The Christian Right could be irrelevant by 2024

Yes, you make good points here. Hispanics over time have tended to assimilate.
However, we ought to note a couple of things that must be taken into account now:

(1) Immigration from the other side of the Atlantic, a century ago, had natural, physical/economic, limitations, even before restrictive immigration laws were passed. If Latin America (including Mexico) were separated from the US by three thousand miles of ocean – or rather, if it was as difficult to get to the US today from Latin America, as it was in 1920 from Europe, things would be different.

(2) Even then, immigration was restricted. I don’t automatically shriek ‘racism’ and faint when I read about the laws of those times, by the way, even if today we can see that some of them were unwise. (For example, we should have taken all the Jews we could get, on purely selfish grounds, so they could make nuclear weapons and other useful things for us. How stupid the Arabs were, not to welcome the creation of Israel! Had they done so, and partnered with it, they’d be ruling the world today.) It’s interesting to read about those laws:[ ]

(3) Until relatively recently, almost all Americans, Left and Right, were very proud of America, and there was intense pressure of all sorts – not just coercive pressure – for new immigrants to become ‘American’ and to take pride in being so. In fact, many East European refugees became more American than the Americans.
[Which reminds me of an irrelevant joke: A group of East European refugees from Communism is demonstrating in front of the Soviet legation in New York City … they get angrier and angrier, and the demonstration starts to get out of hand. The cops weigh in and start shoving and even clubbing the demonstrators… One of them protests, “But officer, I’m an anti-Communist!” The policeman snarls, “I don’t give a shit what kind of Communist you are!” WHACK!]

Young Mexican-Americans had a strong tradition of military service, and not just any military service, but the Airborne. Do they still?

In fact, I find it remarkable how loyal to this country its racial minorities have been: the 442nd Regimental Combat team, the most-decorated American regiment in history, made up of Japanese-Americans, many of whose relatives were or had been in the camps.[ ] Or Native Americans, or Blacks. I wouldn’t have blamed any of these people for saying ‘FU’ to us when we asked them to serve in our wars, but they didn’t.

But things have changed, radically, as everyone who follows this site knows. Now, the attitude towards America promulgated by our elite is just the opposite: not pride, but shame. Schools are beginning to teach not patriotism, but critical race theory.

This will inevitably affect new immigrants, especially those from the Left’s designated ‘victim groups’.

How much it will affect them – and this ‘despise America’ attitude on the part of the elite is going to get worse, not better – I don’t know, but I’m not optimistic.

(4) And of course you’re quite right to point out that the new immigrants of a hundred years ago were not without alloy. The anarchists of those times make today’s ‘anarchists’ look like teddy-bears. The Zinnized history taught to our kids portrays Sacco and Vanzetti, for example, as if they were gentle followers of Tolstoy, instead of what they were, followers of the violence-worshipping maniac Galleani [] and almost certainly guilty of the murder for which they were charged – certainly Sacco and probably the more ethereal Vanzetti. (Honest anarchists like Paul Avrich come close to admitting this, but you’ll never hear that from today’s lying Left.)

(5) Then, America was on the way up, in every sense. Despite the pause of the Depression, our economy expanded – after WWII we ruled the world. We could absorb the numbers, and we were a nation people wanted to identify with. Now we’re on our way down. The next ‘America’ is China, but I wouldn’t suggest to anyone that they try to sneak across the Chinese border.

So what’s the bottom line:

1. We must control immigration. Who comes to the US and becomes an American citizen must do so only as the result of laws passed by current American citizens.

It’s just a brutal fact that citizens of a nation that is not bent on national suicide, should choose who comes to it to live on the basis of whether it will benefit that nation or not. Perhaps some day humanity will evolve beyond this attitude, but at the moment, there is no substantial material basis for this. The citizens of El Salvador would not accept unlimited immigration from Somalia. It wouldn’t even be a question. Nor should it be for the US.

2. Among the considerations governing immigration should be economic and social ones: will the immigrants contribute to our economy, or be a drain on it? Will they help maintain social stability, or be a destabilizing factor. Ethnicity cannot be left out of this calculation. You can’t fool life.

I assume the two points above are at a sufficient level of abstraction so that every sensible person would agree with them. The devil, as usual, is in the details.

