Most hatemail is far too long and discursive. But I just received this note, a perfect little rage-fueled prose poem, and I wouldn’t cut a word:
the very reason why we in the west worry over falling birthrates is because idiots like you come up with the “bright” idea of mass migration as a way to solve demographic problems, with never a thought as to the new problems you are creating. first, immigrants age, so you are adding to the elderly population of a country. second, do you really want to be a minority to muslims? assuming that you are not yourself a muslim? if so, you are more brave a person than i. third, that leftwing disease known as multi-culturalism discourages integration. think before you write madam.
Can you feel the urgency in that uncapped i? There’s simply no time to employ standard capitalization or whole sentences. Not that it matters, but I do not support mass immigration because I think it will solve a demographic crisis I don’t believe exists. I “support” mass immigration in the way I support mass breathing and mass peristalsis.
I haven’t been in Iowa for long, and most of that time has been spent half-delirious from migraine and allergy meds. I can say, with some certainty through the fog: It is not cramped here. Lant Pritchett, a Utah native himself, calls ours “a big, empty country.” He is noting that we’ve got ample room to house people who don’t happen to carry American passports. But the emptiness also space for Americans to ensconce themselves in soothingly identical rows corn rather than some roilsome gallimaufry of race. Among the charms of Los Angeles is the fact that no one will force you to live there.
I shouldn’t have to live in a community where everyone speaks Spanish; they should learn English. What is that but a desperate attempt to deny the fact of one’s mobility? It becomes much more difficult to refuse freedom of movement to migrants if you acknowledge your own freedom to move away from them. Even in the North American Union of my dreams and your nightmares, the ambulatory are free to choose their neighbors, and to choose not to have neighbors at all.
A system of internal passports would really add some rigor to the restrictionist argument.
Hi Kerry. I find most of the stuff you write about immigration persuasive, but I think you’re being disingenuous here. There’s a lot of space in the US, but there’s a lot less of it in places where people like to live. Our favored immigration policies will increase the number of Mexicans (say) living in or near every single one of those places. It seems pretty straightforward to me that if someone doesn’t like living around Mexicans (which is pretty vile but pretty common also), then they should oppose those policies.
“It seems pretty straightforward to me that if someone doesn’t like living around Mexicans (which is pretty vile but pretty common also), then they should oppose those policies.”
As an Atlanta native who attended integrated public school in 1980s, I can remember certain individuals in my neighborhood (and, unfortunately, in extended family as well) echoing the very same sentiment…except instead of ‘Mexicans’ it was ‘Blacks’ that they didn’t want to live around. Is there a meaningful difference between the two?
I’m a huge fan of individual liberty—which certainly entails a freedom of association—and this is in part why I relocated my family to New Jersey (Newark is not representative!) where the schools are much better and the proximity to NYC is a plus.
You are forgetting the question of the effect of immigration on politics. Freedom is easily eliminated in a society and immigrants can change the political philosophy of a country both for the better and for the worse. That can have a far greater consequence than a little bit of cultural friction.
I’m not going to argue that hispanics will vote for more authoritarian government necessarily but they could and that’s a problem. We are talking about the largest and fastest demographic shifts in human history and it is bound to have unforeseen consequences.
People do not always act rationally, especially politically – if they did then the black community would be overwhelmingly libertarian. There are issues of racial nationalism and political values that have to be addressed when talking about the political ramifications of mass migration.
Sure, people are free to move now but there may come a day when those that desire to live free have nowhere left to go. That’s part of the virtue of a nation – like minded people can live together in a place that reflects their political and cultural values. Allowing open borders for purely economic reasons could exacerbate that problem – it also might not and could even be an improvement. My point is that it needs to be discussed rather than simply hoping for the best.
The e-mail you received is silly and hysterical but not all concerns over open-borders are without merit.
If you had a problem that could be solved either through activism (or by writing to bloggers) or by moving to Iowa, which option do you think you would pick?