegal immigration.

      Somehow, a large portion of the left has let its leadership equate “open borders” with “easy immigration processing,” which I think most Americans would at least discuss.

      But a basic medical and criminal history background check? Can’t have that reasonable item exist with open borders

    • TR Hinz says

      As a [person of european descent], it’s important to me that [people who are not culturally distant from me – which, as per Amy Wexler’s recent remarks will tend to be white] are a majority because like most humans, I prefer to live among and be governed by people most of whom speak, look and behave like me.

      • Andrew Scott says

        Remember, the quote is about fear. Fear is the emotion we feel when our thoughts tell us that we’re in danger or something bad is going to happen to us. The sentence described that fear as real enough to lead to a course of action.

        What bad thing do people think will happen to them if a white majority isn’t preserved?

        Maria Kouloglou mentioned Zimbabwe. Perhaps the new majority would persecute the white minority. (She also said that she didn’t think it was actually a concern. Neither do I.) That’s pretty much how it works when we think things through rationally.

        As I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not politically affiliated, I’m not liberal, and I don’t agree with the whole take-offense-to-everything culture.

        But when we talk about “fear” of losing a white majority, that actually is xenophobia. It’s not rational. When we say that we just prefer to be around people who look, talk, and behave like us, well that doesn’t hold up at all. It implies that white people look, talk, and behave the same, which they obviously don’t.

        It also implies that other races look, talk, and behave differently from whatever imaginary norm white people have in common. It exaggerates whatever cultural differences might exist between some whites and some non-whites while minimizing the commonalities and minimizing the differences between individual white people.

        What’s more, any white person knows that we’re not automatically comfortable around other white people. So it really translates to saying that we’re not comfortable being around people who aren’t white.

        Fear, the emotion, comes from thoughts. In this case, the thought – sorry – is not rational. It implies an assertion that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It literally doesn’t make sense. More importantly, it still doesn’t answer the question. What bad thing will happen? We can’t have fear without something to fear.

        The thought of being afraid simply because we’re surrounded by people who aren’t white is pretty much racism. And that’s what the sentence in the article describes:

        “…white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.”

        • codadmin says

          @Andrew Scott

          If you are actually white, then you’re clearly rushing off your tits…pills?…what?

          Naive optimism feels good ( especially after a couple of pills ) but don’t pretend that it’s rational.

        • TR Hinz says

          “When we say that we just prefer to be around people who look, talk, and behave like us, well that doesn’t hold up at all. It implies that white people look, talk, and behave the same, which they obviously don’t.”

          Obviously not all white people look, talk, and behave the same, and the preference for living among and being governed by one’s own kind is vividly illustrated by the breakup of the white european multi-ethnic empires into their constituent nationalities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a process still going on today.

          The great achievement of the US was to create a political entity into which people were happy to submerge their previous identities for the ability to maximize their individual freedom and material quality of life. Part of the bargain was acceptance of a english-derived law, including its emphasis on individual and property rights; the philosophical ideals of equality of opportunity and equality before the law; representative government; the english language, and a belief that hard work and initiative could lead to a better life.

          By the mid-twentieth century at the latest that set of commonly adopted values was sufficient for community cohesion among american whites. The old european ethnic animosities mostly disappeared and progress was slowly being made towards including blacks as equal fellow-citizens.

          The migrant invasion of recent years (100,000 people a month with millions more waiting to come qualifies as an invasion) threatens to completely change the cultural as well as racial character of the US. You may think they will assimilate as other waves before them, but it seems obvious that there is a tipping point after which migrant language and culture will simply become permanent transplants. The US will probably become balkanized. Why should the white majority be compelled to risk that outcome?

          “What’s more, any white person knows that we’re not automatically comfortable around other white people. So it really translates to saying that we’re not comfortable being around people who aren’t white.”

          No it doesn’t translate into that. Once again, it means that the more cultural distance between different groups, the less comfortable we are likely to be. We are simply more likely to find that cultural similarity with other whites.

          “More importantly, it still doesn’t answer the question. What bad thing will happen? We can’t have fear without something to fear.”

          Loss of social cohesion is a valid fear. However, I don’t think you get to insist on defining the sole issue as fear. Simple innate preference to live among those most like ourselves is also a valid reason.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @TR Hinz

            “we’re not comfortable being around people who aren’t white”

            Sometimes it’s more basic than that. There are entire sections of my city where English is no longer spoken. Once the tipping point is reached immigrants no longer feel any need to assimilate in any way including language. The result is that the remaining English speakers move out as soon as they possibly can simply because what used to be their home is now a foreign country. They say that in much of the US, Spanish is now the working language.

          • S. Cheung says


            I generally agree with the first half of what you wrote here. However, I don’t think that “preference” is necessarily as innate as you believe…

            (https) ://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/desc.12537

            And the propensity for having such preferences, be they innate/learned/acquired/whatever in origin, does seem to accrue more among “whites”…

            (https) ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493421/

            It’s certainly not conclusive, but I would submit that “whites” prefer “whites” (if they in fact do) because they were conditioned to. If you accept that, then you could postulate that such tendencies could be modified by more exposure to other races. And I think a similar postulate would apply to other races/cultures as well.

            (sorry I had to break up the links…this site doesn’t seem to appreciate links in comments very much)

          • TR Hinz says

            @S. Cheung

            You hypothesize that preference for living among people like themselves is more prevalent among whites and that this is a result of their “conditioning”. Forget the studies of babies and college students and look at the real world. Look at the municipality of Richmond in British Columbia which is now majority Chinese. They are there not because they have been ghettoized but because they prefer to live among people with whom they share language, customs, values etc. Do you doubt that the same is true for the arabs in Dearborn and the somalis in Minneapolis? Clearly we are dealing with a species-wide characteristic.

            I agree that attitudes people of one race have towards people of another race can be modified by exposure. In fact we see that a lot in North America where small groups of asians and/or africans frequently live harmoniously with majority white populations. Critically though, where this is happening the minorities have assimilated (to the point, for example, where more recent Chinese arrivals sometimes call the established ones bananas – yellow on the outside, white on the inside). There is little cultural distance.

            I think that this inter-racial cultural commonality is ultimately a more important factor for social harmony than skin color. But this does not negate the point that the dwindling white majority is perfectly justified in being alarmed at the admission of migrants in numbers with whom they little in common (let alone being inadequately vetted for disease, criminality and employability) and which are almost certainly unassimilable within any reasonable time frame.

          • S. Cheung says


            thanks for your response. Due to the haphazard nature of “reply” buttons on this site, I have no idea where this comment will land…hopefully somewhere within shouting distance of your last one.

            I don’t mean to suggest that congregating by race is exclusively a “white” thing…and your examples clearly demonstrate that. I was more interested in addressing the “innate” part…and nature v nurture is something that comes up not infrequently on this site. The “babies” thing was simply to suggest that it’s almost certainly not all nature.

            I think there is a difference in the dynamism of socialization when you are a member of the visible majority, versus when you are not. I made a comment elsewhere about “assimilation” vs “integration” vs perhaps “adaptation”. There is an adage in my birth culture that loosely translates to “enter a village, adopt their customs”…more or less akin to “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. It’s one I took to heart many moons ago. So I certainly appreciate the need and the benefit of a minority adapting to their majority surroundings. But I wonder about what allowances can be reasonably asked of the majority in terms of accommodation.

            I think you’re overstating the “dwindling white majority” bit. It is literally true in that the supermajority has shrunk a bit, but I don’t think there is a functionally relevant shift in the offing. I am in agreement about adequate vetting etc., but without the alarmist numerical connotations.

          • dirk says

            I don’t agree, less comfortable where others are different? I’ve lived and worked in countries with sub-populations completely different in race, belief, language, clothing, eating habits etc, but never ever felt less comfortable, whether in the presence of my own people, or with some of them. And I wonder how that was with those others. In fact, I never even asked them.

        • Shamrock says


          It seems your points can be summed up as “Any white person who is against any type of immigration is a fearful racist.” No doubt you think of yourself as being superior to all these white racists, but it’s this type of elitist nonsense that drove people to vote for Trump.

        • As above so below says

          The fear of white minority is not the same as having any personal animus towards individuals of non-white ethnicity. The fear is about fundamental changes to the underlying values of society, which is quite reasonable and rational. It’s about different peoples bringing different values. Some of these values we may add something to our societies, but equally some values may be detrimental. Not all societies have high levels of trust and honesty in business dealings. Some societies have very high in-group preference, so that nepotism and corruption are seem as ‘good’. Some societies privilege certain religious beliefs. Many societies have fundamental values that conflict with our values. These structures of beliefs and values go to make society what it is. They are the superstructure, the technology that makes some societies modern – and successful in terms of material wealth, level of health/average lifespan, certain qualities of life. Obviously there are other factors too, but ways of behaviour that are embedded in our minds are very important. Do I cheat? Do I use bribery as part of doing business? Do I give a job to someone in my tribe even though they are not the best candidate? Can I challenge a person in authority? Should men and women mix freely in the social sphere? The open borders philosophy appears to be based on two contradictory assumptions: one that Western society/my society is so self evidently superior that newcomers will obviously adopt my values (Sweden seems to suffer from this); and all societies are basically the same so there will be no clash of values, only prejudice that white people need to overcome (this idea is basically the one that underpins the idea that certain societies are more successful than others only through foul play – not that the societies are doing certain things based upon their values that lead them to prosper.)

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ Andrew Scott

          In most liberal Western Democracies the fear is more of a loss of social cohesion, and shared cultural values under the protective umbrella of national character, rather than any racism or xenophobia. This is because it is only people who are WEIRD (western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic) who can derive a sense of belonging from a society based on multiculturalism.

          Most people need a sense of community and a shared set of cultural reference points to survive and thrive. And psychological liberals can only ever be a large minority in any country, because the embedded psychology can only exist when one comes from a better than average educational and socio-economic background, relative to the society you live in.