Oh yes, the pro-Trump illegal immigrant.
We must respect the rule of law.
If a pro-Trump person breaks the law, they should receive the same punishment as an anti-Trump person.

Of course, in a nation where the rule of law has effectively disintegrated, all bets are off. Political power then reverts to those who are in control of the source of all political power. Which is why patriots had better make sure they have those sources, and enough ammunition for them, although it’s practically impossible to buy it at a reasonable price now.

Religion serves as a means of social cohesion. It can give power to the otherwise powerless.

In the American South, until fairly recently, Blacks had little power: they were not allowed to vote in many places, so they had no way of forcing the government to extend its protection to them, where they might come into conflict with whites. If you were white, you could kill a Black person with impunity if you could construct even an absurd justification. (“I felt I was in danger of my life.”) The all-white jury would take a few minutes to find you innocent and would shake your hand afterwards.

If, like me, you are not happy with the transfer of power from the states to the Federal Government that we have seen over the last sixty years, you can thank the Southern white racist morons for it.

Blacks had little economic power. Almost all employers were white, landowners were white, people who sold things were white.

The one institution that Blacks did control, was their churches. You may not have been able to rent a hall for a public meeting to protest segregation – but you could meet in your church. You might have been afraid to put your name on a petition because you might be fired – but your preacher, paid by his Black congregation, could do so. It’s not accidental that Martin Luther King was a preacher.

So sometimes religion has played a progressive role in history. It helped temper the savagery of feudal lords, both Christian and Islamic.

It played a very important role in curbing the English monarchy, the destruction of which provided the seed-bed for the sort of political thinking that gave rise to the American Republic. Oliver Cromwell eventually fashioned an unbeatable army from among the very religious Puritans, who, as Macaulay put it, ‘humbled themselves in the dust before their God, the better to set their foot on the neck of their king’.

In China, political opposition to the reigning Marxist totalitarians is forbidden – so opposition takes the religious path.

Of course, all of these phenomena involved ‘belief’ in things that cannot be proved using the methods of science. And often, religious belief involves at least some assertions of material fact that must certainly be untrue – water into wine, raising from the dead, the sun goes around the earth, etc. At least it does so formally, but in fact, not really … and this ceding of ground has been going on a long time.

Churches (and temples and mosques) effectively gave up the battle about who could explain material reality long ago … the first time they erected lightning rods on their buildings.

Now almost all religious people follow science. If one of their loved ones gets cancer, they will try to make sure the afflicted one gets the best scientific medical treatment. Yes, they will still pray for the recovery of the person being treated, but this is not really because they think they can change God’s mind about the outcome of the treatment.

Atheists do this as well: “Our hopes are with you…” “We’re all thinking of you …” You’re in our thoughts every day …" – these are the atheists’ equivalents of prayers, and atheists like me and thousands of others made them when we heard Christopher Hitchens was stricken with cancer. [And eternal shame on those Leftists who publically chortled about it, and even laughed about Hitchens’ particular illness, throat cancer, being a particularly painful one. What human garbage some of these people are!]

So I would assert that the heart and soul of religion, especially nowadays, is not belief in ancient priests’ attempts to interpret and explain matters of material fact in a pre-scientific age [comets, eclipses, death, defeat of the tribe], but belief in a meaningful universe, with an associated committment to a set of morals that involve altruistic – ie not just what’s-in-it-for-me – behavior.

“Without God, all things are permitted” may not be factually true – atheists don’t seem to be any worse in their behavior than others – but it’s probably a strong, if unconsciously-held, argument for keeping people loyal to organized religion, who might otherwise leave it.

Like all human beings, of course, religious people only rarely live up completely to their ideals. And some of them, like Billy James Hargis, provide us with welcome humorous relief, when, after years of shaking his finger at us sinners, he gets caught diddling with the teenage children – boys and girls – of his followers.

There’s another motivation behind religious belief, besides trying to provide a framework for social pressure to behave morally, and it’s this:

Science does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the universe we live in. Anyone with the least familiarity with relativity, Special and General, not to mention Quantum Electrodynamics, knows that modern science has uncovered a universe which is FAR more weird, and incomprehensible, than anything religion could dream up.

Not to mention that the materialist theory of reality doesn’t have the least thing to say about consciousness.

