More Misinformation from the Media:
The case for restricting immigration seems superficially plausible. . . . [But] when you wade into the evidence you find that the case for restricting immigration is pathetically weak. If you start in rural New England and drive down into Appalachia. . . . These places lack the diversity restrictionists say is straining the social fabric. [They are] marked by economic stagnation, social isolation, family breakdown and high opioid addiction. . . . But these trends are largely within the native population. Immigration provide the antidote. They start new businesses at twice the rate of non-immigrations. Roughly 70 percent of immigrants express confidence in the American dream, compared with 50 percent of the native-born.
Immigrants have much more traditional views on family structure than the native-born and much lower rates of out-of-wedlock births. . . . What about the rise of social distrust? Restrictions often cite a 2007 Robert Putnam study finding that more diversity leads to less trust. But Putnam tells me they are distorting his research. He found that diversity’s benefits outweighs its disadvantages . . . over the long run. . . . – The East Germans of the 21st Century, David Brooks, The New York Times, 1/29/18. [Link]
Fact Check: Yes, there are some parts of America with high native-born populations that are having problems. One reason is the globalist ideology that has caused the industries in these areas to move abroad—and it is that same globalist ideology that invites immigrants here to take American jobs, so that our economic elites can enjoy cheap labor. Brooks writes for those elites, and thus has little sympathy for working-class Americans. If he did he might notice that depressed American communities often have many redeeming aspects such as a sense of community, appreciation of American heritage, and patriotism.
If Brooks really believes that immigrants are such superior beings who bring prosperity to everything they touch, how does he explain California, the state with the highest number and percentage of immigrants? Before mass immigration it had a dynamic economy, one providing abundant middle-class jobs. It had excellent government, education, and infrastructure. It had a pleasant laid-back lifestyle with abundant wide-open spaces.
Today much of that quality of life is gone, in large-part because of massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal. The economy increasingly resembles a classic Third World profile with relatively few well-to-do people at the top, lots of poor people at the bottom, and not many people in between. California today has a higher percentage of people living in poverty than any other state.
A big reason is that immigrants tend to vote for Democratic politicians with anti-business views. Hispanics, who comprise the largest group of immigrants, lean in favor of big government and against capitalism. As government in California has taken on Third World characteristics, education and infrastructure have suffered. Massive population growth, largely due to immigration, have brought overcrowding and the stress of gridlock on the state’s roads and highways.
Brooks claims, as all immigration enthusiasts do, that immigrants are more likely to start businesses and be self-employed. But the truth, according to statistics from the Census Bureau, is that the self-employment rates of natives and immigrants are almost identical. A further point to consider is that many immigrants in business get an advantage over natives because they receive benefits of affirmative action from the government.
A statistic that the enthusiasts don’t mention is that Immigrant households are more likely to use welfare than native households. This should not be surprising because our immigration policy significantly imports poverty. Many immigrants are not paragons of family values. Hispanic immigrants have a higher rate of illegitimate births than white natives.
Robert Putnam may claim that restrictionists are “distorting” his research, but he’s the one who seems to be doing that. Putnam, a supporter of diversity, discovered to his horror as he researched that the more diverse a community is the less social trust it has. To counter that finding he expresses the child-like faith that diversity, somehow or some way, will work our just fine in the end. Brooks embraces Putnam’s faith while ignoring his facts.
It perhaps is not surprising that more immigrants than natives believe in the American Dream, as natives watch immigration change their country beyond recognition and extinguish their dreams. As mass immigration takes on the character of colonization, it is scarcely surprising that the colonists are optimistic. Adding to their optimism is the welcome of our elites give them, even as those elites scorn their fellow Americans.