          This is the real tragedy- most liberals can’t understand that concept of multiculturalism whilst ideal for them, not only harms those less fortunate of the society in which they live , but also harms the migrant communities that they wish to be most welcoming towards. Because, it is a human universal that groups of people moving into a majority population, always, always act on the principle of homophily, the tendency to self-segregate, is an attempt to maintain that sense of ‘belonging’ in their new country.

          Far from multiculturalism, the correct response to migration is to invite integration, and dare I say it- assimilation. To welcome people into the broader culture, to which they have moved, by the adoption of shared history and cultural norms. It’s the genius of America, in assimilating vast swathes of migrant populations and inviting them to assimilate, whilst maintaining pride in the their migrant roots.

          And if America has failed in the past, in relation to race, then it is precisely because of the tendency to exclude people on the basis of race from mainstream society and cultural integration that has to lead to the structural disparities that afflict America in the modern context. Had US communities been united as Americans by common goals, culture and values, regardless of race, for the past 50 years, then almost none of their current disparities would exist.

          For proof, you only have to look at the career military and US military bases around the world- it’s a sad fact that the place where MLK’s dream to ‘one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.’ thrives most in these communities driven by common purpose and identity. Tragically ironic, given that he was a confirmed pacifist.

          • S. Cheung says


            I appreciate your balancing of the use of “integration” and “assimilation” here. I tend to associate the former with positive, and the latter with negative, connotations. Not really sure why that is.

            Assimilation seems to imply a transformation that fundamentally alters the former self. Integration seems to suggest a mere co-mingling. Having gone through it myself, I feel neither are truly suitable…though perhaps due to the limitation of how I am defining those terms.

            Rather, I think “adaptation” might better encapsulate my personal experience. I am neither the person I was, nor am I a “white” person.

            On a separate note, i totally agree with your military base analogy. What bridges segments of society are shared goals and commonalities. Think “American dream” of the bygone eras you alluded to. That seems to have gone by the wayside these days, to our collective detriment.

          • Geary Johansen says

            @ S. Cheung

            I agree that assimilation has become a toxic word- for some good and some bad reasons. The problem is that integration as a word, doesn’t necessarily imply the absorption of the codes of social conduct and cultural values, that exist beyond simply following the law.

            Of the anti-immigration arguments for Brexit, one of the observations made was that many new communities failed to use the bins provided by their local councils, instead expecting communal skips to be provided. Another would be that in many parts of the world, I would never even consider using my left hand to pick-up food, because of the cultural implications.

            It a complex issue- and one that I will have to avoid for now, given that it’s time to walk the dogs!

            Adaption is a good word- maybe adaptive integration?

        • Cypton says

          @Amdrew Scott

          In my lfairly short ilifetime I’ve witnessed America go from 90% white to 60% white.. if you think this isn’t going to have drastic effect, on society as a whole you’re simply naive as we’re already witnessing it. And you haven’t seen anything yet.

          Surprisingly, the intelligence and general survival instincts of the population is taking a nose dive also. People used to be able to understand the hidden biases of their people, but not anymore. People are just too self absorbed.

      • Jack B. Nimble says

        @TR Hinz

        ‘….I prefer to live among and be governed by people most of whom speak, look and behave like me……’

        How do you determine when a person’s looks/speech/behavior is so different from yours that they are no longer acceptable as a neighbor and fellow citizen?

        We should remember that, a century ago, people in the US mostly looked down on southern and eastern Europeans as being too ignorant, poor and Catholic to qualify for entry to the country:


        In cultural terms. those would-be immigrants weren’t ‘white’ enough.

        But now conservatives like David French argue that most Europeans are too secular and too hostile to American values to qualify for entry to the country:


        Bottom Line: Conservatives like Amy Wax and David French have no real suggestions to make about how would-be immigrants should be judged on issues like character, values, skills and ‘cultural distance.’ And the differing views of Wax and French on the desirability of more immigration from Europe to the US show just how muddled right-wing thinking on immigration is.

        • TR Hinz says

          @Jack B. Nimble

          You say right-wing thinking on immigration is “muddled” because there can be disagreement on the desirability of particular groups of immigrants. Sorting out those sorts of disagreements would be far simpler than dealing with the problems being brought on by the left’s current clamor for open borders.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @TR Hinz

            “The left” isn’t clamoring for open borders. Instead, almost all Democrats in Congress supported the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013:

            “….The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744) was a proposed immigration reform bill …. introduced into the Senate of the 113th United States Congress on April 16, 2013. …. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.

            If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas had been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers. It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.

            The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this reform bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US$197 billion over the next ten years and by $700 billion by 2033. Its report also states that, if the bill had been passed, U.S. wages would have been 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than under current law. The Social Security Administration said that it would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion….”

            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013 — emphasis added

            Furthermore, less than half of the Democratic candidates currently running for president oppose extending a wall at the southern border, and virtually all of the candidates support more funding for border security. Calling this ‘open borders’ is just a mindless smear. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/immigration/

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Jack B. Nimble

            “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013:”

            Thanks for the effort at getting factual.

            “Calling this ‘open borders’ is just a mindless smear.”

            Alas, there is so much mindless smearing going on, and half of it comes from these same reasonable lefties. Mention that you have any doubts about the wisdom of mass immigration and you are instantly labeled a xenophobe and a racist, yes? It would be nice if both sides would stop the mindless smearing. And sorry but there do seem to be very many lefties who’s ideas seem to be exactly ‘open borders’. We here the slogan: “No one is illegal” over and over again do we not?

          • Jack B. Nimble says


            ‘………..there do seem to be very many lefties who’s ideas seem to be exactly ‘open borders’. We here the slogan: “No one is illegal” over and over again…..’

            The slogan ‘no one is illegal’ means, IMO, that no PERSON is illegal. That is, no one in the US stands outside the law, with no recourse to due process and the courts. American citizens have constitutional rights, and even non-citizens are entitled to due process. For example, persons requesting asylum are entitled to have their claims examined.

            Why is this important? Just look at how ICE and CBP recently stripped an American citizen of his constitutional rights:

            ‘US-born teen detained for weeks by CBP lost 26 pounds, was told ‘you have no rights’

            The Texas-born high school student who was detained by immigration officials for more than three weeks told CNN Thursday he was treated less than human at a US Customs and Border Protection facility.

            Francisco Galicia, 18, says he was held in filthy, overcrowded conditions where he was not allowed to shower for 23 days, forced to sleep on a cement floor and not given enough food. By the time he was released Tuesday, after word spread about his detention following a report by The Dallas Morning News, he said he was malnourished, having dropped 26 pounds.

            “They were not treating us humanely…The stress was so high, they (detention center agents) were on me all the time. It was like psychological torture to the point where I almost (agreed to be deported). I felt safer to be in the cell than to be with the officers. ”

            ….Francisco Galicia was born in Texas, and he is an American citizen. As a child, he moved to Mexico with his family and later returned to the US as a teenager. He says he was carrying his state ID, a Social Security card and a wallet-sized birth certificate…..He also had a Mexican tourist visa with him that inaccurately listed his country of birth as Mexico, setting up a conflicting nationality claim, his attorney, Claudia Galan, said…..Francisco Galicia was sent to an immigration detention center…..“They didn’t believe me. I kept telling them over and over, and they kept saying my documents were fake, and they were going to deport me,” Galicia said. “…They threatened me with charges — charges about falsifying documents. Felonies. They kept asking how it was possible for me to not know where I was from. I almost signed (to be deported) because I didn’t want to suffer there anymore.”

            “The moment I got there, we told them we have the right to a phone call and to a lawyer, and they told us, ‘you have no rights,’” he said.…..’

            Source: https://kfor.com/2019/07/26/us-born-teen-detained-for-weeks-by-cbp-lost-26-pounds-was-told-you-have-no-rights/ — emphasis added

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ Jack B. Nimble

          Nice bit of factual argument, both here and in the comment below. But I think that there should be some nuance applied to both parties. Yes, you have more moderate liberals who have always been against illegal immigration and pro-enforcement. Historically, many Republican have been pro-immigration, because of the lower labour costs it afforded American business.

          But it is only recently, that the political discourse has descended to the level of name-calling and cries of racism. This for a President who Van Jones rightly praised for his efforts to pass the most significant bipartisan criminal justice reform bill, in recent decades. Now granted Trump might present a tempting target on the this and other issues, given his style and delivery of speech, but coming on the back of Barrack Obama, commonly referred to as Deporter in Chief, this seems a bit rich.

          I think the main problem with Trump, on this subject, is that he is white and he is old, and, given the fact that the Left has abolished the right to call reverse racism, racism, he makes for an easy target. Unfortunately, for the Dems their recent swing to the left, under the pernicious threat of attack from their own flank, will not put them in the good books of the American Public at large going into 2020. People in politics still don’t seem to get that Twitter is as far from the real world as it is possible to get, in terms of representing the views of mainstream America and that the progressives who buy into intersectional feminism are a one generation, elite college only phenomena, that is not likely to grow in size.

          A recent poll put Donald Trump’s favorability at an all-time high, bar 0.1 of a percent.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Geary Johansen

            You have such a talent for plain speech and honesty Geary.

          • Geary Johansen says

            @ Ray Andrews

            Thanks mate. That means a lot.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @Geary Johansen

            ‘……A recent poll put Donald Trump’s favorability at an all-time high, bar 0.1 of a percent…….’

            The 0.1% part is cute, but you need to look at this for the real story:


            BTW, racism has always been a part of the immigration debate in the US. Examples include the ‘yellow peril’ and ‘shithole countries.’ See also my recent review of ‘The Guarded Gate’ on Quillette.

        • Stephanie says

          Jack, 2013 was ages ago, and the Democratic party has been moving left at break-neck pace. What has this crop of Democratic candidates said about border security?