And so long as that is true, there will be a basis for people to entertain the idea of a ‘higher power’, seeing the world they live in as something more than matter in motion, however they put it.

Not to mention the rich history of thought that we find when we examine the history of religious thought, of all religions. Religion – broadly defined, to include the Oriental quasi-religions – was the channel in which almost all serious thought ran, for many centuries.

I have an image, which is almost painfully funny: @MrBlue is given the opportunity to debate someone on the issue of religion, someone known as ‘the Dumb Ox’, which of course he accepts with alacrity. 'Nya, nya, you believe in a sky-daddy, you stupid ox…"

And he is sat down across from a resurrected St. Thomas Aquinas.

It would get ten million views on YouTube, unless the Angelic Doctor took pity on the poor fellow.

Absolutely if the laws are over complicated, and the system drags its feet giving people renewals.

This works in reverse, because they have a contiguous border with us, there’s a natural immigration rate between us. The legal immigration rate has to be within some magnitude of the natural one, or a black market is the de facto result.

The people left out will gain criticality, form a market demand for crossing, coalescing in coyotes and Americans looking to get paid to get them over.

It’s no different than when you try to restrict gun or drug sales; if the legal market won’t supply, black market actors will.

Law does nothing to change the demand, which is the actual driver. Not the supply.

Ellis Island accepted 98% of people who came.(rejected 2 percent).

We are no where near that. We reject closer to 70% of the people who apply, and that’s far too high.
That’s just ceding a large bulk of immigration to the black market.

I’m speaking decades before that. The era The Jungle was written by Upton Sinclair, was actually the highest year over year era improvement in the standard of living in American history.

And it coincided, with one of the largest migrations of humanity in history. 20-30 million who came here. I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I think that speaks to labor assigning itself where it was needed, leaving behind ineffective countries who couldn’t offer proper opportunities.

Naturalization =/ as immigration. The Founders themselves saw a difference. I agree the former should be policed, the latter though needs to be more free.

We should have the immigration % rate of Singapore or Switzerland. Their rate is simply the rate we had before the restrictions placed in the 1920s, and which Canada has today.

The “not enough space” objection doesn’t seem real, America is pretty empty. Most of the 1st world is 10% developed, we are only 5% developed.

If high immigration rates kill countries it should have killed small, higher density countries first.

What they point out is that it’s not how much immigration you get, but how immigration is carried out.

what does the average 70 year old white militia guy think of brown people immigrating?

What does the average 14 year old kiddie think of teaching lies to Black children?

why would you teach such things as this??

Hmmm… Protestants immigrating to Northern Ireland?
Whatever mix of immigration resulted in Northern Ireland?
Greeks immigrating to Turkey (before they were all killed or driven out in 1920?)
Of Turks to Cyprus?
Of whatever mixed Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, or the mix of religious groups in Syria?
Or the mix of tribes in Africa?
Or Tamils to Sri Lanka?
The forced immigration of Africans to North America?
Or the voluntary (mostly) immigration of English to North America (from the point of view of the original inhabitants?)

I don’t see the world as a libertarian does: a collection of atomized individuals each rationally seeking his self interest. We took a rich continent away from the original owners, supplemented our takings by robbing the descendants of the original Spanish robbers of half of Mexico, had two huge natural moats to protect us from enemies who might have been a challenge, were rulers of the world after WWII.

All that has changed, and the idea that we should basically just invite the world, and let wage levels fall where they may, is … not good. The non-Asian Third World has proved incapable of getting decent government … it’s completely understandable that people living in these hell-holes should want to get out. But in large enough numbers, they will bring their culture with them.

Here’s a description of what has happened to California as a result of mass – legal and illegal – immigration from Mexico.

We have to face reality.

No wonder you live in a bunker if you read that drivel

This is speaking to Balkanization, and it doesn’t overlap our situation for two reasons:

  1. More than half of these examples are the consequence of war, of conquering territory. That’s not our relationship as natives versus Mexican immigrants.

  2. None of these examples are of a lower developed people, moving to a higher developed nation.

There is no instance in history of a lower economically developed people, displacing the more developed people, simply by moving there. That can only happen through war.

The real consequence of what America is going through, is overregulation. It’s people trying to centrally plan the economy, and creating worse results.

In the 1920s, Mexicans were already the majority railroad and meat processing worker. This grew off of how they had become the fastest growing Farm worker since the 1890s.