        • @Jack be nimble,

          We have several high profile Democrats, including a number running for president, who now openly support ending ICE and decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Who have also protested deportations of those who have had their cases heard and ruled in and have valid deportation orders. Many have also called Border Enforcement officials (many of who are Hispanics themselves) white nationalist and or compared them to the Gestapo. While, the 2013 bill was much more moderate, it certainly had some flaws and a number of progressives now disavow that approach. This number may be small, but it appears to be growing and largely driving policy on the left. I will grant that nativism does appear more prominent in GOP policies lately, as well. It has grown more divisive and more extreme the longer we go without a solution. Like many wedge issues, it has become to politically beneficial as a controversy for real solutions to be worth solving for our elected officials, and for the media.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @Jeffrey C.

            ‘…..who now openly support ending ICE and decriminalizing illegal border crossings….’

            If border crossing is decriminalized, persons in the US without authorization or visas can still be deported [a civil offense]. Decriminalization doesn’t mean open borders!!!!

            Criminalizing border crossing just clogs up the US court system without improving border security, as this article explains:

            ‘….What if crossing the border illegally wasn’t a crime?

            At the first level, US authorities deal with it [illegal immigration] through a civil process. The consequence for someone who comes into the country without permission is straightforward: deportation. But on top of that, authorities can also choose to funnel that same immigrant for the same action through the criminal system, using Section 1325.

            Originally, the law was conceived in the late 1920s to reduce the number of Mexicans who came to the US, according to Kelly Lytle Hernandez, a history professor at University of California Los Angeles. Before the law, entering the US without papers wasn’t a crime. Though they were supposed to enter through regular ports of entry, Mexican laborers crossed the border informally with no consequences….These days, authorities are similarly using 1325 to deter people from coming to the US illegally, more than to punish them for it, says Kit Johnson, a professor at University of Oklahoma’s College of Law. Deportation already serves that purpose. “It’s unnecessary layering on top,” she adds.…..

            Last year, Trump rolled out his Zero Tolerance policy. Under it, government prosecutors were instructed to charge every single person who entered the US without documents with a 1325 violation. The criminal courts again got flooded…..The Trump administration also used the law to justify separating children from their families……’

            https://qz.com/1654767/what-if-section-1325-were-repealed-like-julian-castro-said/ — emphasis added

    • BrainFireBob says

      Have some time now. I have two very serious criticisms of this article.

      PROVE IT

      Many on the left dishonestly assume that * “white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.” *

      They base this, fundamentally, three things:

      1) Trump said that criminals are coming over the southern border, went on at length, and then added “and I’m sure many fine people to.” This was decided to be racist dog whistling.
      2) Trump, in the aftermath of Charlottesville, said that there were people who were there merely to protest removal of the statue. I was shocked when Politifact reviewed his remarks recently and made their rating “Needs context.” Good to see some honesty from them.
      3) The left goes into every discussion and debate assuming the right must be dog whistling, and looks until they find something they can claim as dog whistling. That’s confirmation bias and the worst kind of reasoning, twisting facts to suit your hypothesis.

      Is Trump personally racist? Don’t know. Many of our Presidents were. Wilson was widely revered, and he was very racist. But I know these things aren’t what they were touted as in the media.

      I don’t know if many of our moderate left-aisle brethren are listening closely enough to catch this, but the right is frequently confronted with false dichotomies- “Are you for raising the marginal tax rate by 5%, or not for raising it by 5% while clubbing baby seals and engaging in cannibalism?” Things that frankly aren’t linked at all are treated as the motivation for positions.

      Yeah, the Klan finally backed a Republican. All what, 2,000 of them? If all the Dems they backed weren’t inherently racist for getting their support (you can’t choose who votes for you), then why are Republicans?

      Here’s the thing on immigration:

      It comes in two types.

      Legal immigrants have passed a background check. Immigrants who become citizens have passed a citizenship test and demonstrated good community behavior within the country.

      Illegal immigrants have not done the former and consequently can’t do the latter, even if they would make excellent citizens.

      Here are the minimum necessary comments I have on immigration:

      1) Vaccines only work when you have a sufficiently sized population that’s vaccinated. If you don’t have inlet points for immigration, illegals that are non-vaccinated (and possibly illness carrying) can enter your nation. Note: Tourists have to get vaccines for travel visas
      2) The wealthy don’t need to immigrate illegally. This means that illegal immigrants are more likely to be poor. The poor are the ones that make use of social welfare systems and safety nets- but because they should not be able to legally file taxes, they can’t pay into the system. That’s not fair to native borns who have
      3) They are vulnerable to deportation, extortion, and/or blackmail by any illegal groups that helped them migrate (ie, coyotes) once resident, in addition to any issues with coyotes, etc. to cross the border. This means they themselves aren’t fully protected by their new home
      4) Having easy illegal access allows smuggling and other crimes/criminals to escape into a nation via the illegal channels. That’s bad for everyone. Criminals on the lamb escape justice and can commit crimes again, gangs can import drugs, etc.
      5) Fun thing: Until recently, as I understand it, Mexico’s policy was that migrants wanting to enter the US would be shuttled across Mexico at the government’s expense as long as they did not attempt to settle in Mexico. This leads to something of a Cuba problem. The Soviets had issues with people “vacationing” to Cuba and then hopping on boats. If you can’t get a US travel visa, the comparable Canadian travel visa, or a Mexican travel visa (don’t know how stringent), but you can get to, say, Guatemala, you then just need to make it to the Mexican border to enter the US anyway. That’s problematic, or have people forgotten that terrorism is a thing?

      It’s better for EVERYONE when immigration is legal- the immigrant and recipient nation both. That’s not racist, nor is it anti-immigrant.

      However, many on the left have taken the tact that “You’re either for open borders immigration, or you are dog whistling racism, ” a patently false dichotomy.

      Second item that bothers me:

      Hispanics aren’t a single, monolithic race. This article has a kind of white elitism all over it that makes my skin crawl, with regards to comments like “The Hispanic vote in Florida…” Yeah, the CUBAN vote is notably Republican. That’s known and not news. Here’s a fun fact for all the broad-strokes painting jerks: Mexicans are not Peruvians. Chileans are not Brazilians. Tejanos are not Guatemalans. They get to be their own people. Why would anyone expect the entire range of cultures tossed under the umbrella “Hispanic” monolithically has always been one of the most baffling things I’ve ever heard. Beyond that, yes they identify as “white” largely. You know why? The “-spanic” indicates an Iberian cultural heritage (to varying degrees)- and the Iberian peninsula is, in fact, in Western Europe, which is what “white” is considered a shorthand form by many. (Obviously this gets complicated, but c’mon, The Emerging Democratic Majority made a very racist assessment there).

      • No Sharia says

        @ BrainFireBob You are correct…As a Latin American of European background, it is my duty to clear up some inaccuracies, if not lies, propagated by this author:

        Latin Americans have a different concept of race than gringos … consequently, the author’s point about xx% of HIspanics calling themselves white does not mean they truly are. In most if not all of Latin America (including multiracial Brasil), people don’t put the emphasis on race per se, but on skin tone. In Mexico and Brasil, for example, gov documents don’t ask you for your race, but you skin tone–medium, light, dark, etc. Many Mexicans, even those 100% aborigines, put down “light”, simply because a) they are deluded and b) it lacks the stigma of a darkie. When they move to the US, those options are not there, so they put down the next best thing–white race. In Brasil you find the same phenomenon, with many who would be called black in the U.S. calling themselves anything but that.
        The immigration crisis is ALL about race! IF those beating at the door were Trump’s proverbial Norwegians, there would be ZERO animosity toward them! Who is the author kidding? Consequently, the assimilation can’t be as inevitable as the author seems to think. How many whites do you find living in Mexican barrios? As few as you would find in the black ghetto. In uber diverse Los Angeles where I live, whites are only 30 % of the population, and they cluster in areas that consequently become very expensive. Traditionally black areas like infamous Compton have become more than 50% latino. The blacks have moved out to less expensive areas at the edges of the LA county and now constitute 9% of the population, a smaller share than latinos or orientals. So much for assimilation.

        In short, the author live in a kumbaya fantasyland.

        • Rev. Wazoo! says

          @No Sharia
          Some thought-proviking points well-laid out.
          But I must take issue with this: “The immigration crisis is ALL about race! IF those beating at the door were Trump’s proverbial Norwegians, there would be ZERO animosity toward them! Who is the author kidding? ” especially as it seems to contradict your other economic-based arguments.

          A current analag fsmilous example proves this wrong (if I understand you correctly.) White, blonde Poles in their tens of thousands migrated to England, especially the north, depressed wages and indeed the native lower economic strata there eventually took umbrage.

          When one can wage-arbitrage big-time then the low-wages you help create for your neighbor don’t affect you much; when you can support your family in style “back home” on 50 quid a week, your wages are comparatively much higher than a person whose family lives next door and must pay English prices. This is amplified by collecting British levels of child allowance (a government payment to all parents of minors) but supporting that child on a Polish cost-of-living. Ditto for stipends like housing benefit (rent subsidies for the poor)

          It all added up to some that this migration was harmful to their economic prospects and so helped pass the Brexit vote. Poles are racially indistinguishable from the native Brits so yes, if the people illegally at the local factory, fast-food joint, gardening firm, construction site etc in America were Norwegian and tens of millions more Norwegians were likely to come too then opposition to the illegal immigration of Norwegians would grow fast, race be damned, except by the non-whites who might find that extra animus appealing when anyway pissed off.

    • bumble bee says

      “On the Right, white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House.”

      This is such an idiotic statement I can believe it was even used. It is perfect libby speak, where there is no indication it is even remotely true, but it plays into and reinforces the libby perspective of those on the right so they just toss it around as if it is true.

      The right does not like the direction the country is going, just as the left currently does not like it. It has nothing to do with fear of white minority. What the right does not like about the direction the country is going if anything is based on the current identity politics being used by the left as well as their venomous rhetoric against anything white and male. Those who believe in a strong immigration system, does not mean they are xenophobes either. They want to make sure criminals, traffickers, and all manner of violent persons are not allowed into the country. While the left does not even want countries as if that will solve world problems.

      It’s so boring to continue to hear, read, etc the same old tired assumptions that its turned those who use them into scarlet letter wears knowing full well the rest of what they have to say is just as foolish.

      • No Sharia says

        @ bumble bee Nonsense. After all that has gone up since trumpos election, you would have us believe that race had nothing to do with it? All I have to do to prove it is check out breitbart.com.

        • Farris says

          @No sharia

          “The vast majority of southerners crossing illegally are not white.”

          The vast majority are Latino like the countries to the south. But the key word above is “illegally” that is the problem. People do not like seeing their democratically instituted laws violated with impunity.

          “…you would have us believe that race had nothing to do with it? All I have to do to prove it is check out breitbart.com.”

          Okay prove it. Calling your opponents racists and Nazis doesn’t make it so. You do not have the ability to look into people’s hearts and minds and know what they are thinking or feeling. One errant racist does not speak for entire group of people anymore than one violent Antifa member speaks for the entire Left. Instead why don’t you focus your arguments on how open borders protect or enhance security or why immigration laws should be changed? Could it be because you have none? Chanting racist simply means you are out of ideas.

    • Spare us the moral righteousness. Besides, present day liberals respond to those who are not “them” with unbridled viciousness. Consider the circle jerk liberals held over the battered body of Andy Ngo. Didn’t matter that he was gay or not white. He was a “Nazi”. For the record, being a minority comes with risks. After all, why push for the protection of minority groups if there are no risks? Also, lots of groups fear being a minority. Shia Muslims fear being a minority to Sunni Muslims. Black tribes fear being a minority to another black tribe in Africa. The modern left wants to disenfranchise anyone who dares to wear a MAGA hat, because the modern left wants to be the political majority.

    • cfkane1941 says

      These would be legitimate questions to ask if we knew for a fact the author’s statement was true, but just because a former attorney and entrepreneur living somewhere in the United States says that, it doesn’t make it true.

      “I suppose I knew this was true.” It sounds more like, “I want this to be true.” The rest is just building an argument on a weak foundation.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Andrew Scott

      Because white/western culture is demonstrated to produce the kind of society that everyone wants to get into (even if they then start to complain about how horrible it is once they get in). And it is also observed that the roots of culture are very deep and seem to almost be a racial characteristic. The Correct would have us believe that if all the whites in America or Norway or Oz evaporated and were instantly replaced with Somalis and Afghanis and Haitians, that things would carry on exactly as before. I doubt it. I myself suspect that were the American population to be replaced with El Salvadorians, that America would become exactly like El Salvador. I quite understand why some folks would rather that didn’t happen.

      • Geary Johansen says

        @ Ray Andrews

        Great point. I think it’s because the Left tends to operate on the lump fallacy. Now I don’t subscribe to the view that one can generate infinite wealth from finite resources- but a good analogy would be that the skills and knowledge of your population help determine how well you can exploit a given plot of land- if they are highly knowledgeable and highly skilled, then they can build skyscrapers, if not, then said skyscrapers will inevitably collapse…

    • Howdy says

      I think for most “white” people, who are fearful of changing demographics, it is not about becoming a minority, per say, but about seeing that you are seen as part of a hated group whose hate is publicly-approved.
      Knowing the history of people groups seen as “less than” by public media outlets and seeing yourself as hated for an attribute you have no control over, then being accused of things that are outright lies that stir up more hate against you and your offspring, and hearing that the hate is supposed justified…
      …and then being outnumbered by those who hate you and have been screaming “kill them” for a decade or so. I mean, it seems logical to want to keep the numbers of the hated higher than the hating to “protect the herd” (herd immunity, lol) from violence and abuse.
      I really think that anyone knowing about the human slave habit throughout history and the multiple genocides humanity has enjoyed so much, would logically be nervous if they were publicly turned into a villain and accused of being an evil entity that is ruining the world as a whole.
      But IDK, maybe that isn’t how most white people feel, maybe it is.
      Historically speaking though, the attitudes directed at “white” people these days are really quite insane when you consider how much we know about what happens when we (humans) vilify a subset.

      • Geary Johansen says

        @ Howdy

        Yes, it’s unfortunate that the Left had the foresight to abolish ‘reverse racism’ in the PC landscape. The problem with culture driven social conventions, is that unlike the law they can often be twisted to suit the needs of the moment. Meanwhile, it is still illegal in employment to discriminate against someone on any basis other than ability- so the very laws that were used to level the playing field, are now a hindrance to those who wish to embark on radical far left hiring agendas, from within the HR departments of major companies.

    • jimhaz says

      My working life, wages, chance of home ownership, public transport travelling etc was far better when I was one of the white majority. It was just more pleasant.

    • doug deeper says

      Andrew, yours is a straw man argument.
      The point is ILLEGAL immigration and OPEN borders do not make for a nation of laws or sovereignty or prosperity or health or security. This should be what all Americans should fear – for that is a very rational fear.
      You are buying into the left’s deceit.

    • Stephanie says

      Andrew, I think white Americans fear becoming a minority because they fear non-white immigrants are not assimilating, and thus the social fabric that holds America together will disintegrate. More than anything else being American means holding a set of ideals, and in the absence of that there is no country. Being of a different race doesn’t mean you can’t adopt those ideals, but practically speaking holding onto your home country’s culture is a barrier, and mass immigration allows newcomers to settle in homogeneous ethnic enclaves where the home culture prevails and no one really becomes American.

  4. codadmin says

    How about: As a leftist, can I provide any historical evidence that dramatic demographic change has ever led to ‘business as usual’?

      • Andrew Scott says

        I’m not a “leftist” or a “rightist.” I’m not politically affiliated. I’m people-affiliated.

        • Andrew Scott, you are a flaming leftie, my friend. Might as well own up to it instead of dissimulating.

          What you were getting at above: many on the right, particularly the alt-right, believe that race
          is real. You (being a leftie) don’t. That’s a fundamental disagreement. If you want to have a dialogue about that, I’m here.

          • Ray Andrews says


            But these quick and dirty labels are most of the problem, aren’t they? Righties don’t like being automatically labeled as racists do they? So your automatic labeling of Andrew as a flaming leftie is basically the same thing — using labels as opposed to addressing the man’s arguments. Let Andrew advise you on his politics as you advise him of yours. He knows himself better than you do, and visa versa.

        • Alex Posch says

          @ Andrew Scott,
          Your problem is the confusion of who that quote is attributable to. The full quote is this:

          “The hopes of the LEFT were perhaps most famously encapsulated in Ruy Teixeira and John B. Judis’s highly influential 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, which forecast a new progressive era largely based on demographic changes. On the Right, white Americans’ fears of becoming a minority in the coming decades helped propel Donald Trump into the White House. ”

          This is a leftest’s perspective on what motivates Trump supporters, not what Trump supporters actually say motivates them.

          Let’s take an inverse example. Remember the Covington affiar? Where abunch of people on Twitter wanted to ‘punch’ high school students for “disrespecting” a ‘Native Elder’ by ‘grinning’ at him in public. In the end the story we were fed was total bullshit. Those 16 year old white male catholic students were the most well behaved, honest, and respectful individuals involved in the whole mess. It was leftest ‘anti white’ bigotry at the heart of that story. Do you really think the people castigating the students would agree that what motivated them to destroy a families wedding and slime high school kids was that they are bigots? Perhaps they would argue they are motivated by something else, like the desire to reject “racism”.

          My Latino, son of an illegal immigrant, father in law wouldn’t agree for even a second that the reason he voted for Trump is because he wants a white majority, no matter how much my white sister in law says it.

        • Call it like it is says

          “I’m not a “leftist” or a “rightist.” I’m not politically affiliated.” This is the type of statement made by a coward; someone who wants to attack/criticize other people but not take a stand themselves so their own position cannot be criticized.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Call it like it is

            On the contrary Andrew’s stand was clearly made, he’d just rather discuss the issue, not the labels. Notice how quickly you yourself get rude and hostile? Take your own advice and discuss the issue not the man.

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ Andrew Scott

          You referred to yourself as a cosmopolitan liberal, in a recent comment, mate. 🙂

          That’s good, it means you have the potential to join me in the centre. You’ve already done half the work, in that you’ve read Steven Pinker. Now, you just have to finish it and read Jonathan Haidt’s ‘The Righteous Mind’ to go full Jedi. On one path you will continue as you are, but on the other you will begin to see conservatives, well over half the world’s population, in a far more generous light.

          Because, here’s the thing. It’s not about intelligence, or education. It’s about the fact that people can see the world from entirely different viewpoints, depending on the circumstances that they grew up in. There really is a profound difference between the way psychological liberals and psychological conservatives see their nations and societies. Most people around the world, and a sizeable portion of the population in most Western countries, desperately need the anchor of shared cultural identity, national pride and sense of community to feel as though they belong and are part of something bigger.

          And it’s not a matter of bringing people round to the right point of view. It’s certainly not about silencing any viewpoint that disagrees with a cosmopolitan multicultural society- the media and the cultural elite tried that- and all it managed to accomplish was a strengthening of the sentiment of dissent, the feeling amongst a portion of the population of being silenced and ultimately Brexit. That’s what happens when people don’t even bother to try to understand those they don’t agree with.

          For me, ‘The Righteous Mind’ was a revelation- I finally understood why some Brits on holiday insisted upon eating ‘Fish and Chips’, when there was all this amazing food out there. More importantly, I finally realised that my own ambitions for an ideal world, would be a dystopian nightmare for a significant portion of any country- and I just had to adjust my thinking accordingly. It didn’t lead me to throw out all my beliefs- far from it, I simply became better informed- but it did lead me to discard many of my prejudices.