Immigrants and Americans in America had a peaceful, mutually beneficial arrangement where Mexicans came and went.

Then Government in the 1930s started to interfere, trying to break a relationship that was already decades old by that point. This resulted in more trying to stay for years at a time to avoid the border enforcement.

Equally, it resulted in Milton Friedman’s quintessential farmer with a shotgun, pointed at a border guard, telling him to get off his land.

But then we had a break!

Eisenhower’s Bracero program in the 1950s. The I100 visa lead by INS Director Joseph Swing. He went around asking farmers and other employers “Who do you want / how many do you need?”

They took down names and numbers, while also putting sign up lists in Mexico. They matched immigrant workers to an employer. Whenever people were caught crossing the border, they were simply put into Bracero, assigned an employer to work with.

A funnel, instead of a wall.

The consequence of this? Illegal immigration fell by 95%. We were getting more than a million border crossings a year in the early 50’s, dropping to a few 1,000 by the latter half.

This resulted persisted right up until Bracero was Repealed in 1964.

That’s when illegal immigration came back, and so did lack of compliance of the law. Because now, the Government was trying to limit numbers below demand again.

You don’t have to tell me that Black markets have ill secondary effects. The crime, the violence, the division in culture. My argument is that we wouldn’t have most of those effects if you simply brought back Bracero.

Work and work relationships are the primary means by which people assimilate. Disrupt that, you disrupt the process.

It just doesn’t match history.

In the 1910 we were a smaller country, bringing in people who more directly competed with the skills other Americans had.

And yet things got better. 20-30 million was a much larger fraction of people for us to absorb. It was harder to police crime, terrorism, and sickness. And yet things got better. The lasting consequence of those immigrants was prosperity, not balkanization, not destitution. There were plenty of “Know-nothing” who claimed that’s what immigrants would bring.

To any degree they were right in the short-term, they were wrong in the long term. Every time.

And to your examples, I again list my own: Switzerland, Singapore.

Switzerland has a tri-part population of French, Germans and Italians, their foreign born population is over 25% of their total.

In Singapore, Foreigners are close to 40% of their population, and they predict that foreigners will one day eclipse the native born.

How do they remain stable? If the mechanical consequence of high immigration was instability, why haven’t these places keeled over?

And why didn’t America when it had similar rates of foreign-ness in the late 19th century?

That’s not the final consequence of immigration. Immigration mid-to-long term makes wages grow because it spurs labor demand.

It also increases consumer demands, creating more work.

California created that reality through bad policy. Mostly in labor, and incentivizing the creation of an underclass with high taxes and regulations that made running an honest business almost impossible.

They eroded their own rule of law through being overregulated. That’s the fact of the matter.

Meanwhile in Texas:

Texas in the 1950s had a open-border policy, and they still benefit from the legacy of that policy.
An Assimilated Latino population.

They’re harsher with immigrants now, but they’re less harsh on the labor and regulation front, meaning it’s easier for people to work, and to assimilate.

The inflection point is work. If people can’t reliably build a future, they turn on you. Texas kept that alive, while California puts on pretenses for anyone not already skilled / certified enough to work in Silicon valley and has for decades.

70 mill of which are nonexistent.


How pleasant to argue with someone who knows what he’s talking about, even if he is too optimistic about a Balkanized America.

It’s my personal long-term hope that the world will continue to develop economically, everywhere – with upward levelling causing the cultural differences between people living in the Third World, and those living in advanced countries, to vanish. Not by our becoming less civilized, but by their becoming more like us with respect to the rule of law, mutual trust, etc.

Plus, as a side-note: advances in genetic engineering hold out the hope of allowing us to consciously mold the human genome, instead of just accepting whatever chance-plus-natural-selection has handed down to us: if the whole species – its future generations – could have IQ’s in and beyond what is now the 4th Standard Deviation, with other tweaks to genetically-influence personal behavior, like impulsivenes – we would enter a new epoch of humanity. But … we have to get there.

I am all in favor of a bracero program, while at the same time I am also in favor – in principle – of laws and regulations that make some of the work that Americans don’t want to do, more appealing. And of other arrangements, like unionization, that libertarians don’t like because they result in less efficient distribution of economic resources. (That’s something we might want to discuss/argue about elsewhere.)