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Geary Johansen

            Join US in the center.

            ‘The Righteous Mind’

            To think that folks once associated Righteousness with religion and supposed that the marginalization of religion would leave the world a tolerant and easy going place. It turns out that whereas religion can inflame Righteousness, it also provides the tools to combat it, whereas the Holiness of the wokest of the woke is something utterly unbounded.

          • Geary Johansen says

            @ Ray

            Couldn’t agree more. The thing about religions as aggregated memes, is that they have already proven themselves successful in that they haven’t destroyed their host cultures.

            Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for socialism, communism, fascism or wokeism. Faith is a normal human sociocentric response to the mysteries of the universe. I personally believe that there is probably a very distorted, more spiritual element of truth to it. But it’s far more useful function has always been in regulating societies drives and excesses, most importantly in providing a makeshift moral dam, to the uncontrolled aggression that would have otherwise existed between national and cultural groupings, throughout history.

            Don’t get me wrong. The dam failed frequently, and often in spectacular fashion, but the fact that we were somehow able to find our way up from deprivation, poverty and far more unfettered and irrational superstition, is proof enough of it’s utility. None of the philosophies that have encroached on the void its absence creates have been anything other than disastrous for humanity. Secularism has yet to solve the lowered immune system a lack of faith represents, in terms of fending off these malignant ideologies.

  5. Sandsanta says

    Many of these same immigrants have a history of electing governments that nationalize their natural resources which are then overthrown by the CIA.

    • David George says

      Exactly Sands, they are unlikely to ever want to elect a socialist government.
      My observation is that immigrants are trending to the right.

      • Monte Martinez says

        David George,

        You are correct…. California is a regular Saxony in its conservatism.

        • David George says

          I’m afraid I don’t know much about California Monte but suspect your sarcasm is justified in that particular case.
          I have posted my observations on the situation in New Zealand below in the comments.
          We don’t have a problem with illegal immigration though – thank you Pacific Ocean.

          • TarsTarkas says

            David George:

            That’s only because the Pacific Ocean is violently racist. It has slain millions of dark-skinned people and kills more every year. Its weapons of choice are typhoons and tsunamis.

          • Monte Martinez says


            Ronald Reagan was once Governor of California. California was as reliably “Red” up too 1984 as is Utah today. This change has everything to do with demographic shift. This is the future the Democrat party wants for the entire country i.e a polity of competing ethnicity blocks playing spoils politics while a tiny minority of cosmopolitan elites set at the top of the heap. Think the politics of the Balkans during the Dual Monarchy. We all know how stable and sustainable this approach to governance is.

  6. Monte Martinez says

    “As a white American, it’s important to me that white people are a majority because countries with majority African or Arab populations tend to be s**t holes. The same can be said of American cities too. See the Somali Ghettos in Minneapolis and Lewiston Maine for examples.

  7. Monte Martinez says

    I would have agreed with article more had I not driven past the Islamic Center of Twin Falls, Idaho on my way home from a trip to Boise this weekend. It is not uncommon to see Middle Eastern women wearing hijab or in some cases the full Burka in my home town of Ogden, Utah. I agree with your assessment of ” Hispanic” immigration but ” Other than Mexican” is the locus of our current immigration crisis.

    • Sandsanta says

      Isn’t allowing people to live their lives, practicing their religion and dress how they want American to its core? If we want to police where/how people organize, what clothes they wear and what god they believe what exactly is the point of all this?

      Also let’s not forget the majority of Muslims are extremely conservative which agrees with this article. As I am neither Christian nor Muslim, both are equally hostile to me as an individual.

      • staticnoise says

        Really? You average everyday Christian is hostile to you? Fat chance. I doubt your average everyday (American) Muslim is either. I doubt they even notice you. I’m mean what do they do, shake their fists at you when you walk down the street?

        • Kencathedrus says

          @staticnoise: London is pretty much like this. My wife and I visited it a few years ago. We hardly saw any English people, just very rich Arabs driving six-figure sports cars, and poor Eastern European immigrants performing menial labor. It was very disconcerting, in the middle of summer, to see a woman wearing a full burka trailing forlornly behind her t-shirt, shorts wearing husband cheerfully eating his ice cream. My wife received very disapproving looks from muslim women (she was wearing hot-pants), and lascivious ones from mutism men. Beheadings and acid attacks are also on the rise there now, however the mainstream media attributes this to a rise in misogyny and ‘toxic masculinity’ thus managing to avoid tarnishing their multicultural agenda.

          A muslim friend of mine once told me that most Muslims view Westerners as weak, sex-obsessed sinners. He said they disrespect Western nations because they are allowed to get away with behaviors that would have them locked up in their own countries. They have zero intention of ever integrating into a society they deem beneath them, unless it’s to affect policies that are friendly to them (diversity, multiculturalism, immigration etc.).

          We respect far-away lands that try to maintain their cultural identity, but when Western nations try to do this, they are seen as fascist and xenophobic.

          • Sandsanta says

            Having visited London recently I can say this is a ridiculous observation. As of 2011 44% of London is white from England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Not really sure where you were or what you were doing to see no British.

            I have no issue with the rest your post. Anyone who believes their god is all powerful will think that nonbelievers are weak sinners. We see this all over the planet.

          • Ray Andrews says


            “We hardly saw any English people,”
            “I can say this is a ridiculous”

            Sometimes I wonder about official numbers. My last experience of London was identical to Ken’s. They say that blacks are 15% of the US population but they seem to be the majority in most cities. Vancouver is still supposed to be about 1/2 Canadian, but the last time I was in an urban park, Canadians couldn’t have been more than 10% of the people there. Dunno, I’m not saying the official numbers are wrong, but what one experiences can sure be different.

          • Geary Johansen says

            @Ray Andrews

            The demographics are largely down to the fact that 79% of the working population is non-British. My brother used to chef at the Savoy and live off Camden Market, and he simply couldn’t afford the cost of living, without significantly sacrificing his living standards. It’s an experience shared by many Brits. If you were to go to Norwich, York, Bristol or Edinburgh though, your experience would be somewhat different. You would still notice a proportion of non-whites and EU citizens, but at nowhere near the same percentages.

            This is because a lot of opportunities in Britain, have become far more decentralised from London. In Norwich we have benefited from the spillover from Cambridge, as startups have migrated somewhat to the considerably nicer environs of Norwich. In many ways, this is a far smaller version of the Silicon Valley migration to San Francisco. One of my mates is a design engineer for a hybrid car firm (and a petrol head to boot :)). One of my younger cousins work for a start-up designing financial software. The other, in the more traditional to Norwich insurance industry.

            London is a nice place to visit. I lived there awhile in my Uni days, but immediately moved back. I used to get a ‘high’ on the train back from Liverpool St to Norwich, as soon as we hit the green fields that was very much similar to smoking a mild weed, but considerably happier. It’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

      • Monte Martinez says


        I look upon the Hijab and Burka as one looks upon the SA Brown shirt and kepi i.e. the uniform of a regressive movement of Jew hating reprobate fanatics hell bent on world domination. Lebensraum for the Dar al-Islam and Islamization should be resisted with every bit of strength, every drop of blood, every ounce of treasure we posses.

        • Sandsanta says

          @staticnoise when I said “equally hostile” I mean by not believing in their respective gods it put me at direct odds with their end goal. Christians and Muslims are not hostile outwardly hostile to me but if they truly believe in their book I’m obviously doomed to eternal torment which is pretty hostile imo.

          Luckily in the US, religion is diluted with a healthy dose of secularism. So in that context, churches and mosques occupy the same part of my brain space.

          I’ll sit on the sidelines while Monte wages the holy war.

          • Ray Andrews says


            You may not have the option of sitting on the sidelines. I don’t know when last you heard a Christian declare jihad on you. It might be theoretically true that fundamentalist Bible thumpers think you’re doomed to perdition, but when was the last time one of them blew themselves up in some crowded space just for the honor of killing infidels? If there is holy war, you are already condemned as far as Islam is concerned, you’d better side with the rest of us infidels.

          • Monte Martinez says

            Like the Spanish in the 15th century we will have to fight the Holly War on our own soil. Like most Western People I am willing to live and let live but if the Islamist and his left wing toady think they can build a Caliphate in Michigan and Minnesota their will be a fight.

          • Sandsanta says

            “Like the Spanish in the 15th century we will have to fight the Holly War on our own soil. Like most Western People I am willing to live and let live but if the Islamist and his left wing toady think they can build a Caliphate in Michigan and Minnesota their will be a fight.”

            This comment is kinda funny following this article considering the entire area south of the US has largely been governed by the Spanish and their ancestors since the 1500’s.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Monte Martinez

      HIspanic immigration will make America more like Latin America but that’s a minor problem compared to what the Somalis would make of it. Hands up everyone who wants their country to be more like Somalia.

      • staticnoise says

        I live in the heart of Somali America. Right you are. They are really an arrogant bunch. [as in Rep. Ilhan Omar D-MN] It’s very disturbing how poorly they treat white (American) women – they literally ignore them even when they are working in a customer service position. My dear wife goes ballistic on anyone who flat out ignores her in a public enterprise. When they act as if I (we) owe them something just for breathing I grow extremely impatient with them.

        No we do not want anymore of these SOBs in our part of the world.

      • @ Ray Andrews

        Replying to your comment from above.

        If someone argues, like Andrew Scott did, that race is not real, I put that person on the Left. I offered to engage him in dialogue, he didn’t respond. He split his political seed, castigated those who didn’t agree with him, called them irrational (and morally cretinous), and in that way satisfied himself and moved on. Fine. I don’t wish to waste time arguing with a ghost.

        I understand your desire to promote dialogue but so many of these people are drive-by moralists, just out for the momentary thrill of censuring a board full of idiotic brutes (that would be us, according to them). In any case, I doubt my calling him a “flaming leftie” caused him to evacuate. More likely, he realized how lame his “I’m people-affiliated” comment was and high-tailed it to the safety of Jezebel or something.

        • Ray Andrews says


          Well, let’s see if he defends his views. He said quite a few things I myself disagree with, but I don’t think that labeling him gets any work done. Discussing the issue gets work done. And I don’t care if he’s a lefty, there are still a few sane lefties around. I used to be one myself, still am at heart, but they’ve all gone woke. I didn’t find him rude, it’s a pretty normal thing to accuse each other of irrationality. We’re all irrational at times.

          • Anonymous 2 says

            “Vancouver is still supposed to be about 1/2 Canadian, but the last time I was in an urban park, Canadians couldn’t have been more than 10% of the people there”.

            How do you know 90% weren’t Canadians? Did you check their passports? Or were only 10% white?

        • Geary Johansen says

          @ breathnumber

          The tone of Andrew Scott’s comment tends to suggest that he might be younger than the average Quillette reader. Plus, he doesn’t seem to possess any of the hallmarks of the more rabid progressives we sometimes get on here, so I would tend to cut the guy a break, until proven otherwise.

          I think his comment ‘But when we talk about “fear” of losing a white majority, that actually is xenophobia’ might be genuine ignorance of what actually lies beneath the Brexit and Trump votes. It’s not racism or xenophobia, but the loss of cultural identity, shared history and values that’s at stake. The best way to counter his worldview is to point to the fact that the individuals from ethnic minorities that invariably succeed are those who have integrated and embraced their adoptive culture most fully.

          It used to be that you could go to any local chamber of commerce in the UK, and find a significant percentage of entrepreneurs from minorities who were, in effect, more British than the British. He has described himself as a cosmopolitan liberal in the past- the key point that should be pointed out about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t bloody work! The umbrella of national character in the West, can be shield that protects all, rather than a sword that divides us (which it inevitably does in the intersectionalist’s handbook).

          In a recent debate on IQ squared, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and Jonathan Haidt debated two leading luminaries from the Left on trigger warnings, safe spaces and no platforming. I was never prouder to be a Brit, than when two separate well-spoken, Black British individuals voiced their opposition to the pair from the Left- it’s well worth a watch and I will link it below.

          P.S. The reasons for the appalling lack of Black British lecturers in the UK, is because they are often the first generation in a family to gain a degree and are more strongly motivated to pursue more lucrative careers in the private sector. This could be partially offset by some sort of bursary in the graduate year, for those from humble origins wishing to pursue a career in academia.

      • Shamrock says


        I completely agree with your comment “Hands up everyone who wants their country to be more like Somalia.” However, we also have to take responsibility for the mess we help create. When you look at where many of the immigrants/refugees come from, the West has been involving itself in those countries within the last few decades; Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, many countries in Central and South America.

        We have to learn that many areas of the world are not ready for democracy. Take Iraq for example. Had we left it alone, Saddam would be still be in charge and there would be no Al-Queda/ISIS in the country. Syria was even worse, we didn’t remove Al-Bashir, but created turmoil, allowed ISIS to create a caliphate, spent a fortune there and created millions of refugees.

        It is somewhat hypocritical to go to their countries, mess it up and then get upset when they want to come to ours.

  8. Tom Shen says

    I know a first generation family from Mexico. They fly the American flag at their house, cringe at the term “Latinx”, and their favorite activities are Sea World and golf. So they make both good neighbors and citizens, even more so than some of the leftist intellectual whacks in the media. So they are a problem to the race baiters both on the left and right.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Toms Shan:

      They are race traitors. See Ayanna Pressley’s comment below regarding them.

      “If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.”

  9. Caligula says

    One wonders, if the country to the south of the USA were not Mexico but Somalia, would attitudes toward immigration (legal and otherwise) be significantly harder than they are now?

    Which is not to say there are no Somali immigrants to the USA who are not a net benefit to the country, but that when imposing selectivity is impossible and numbers are high, it is the overall probabilities and not the exceptions that seem to matter.

    Current immigration law says it does not matter, that selectivity shall not be imposed (for skills, for example) and that country-of-origin and possible incompatibilities between its culture and that of the USA are of no consequence.

    That’s what it says and that’s what it does, but, how reasonable is that?

  10. David George says

    Many, if not most, immigrants are social/moral conservatives and/or highly aspirational. The significant Asian immigrant population in New Zealand, for example, are all of those things.
    The “progressive” narrative (multiple genders, redistribution of their wealth etc.) doesn’t sit comfortably and the trend is towards support for conservative and right wing parties and policies. Somewhat surprisingly they are not generally in favour of high levels of inward immigration – I’m all right Jack pull up the drawbridge. Not surprisingly they are generally disdainful of the bottomless indigenous grievance industry. Be interested to hear if this trend is apparent elsewhere but it looks to me that support for high immigration is a bit of an own goal from the left.

  11. Al Alfa Senor says

    I don’t understand why White people, or any group of people really, are concerned with remaining a majority. Worrying about demographic shifts is like worrying about when the sun is going to come up in my opinion.

    (This is not an attack on those who do, I’m not judging. Sorry if that’s the impression I gave.)

    • rnt says

      @Al Alfa Senor

      “I don’t understand why White people, or any group of people really, are concerned with remaining a majority.”

      You’re extremely ignorant about the data regarding blacks and hispanics. They are two massive underclasses dragging the US down into a dysgenic future. Let’s just look at 8th grade math performance, 80% of hispanics and 87% of blacks are not proficient. The vast majority of hispanics and blacks are not in poverty so you can’t just wave off the numbers based on poor schools. It’s culture and genetics. As the hispanic population increases, the share of low IQ parasites grow. How can a country maintain 1st world infrastructure with 70% or more of the population innumerate and illiterate? It will be no different than Brazil or South Africa where incompetents and imbeciles allow water to major cities to run out. Where raw sewage is dumped into harbors. Major US cities like NYC or DC can’t maintain their subway systems. It’s all due to diversity and corruption. Here’s a prime example –


      So, yes, we have every right to be concerned about remaining a majority.

  12. Al Alfa Senor says

    @David George

    Most immigrants want political systems that fuse moderate social conservatism (a modicum of traditional values, i.e., pro-natal & prosocial norms, plus flexible, but ultimately well defined, gender roles, & live and let live small l liberalism) coupled with pre-1960s left-wing economics (full employment policies, an industrial policy, & moderate trade protectionism).

    • Monte Martinez says

      Al Alfa Senor,

      Why can’t they seem to provide these things for themselves in their own countries?

      • Sandsanta says

        If we wish to live in a capitalist global economy people will inevitable gravitate towards the money. The USA happens to be one of these locations.

        • Ray Andrews says


          Yabut I do not want to live in a capitalist global economy tho.

  13. Al Alfa Senor says

    @Monte Martinez

    That’s a pretty stupid question.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Al Alfa Senor

      It’s a great question. And probably one of the most important.

      Why should I welcome people who can’t be bothered to struggle for peace and freedom but instead want it to be given to them?

      • dirk says

        @A.A.Senor: I am very curious to hear you explain why MM’s question is pretty stupid. I would say, it’s a rhetoric question, with which everybody immediately would agree, even if (or, better, especially if) from an under- developed nation (at least, if free from war or certain disaster).

      • Sandsanta says

        @morgan foster

        If we focus on the US, how have the last 2 generations “struggled for peace and freedom”?

        Someone fleeing gang violence in South America has done more in their personal struggle for peace and freedom than the average American who hasn’t left the state they were born.

        I find your “important question” lacking in critical thinking.

        • Morgan Foster says


          Someone who is fleeing gang violence in their home country is running away from their responsibility to make their home country a better place in which to live for themselves, their families and their neighbors.

          That is not courage. That is not honorable behavior. That is not what I meant by “struggle”.

          I find that you believe that “critical thinking” means that I should agree with you. That’s not what it means.

        • cthoms says

          I’m always curious about what people like you view as the best end result. Your “endgame” if you will. Should Guatemala become a giant UN-sponsored nature preserve? Should we just stipulate that now and skip all the needless chaos involved in allowing it to happen over decades?

          • SandSanta says

            @cthoms I am not sure there needs to be an “endgame”. If we take Guatemala as an example, the country endured a civil war for almost half a century partially enabled by the US government and the CIA. In the twenty years since the end of the war the country is still violent but its the largest economy in Central America and had decent economic growth. Like anywhere on the planet there are rich and poor people. If you live in the US, you have almost 4 million square feet of country to utilize. This could allow you to find work, escape crime, live in the woods, whatever. Guatemala has 42,000 sqf of land, much less area to escape poverty and or crime. Expecting every Guatemalan to sit around and pull themselves up out of poverty or fight for their freedom without using the option of simply using their feet to move to a new location is naive. Not everyone exhibits “honorable behavior” when they have children and are worried about their wellbeing.

            Now none of this touches on the US needing laws and boarder security to allow people into the country and remove people who are breaking laws. But when someone says “why cant they just stay put and make things better where they live” I personally find it silly. When poor people band together to control wealth and better their place in the world they’re normally destroyed by the US government (above civl war in Guatemala) or sanctioned into oblivion. We seem to want these people to raise themselves up by their bootstraps, just on our terms.

          • cthoms says

            Leaving aside the whole “Guatemala is poor because CIA” gibberish, you don’t have an endgame, just allow whoever want’s to leave Guatemala do so and move to the US (where the vast majority would choose, for obvious reasons). Which would pretty much empty the country out, leaving few enough that there would be enough woods to escape to (which apparently there aren’t enough now). And the rich of course. Of course what economy they do have would collapse, so the rich wouldn’t be rich anymore, and they would then follow everyone else. The people in the woods would presumably be OK. But look here, you need people to operate and maintain the nature preserve anyway, and they would be the obvious choice. Looks like maybe you do have an endgame after all. Nature preserve.