But back to your examples: I am sufficiently ignorant of the deep background to most of your assertions so that I have to defer a detailed reply. But just to take one example, where I have some irrelevant personal knowledge (having had a Tamil friend who returned to Sri Lanka – this was in the early 80s – just in time to witness anti-Tamil pogroms there) – I believe the Tamils did not end up in Sri Lanka as a result of military conquest, unless you stretch the meaning of that term pretty far. Please look at the Wiki article on them and tell me what you think:

Nor does it seem to be working out with Somalis in Sweden.

However, let me stipulate, as the lawyers say, that you are right: immigrants coming to the USA because their own countries are crap, and the US offers them the prospect of a free country plus personal economic prosperity, and who transfer their national loyalties to their new country, will not cause social instability. (Leave aside for the moment the question of competition for low-skilled jobs and its possible effect on wage levels.) Do you put any numbers on that? (For instance, do you see a qualitative difference between a tribal minority of 1% and 30%, everything else being equal, in terms of their assimilation to their new homeland? And, given that the Left is successfully turning our schools into hate-Amerikkka indocrtination camps, will that not affect things negatively?)

Then the question becomes, is that what’s happening, (or would happen, with Open Borders)?
It’s a factual question. As I read Victor Davis Hanson about what’s happened to California, I conclude, no.

It did happen in the past – and by the way, I have argued strenuously within forums much more right wing than this one (mainly, pro-militia forums) that we have to not just pay formal lip-service to being open to all Americans – every national and state militia group I have looked at has some official rejection of white supremacy – , but must go out of our way to bring in women, gays, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks.

So, for example, although I totally reject the Leftist bs about the Confederate Flag being a symbol of treason – what a laugh, from people who honor Ethyl Rosenberg and Jane Fonda! – … the reality is, today, it means ‘Non-whites not welcome’, and thus should be excluded from our demonstrations, by force if necessary, just as we already deal with open Nazis and Klansmen.

Also: you will notice that there is one huge failure in assimilation, admittedly of people who did not come here voluntarily: American Blacks. It’s proof, to me, that the rightwing economic interpretation of history is just as wrong as the leftwing one (to which I used to adhere).

Anyway, you b******d, now I’ll have to go off and read half a dozen books on the tribal mixing of the peoples over history, just when I was settling down to some pleasant escapism by going through the Maturin-Aubrey series yet again.

I would urge you to read it, if you were able to, but out of charity I will refrain. Don’t embarrass people by suggesting that they do things of which they are not capable.

Likewise; it’s pleasant not to have my counter-argument answered with an ad hominem of one sort or another.

I agree a minor balkanization has occurred here in America, but I don’t agree that has anything to do with their being immigrants or people of a different skin tone. I’d point a finger firmly at a breakdown of administrative competence in really just a handful of urban districts. Their results have dragged the rest of us along for a ride.

It’s my hope that the budding space industry provides us with a new frontier to expand into; civilizations that cannot look outward, that have no where to expand into, tend to turn inward.

Sure, so long as you understand that the higher the IQ, the higher the prevalence for neutrotic disorders.

The more complicated a machine is, the more opportunities there are for something to break. But perhaps our understanding of the human mind will accelerate in pace to compensate.

Or maybe we’ll get there through more artificial means like Elon Musk’s neural lace.

Sure, just don’t require it.

I’ve been a member of two unions; the issue with both of them is that they take their positions for granted as by law in many states, they have to be negotiated with, and do not have to face competition from a rival, minority Union. Thus, they feel no real threat from disgruntled members, until their viewpoint is strong enough to encourage politicians to enact right to work laws.

If we had the Union culture of Germany, that would be fine with me. They create pipelines for kids in high school to acquire trade skills, and negotiate pay cuts when it’s in the best interest of the company.

Here, we’re living through the century long consequence of the Wagner Act. It is the central reason Unions are dying now, because they locked themselves into a deal that was good for them, and terrible for everyone else, and everyone else gradually realized that.

True, they also weren’t immigrants. They’ve lived on that island for 2000 years.

I’m not expert on them, but from what I can read, they had some modicum of peace with the South prior to being conquered by the Portuguese, the Dutch, and then the British, but after the colonial powers were gone the successor Government had the idea “I want to rule everything just like the last guys did”, and the Tamils were all “No, we want to rule ourselves, like we did before those guys came.”