            At any rate, why would you not be in favor of having the US just transport them there directly?. The US can certainly afford it, much cheaper than the whole wall thing. Today a Guatemalan must either pay a smuggler or risk a dangerous journey on foot (or both). That is inhumane in the extreme. You’re not inhumane are you?

          • Sandsanta says

            @cthoms not sure if this will go in line with your last comment but…

            “Leaving aside the whole “Guatemala is poor because CIA” gibberish”

            It’s relatively easy to find information about the US backed overthrow of the Guatemalan government in the 1950’s. It happened partially bc several fruit companies had their profits endangered by the policies of the democratically elected government and pushed for the US government to intervene.

            This may not have created the only conditions to cause people to flee the country but if we know anything about civil wars, it doesn’t help with economic growth or the overall well being of a country.

            Also back to the main point: @cthoms said:

            “At any rate, why would you not be in favor of having the US just transport them there directly?. The US can certainly afford it, much cheaper than the whole wall thing. Today a Guatemalan must either pay a smuggler or risk a dangerous journey on foot (or both). That is inhumane in the extreme. You’re not inhumane are you?”

            This has nothing to do with the question that was asked. People will always live and struggle in the location they were born in. Just look at the Rust Belt or West Virginia. Both are pretty dreadful for working class people, yet most seem to stay. Im was focusing on this question:

            “Why should I welcome people who can’t be bothered to struggle for peace and freedom but instead want it to be given to them?”

            Which I think is just a silly thing to say and ask bc it assumes people dont struggle for peace and freedom in their own country (they did this case, and their democratically elected government was overthrown by a US backed authoritarian military government.) It assumes families with kids have the capacity to do so. Now should we accept them into the country is a whole different conversation. I just found the question to be simple and kind of dumb.

            Also Ray Andrews or Morgan or whoever can say they dont want to live in a “capitalist global economy” but they really have no choice. The western values we all look towards birthed this economy and the corporations that are its spawn control the narrative now. You guys can create a safe space for like minded people to coexist but if its detrimental to the profit margins of the capitalist global economy your space space wont be safe for long.

            also also, im not sure what your end game is. Benefit from the world economy through cheap clothes, fruit, vegetables, cars, house hold goods, whatever, and then somehow act confused and upset when hordes of people show up looking to make more money?! What do YOU want?

          • cthoms says

            and their democratically elected government was overthrown by a US backed authoritarian military government

            Why would they do that if not for the desire to create an overwhelmingly large nature preserve?

          • Sandsanta says

            I guess we’re not going to have actual conversation.

            But I’ll try again. What do you want?

          • cthoms says

            I’m guessing it’s the “Nature preserve” you find toxic, or conversation killing. Why?

          • Sandsanta says

            oh please stop being silly

            Guatemala has a GPD of over 75 billion (up from 20 billion 20 years ago) and its population is growing. If we want to liquidate nations that have emigration we might as well turn Ukraine into a toxic waste dumps while we’re at it.

          • cthoms says

            Well that’s a little disconcerting. I propose Nature Preserve (which you appear to find triggering) and you respond with Toxic Waste Dump? What on earth is so unspeakably evil and threatening about a nature preserve? And where did extermination come from? I specifically said move them directly, free ride, free choice, no danger involved. Obviously the people trekking north today don’t anticipate extermination.

            And how the heck did Guatemala’s GDP almost triple in 20 years with all that American CIA exploitation going on? Do you think that would have happened if “the policies of the democratically elected government” you refer to had been left in place? I mean you appear to view cheap fruit rather disdainfully, so pointing to an increase in GDP as something that might not usher in the four horseman does leave me a little confused.

            And if your “hordes of people show up looking to make more money” is what this depicts, I’d have to point out that at least cheap fruit doesn’t appear to be in short supply. I would hope we could at least agree that’s not a bad thing.

          • Sandsanta says

            Ha, well its pretty common knowledge that Guatemala is filled with beautiful landscapes (which it seems you agree with) and Ukraine is home to a well known nuclear meltdown. Sorry if my joke was missed.

            People will leave Central America bc of various reasons, and people will go to Central America for various reasons. If they show up at the border and want asylum we can figure out if we’ll let them in or not. I don’t find American culture a precious thing that needs protecting from immigrants, illegal or not. Im not going to sit around and say these people lack “honorable behavior”. Seems unproductive to me.

            I also disagree that the population will empty out as you assume. and its pretty clear that the economy is growing long with the population. I would say I am only triggered bc I find your exercise kind of pointless. Its been fun tho!

          • dirk says

            @Sandsanta: in the NLs, we have around 10.000 sqf/person, in Singapore it must be much less than that. Nice country you live in, nice climate in the highlands, nice lakes, forests, coffee plantations, bananas, good food, would love to go there (but for lack of space) and start something for myself (as many Europeans did, I visited there some Germans with a coffee plantation). But most of those coffee shrubs were owned by locals and cooperations.

          • Sandsanta says


            I do not live in Guatemala, for some reason cthoms used it as an example. I live in the country on the receiving end of this conversation.

            Guatemala is a pretty place tho.

          • cthoms says

            would love to go there and start something for myself

            Your life expectancy would drop precipitously and likelihood of dying violently would go up five-fold the instant you set foot there.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @Morgan Foster

        And it is problematical if they even want peace and freedom since so many of them are intent on importing the same dark ages cultures that turned their own countries into someplace you’d rather leave.

        • dirk says

          @ cthoms: is it so bad there now? Have been there a few times, but not sensed these dangers. Though, after my 2 yrs stay in the ceja de selva in Peru, the village where I worked was taken over by the marxist Sendero Luminoso, I wonder whether I would have survived that. A friend of mine had a farm somewhere in Colombia, this farm was taken over by the FARC, had he been there at the time, he would also have had a hard time, I fear (luckily, he was in Bogota at the time). So, better stay here in my safe NLs? You could be right!!

    • Monte Martinez says

      Al Alfa Senor,

      Spoken like a true “woke” citizen of the world or a déraciné as the French would say. Explain this to me please; If a million Europeans- Americans included- move to a third world country they are invaders, imperialists, exploiters regardless of the infrastructure or culture they bring with them and must be Mau-Mau’d into extinction. If a million “Syrians” move to Germany or Sweden to live on welfare, rape and pillage like Ottoman Turks this is a basic human right and must be celebrated.

      Many in the west are finished with third world dysfunction. Our politics has started to stem the flow. Next there will be a moratorium on third world immigration and then a reckoning for those won’t leave on their own volition.

      • Morgan Foster says

        @Monte Martinez

        “Many in the west are finished with third world dysfunction.”


        I’ve had enough of people using the United States as a rescue shelter for the Third World’s unwanted poor.

  14. TheSnark says

    From my experience, most immigrants to America hold traditional American values. They believe that hard work is the way to get ahead, in the traditional family, and in generally tolerating others. This is more than one can say for many of the so-called “Progressives”.

    • Monte Martinez says


      I invite you to come and visit Columbia Heights Minnesota. ( suburban Minneapolis) Our predominant immigrant group is on the whole a race/culture of grifters, pirates, cheats and Islamist fanatics.

      NGO’s and refugee advocates helped bring hundreds of thousands of them to a a pristine and cohesive city for the sake of diversity. I have yet to hear anyone give me an honest answer about the benefit of this re-settlement to the American citizens of Minnesota.

  15. Irene Isaac says

    Western values (I could care less about skin color) needs to be maintained at all costs. This is why mass immigration is a terrible idea for the US. People flock to the US because western values (individualism, separate state and religion, the constitution) are a unique trifecta that allowed for the economic and social progress seen here relative to other non western countries. Immigrants that dont assimilate dilute these values with every generation and eventually this will lead to the demise of the Western culture. I come from an Asian country and would trade western values for the regressive culture of my own country. If immigrants come to the US it is a must to assimilate to western culture and leave their own backward cultures back at home. They leave their failed countries for a reason why bring those failed values here?

  16. somsai says

    It’s not about skin color. It’s first jobs, and second culture.

    When there are fewer unskilled visas issued, or when the border gets harder to cross, lots more people get higher wages here, I have less competition for contracts and can bid higher and pay higher. When I lose a bid to someone who is here illegally, and doesn’t have liability insurance, and doesn’t collect and pay taxes on labor nor workers comp insurance, well it drives down my ability to make a living that supports my family, simple as that. I like and work alongside Hispanics all day long, I speak Spanish (poorly). I am against the policy, not the people.

    Culturally, it’s too many in too short a time frame. We’ve never had so many from one country at one time. It’s too much. Also,, other immigrants have higher skills, education, income, and use far fewer government services. Our system is designed to support a wide diversity of immigrants, if we enforced the laws we have, and ended chain migration, we’d still have the most immigration of any country, but assimilation would be smoother.

  17. David of Kirkland says

    Immigration from western nations also doesn’t mean “white people.” In case some haven’t noticed, you can be black or Asian and live in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc.

    • Geary Johansen says

      @ David of Kirkland

      Important observation, because these candidates are often of a higher calibre. Most are the children or grandchildren of immigrants, and have fully acclimated to Western values. We need to start looking at immigration through the lens of how successful businesses grow and prosper, because if you scale your business too quickly, outside the normal parameters of organic growth, you risk losing the very thing that made your ‘brand’ so valuable in the first place.

      I do think America misses a trick though when it comes to foreign aid in Central and South America. Better roads, rail, ports and air freight, would give local economies the chance to compete in the world economy, particularly in relation to agricultural goods. Given that their agricultural bands don’t compete with the US, this would give Americans access to cheaper, more competitive goods like coffee and chocolate, and give coca farmers in remote areas, alternate crops to plant that don’t supply to the cocaine trade. Anything that raises the price of cocaine, would be a good thing for America. The fact that surveillance in Central and South American ports could easily be made more active, without contravening US constitutional law, would only be to the general good.

      • Morgan Foster says

        @Geary Johansen

        “I do think America misses a trick though when it comes to foreign aid in Central and South America. Better roads, rail, ports and air freight …”

        We’ve paid billions of dollars for those over the decades.

        Where are they?

    • S. Cheung says


      well said. In many ways, we are much more “race-centric” here than in many other western countries. Despite looking obviously of Asian descent, people have assumed in France, Germany, Spain, and Greece, that I was native there merely by my being able to start conversations in the local language.

      In some ways, i feel English being the world’s lingua franca has hampered us in the realm of race relations. It seems being multi-lingual (as many big-city Europeans seem to be) correlates with a pro-adaptive tendency for acceptance of other races. Of course, multilingualism alone does not inoculate against the existence of far-right elements in any of those countries either, so it’s no silver bullet in and of itself.

  18. Anonymous says

    Hispanics are as close or closer to the mean in current America than Italians, Greeks, and Jews were to the mostly Northern European US population during their era of immigration. There is little question that those groups enriched out society.

    But what has changed are the conditions of immigration, expectations and goals of immigrants. Illegal immigration and the ease of land-traversing immigration are the big ones. Crossing the Atlantic (or Pacific in the case of Asians) required a commitment and there was little thought of it being other than a one-way trip. There was no abundant welfare system to lure the malingerer and the relatively low standard of living of the unskilled and unproficient in English prompted them to develop skills and learn our language. Ethnic enclaves were available for most, but they were in depressed areas and the availability of affordable housing, jobs, and a middle class lifestyle elsewhere encouraged one to lose his “ethnic” character and leave the enclave.

    This is not so much the case now, where a Mexican might describe Los Angeles as “like Mexico, but with food stamps.” Life is much easier for the immigrant and the enclave is likely to be more comfortable than the home country, and due to the economic changes that came with suburbanization taking even one step up can be improbable. Being a return to Latin America is an easy and available thing, there is no risk in failure to assimilate, prosper, and be welcome here.

    Thus while acknowledging the fact that there are many immigrants who are fully and positively assimilating, there are also many who are not, and unless we change our expectations of immigrants, require them to change their expectations of themselves, and exercise some authority over who is able to come here, the arc may bend in the wrong direction.

  19. Pierre Jolibert says

    How subtle a way to make one wish to inquire in what really exists under race names, as more one month ago with Bo Winegard and Noah Carl’s article.

  20. Etiamsi omnes says

    I know Haitians who think only Africans are black, not they.

  21. Bob S. says

    Got it, the message is hispanic males are as dumb as white males. It seems you understand the govt erroneously changed how we define ethnicity and race, by proclaiming one day that hispanic is now an ethnicity and other categories are races. But then argue in a way that treats the change as legitimate. It also became a two part question, even if a person identifies as hispanic, they must also identify with a race. White is the default option. This is a weak article, its misleading and comes across as desperate to make political points for an ideology.

  22. Timothy SZ says

    I don’t see the fuss thrown up about invasion. People are pretty much the same, they’re entirely fungible. What’s the difference if your people are replaced? They’re still people with the same human value, right?

    On that note, Quillette editors must step aside. I’m taking over: I’m completely equal to you in human value.
    What? No? Why ever could that be?

  23. lloyd1927 says

    Wasn’t the “Hispanic” category (“not a race” yet treated as a “race”) created to avoid the embarrassing option of racially classifying a very MIXED-RACE population?

  24. asdf says

    Hispanic can mean anything from mostly white Iberian (white-hispanic) to indigenous dark skinned, to descendent of African slaves brought over, to various mixes of all of those.

    I think most people know that some portion of “Hispanics” are pretty white, while others are very dark. Some groups tend to be whiter (Cubans in Florida that fled the revolution) while others are pretty dark (people from the Caribbean islands that settled in the Northeast USA, especially NYC).

    Back in their home countries these ethnic differences manifest in politics. There is usually a light skinned group and a dark skinned group. Venezuela happened in part because the dark skins took over.

    The fact that the GOP gets 20%-40% of the Hispanic vote in most elections is pretty representative of the % white in that gene pool.

    I think the ultimate issue is that you win elections with 50%+ votes, anything less doesn’t help. Who cares if Hispanics vote 20% or 40% GOP, if they become a majority they are never winning another election again. Texas is red for now because its whites vote 70% GOP.

    I can see white hispanics flipping back and fourth between self-identification, but there is no way really dark skinned Mestizos are going to decide they are white anytime soon.

  25. Richard says

    “Para continuar en Espanol, oprima dos.” Immigration isn’t affecting America? Has the author called a business with an automated service line lately?

  26. Justice says

    Absolutely monstrous and evil article. Look at the way you just twist and lie. You have absolutely zero honor and integrity. I see why you are a lawyer.

    The vast majority of Hispanics are non-white. Everyone knows that including you. Your deceptive survey doesn’t change reality. And they identify as Hispanics and see themselves as distinct from white Americans. Besides, ethnicity matters as well as race. The Immigration Act of 1924 highlights American national identity as a northwestern European nation.

    You want America to become even more amalgamated than Latin America. You want the identity and integrity of all races to be destroyed and for us to become a confused mix of Mestizos, Mulattos, and Eurasians. You want the meaning of whiteness in America to change forever and for whites to decline and eventually disappear.

    You are just an absolutely evil person and Quillette is disgraceful for publishing this. I hope you guys get what you deserve for seeking to destroy my nation, my people, and transforming my country into something unrecognizable to my ancestors.

    • dirk says

      As a Dutchman, that has traveled often in the US, I wonder, what is typical American? The WASPS, the Southerners, the Spics? The Cuban fugitives I met in a Miami bar acted much more American (for me) than the people I spoke in NY!!

      Not long ago, indeed it was the WASPS, and the immigration service once actively promoted to have largely WASP-like immigrants (of the Nordic subrace, the Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians, the US biologist Madison Grant ( The passing of the Great Race) came with that specification, these nordics were superior to the Alpines, the Mediterraneans and the Slavic.

      From the movie The Deerhunters, I remember these descendants of Eastern orthodox immigrants (Meryl Streep being one of them), much less desired than the Irish, and certainly of the mediterranean, but less American right now? Assimilated or integrated in the WASP community??

      What will the future bring to the USA? More or less conglomerate? I fear the 1st!

  27. ga gamba says

    There are antecedents a century ago, when Italians, Arabs, Jews, and others came to be considered “white” in America, after initial resistance from the mostly Protestant white majority.

    You may go back further than that.

    And since detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their places at home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors [Germans] be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? 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.

    Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.”

    That was grand wizard Benjamin Franklin in 1755 in his Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc., https://archive.org/details/increasemankind00franrich/page/n1

  28. Bill says

    AFAIR the ethnic composition of California has changed already quite a lot since the late sixties or so. The formerly predominantly white population is now predominantly latino.
    Also the Reagan-state is now overwhelmingly Democrat-state.
    So Immigration does change the USA

  29. Drawing analogies to the past is misleading if you don’t mention the existence of racial/ethnic affirmative action since 1969, which provides strong personal incentives to identify as something other than a non-Hispanic white. The government offers money and prizes to people who identify as a “minority.”

    In particular, the creation of the “Hispanic/Latino ethnicity” in 1970 enabled individuals to both affirm their blue-blooded whiteness AND to be eligible for affirmative action benefits.

  30. R Henry says

    I live in CA. During my lifetime, CA elected Republican governors and big city mayors. Now, after decades of virtual open borders, there is not a single statewide office served by a Republican. Our Cities are all Democrat. The legislature, both houses, have a DEM supermajority. The GOP is fully impotent in CA.

    With CA’s 50+ electoral College votes, what happens here is very significant nationally. To assert immigration does not play a role in the creation of the Democrat political monoculture in CA is ludicrous.

    • codadmin says

      Political monoculture is the same as saying a one Party state. A fascist state, in other words.

    • dirk says

      Which new name would you prefer Sonia? Blandland, Rapeland or Bombland?? Which of the ones sounds least sad?

      • dirk says

        (all 3 names encountered in your Youtube.com.watch, so not mine, I wouldn’t dare so)

  31. A very tired woman says

    Reading many of the arguments, a key argument is about assimilation. The first generation retains some of the “old ways” (I am a baby boomer, I am thinking about the Italian grandmothers that spoke no English) but the children WANT to assimilate. A social worker told me this is a known phenomenon. Among the immigrants who retain “the old ways”, their children typically rebel as they WANT to be like their peers. In the 50s and 60s he saw teenage daughters of Italians and Greeks running away from home because the parents were too strict and not in keeping with the new culture. He said you can watch each wave of immigration and see this in child-care and social work circles.

    And many many many immigrants DO want to embrace the new culture. “How do they do it here?” Telling newer immigrants how to do it here. It’s natural.

    If you reject the immigrant community, they will turn more inward. If you embrace the immigrant community, they will embrace you back, and probably offer you some great food.

    But overall, as in every wave of immigration, the children want to participate in the wider cultural community. This should be applauded and encouraged.

    I remember all the Anglo names of movie & TV stars. I thought that meant they were all white. Some were Lebanese (Danny Thomas) or Russian Jew (Kirk Douglas) or all kinds of ethnicities that presented as generic American. Historically so many groups were considered too different, or still loyal to another (Catholics), or unable or unwilling to assimilate when they first came here.

    How is this any different? Why the pessimism? Don’t you believe enough in the American ideals to know they are attractive? People want to participate in the American dream that has been advertised in film for a century.

    Education, information, open and honest communication. Still the solution for harmony among heterophilial communities. (see Heterophily on WIkipedia)

Comments are closed.