Closely related, not wholly economically integrated, and a history of separate Kingdoms with fractious borders. An issue left unresolved by their former colonial masters, who probably stepped all over that issue just like they did in the Middle East.

Textbook balkanization for sure, but I’m not seeing how their example applies to us.

Oh I don’t expect it to, just like the trouble they’re having in Germany.

Their labor market is too protectionist, they let barely any of these people in to work. They set them up in vacant hotels or camps, give them aid, and then expect them to keep.

But of course they don’t. Where’s the meaning? Where’s the possibility for them or their kids to thrive, not just survive? If they can’t get that from work, they’ll get it from any common denominator they can find, and for some proportion, it’ll be extremism or crime.

The former British M.P. Daniel Hannan, whom I’ve had the pleasure to meet a few years back, once asked openly in his writings Why does America experience less terrorism from Muslims than the U.K., when their population of Muslims is larger?

And the two answers he offers: We require them to work, and we’re on average more patriotic than the average Brit.

Work. Don’t underestimate its importance. If you bring people in, and don’t give them work, you’re asking them not to assimilate, not to build relationships with natives, and likely not even bother learning the language.

I don’t know how many people need to move from Colorado to Kansas to equalize socio-economic trends, so I also wouldn’t know what that number is crossing international boundaries.

The best you could hope for is measure net migration in a given year, and place the cap somewhere close to that. Keep adjusting as net Migration moves upward.

Eisenhower adjusted total visas twice by executive order to ensure that there were enough.

If people can tell themselves a story, that there is a line, it keeps track, and even if they can’t get in this year that they likely can get in the next, they’ll likely be compliant. If you give them that hope and make it cheap to access, they won’t bother taking risks with Coyotes.

They’ll use our process, not theirs.

Sure, but not in terms of stability. There is no majority in Switzerland, and the Ethnic Chinese dominate in Singapore despite only being marginal.

Why do they Dominate? Because they have the culture that gets things done. If you want to be middle class, you don’t have a choice, you have learn “our” ways, because your culture doesn’t have engineering or medicine, or accounting practices that makes things run, and are in demand.

In return, the dominate culture has to make it clear that the pathway to success and prosperity is there. The Gini coefficient only elicits crime, when the path forward is obscured.

Sure, but that’s a problem with the schools, not having these populations here inherently.

The way you combat this is school choice. Most parents will take good schools over any that can only offer virtue signaling.

It’s an issue easy to cripple the left on, given that their own base sides against them on it, and it’s utilized in the countries they claim to idolize.

I disagree. Post-slavery black immigrants assimilate quite well, like Colin Powell’s family. African Americans overall were doing better year-over-year until 1970, when something got in the way.

These are both points Thomas Sowell makes in his own writings.

There’s nothing natural or mechanical over how African Americans have been stagnated.
The only other ethnic group that’s experienced the same kind of stagnation is Native Americans, and it’s no huge mystery why. Partly, because there are groups within them which didn’t stagnate, and we can spot the difference.

I’d recommend Sowell while you’re at it; he’s not a huge fan of immigration, but he cracks open quite a few racial myths.

yes, horrible place to live. Germany.

It’s interesting: I use some of your arguments in other circumstances, trying to stave off American ethnic-nationalists who, I fear, are making headway among some young people who ought to be on our side.

Re. unions: (for private companies, not government workers): it depends a lot on their leadership. My perfect example is to contrast two Communist (dues-cheaters) union leaders, Harry Bridges of the West Coast Longshoremen (a union I was a member of for a short time), and Arthur Scargill of the British Miners. They both faced an industry which was going to need a lot fewer of their members, the Longshoremen through containerization, the Miners through the fact that coal was too expensive to mine in Britain, when it could be brought in more cheaply from abroad. Bridges did the intelligent thing, and got the bosses to agree to let ‘natural wastage’ trim the numbers (down from 25 000 to 5000 now, I think); Scargill allowed himself to be provoked into leading a long, bitter strike, which turned the miners against each other, and effectively destroyed the union’s power – there used to be a saying in Britain, something along the lines of that there were three institutions you did not challenge: the Brigade of Guards, the Catholic Church, and the United Mineworkers. No longer. (He said, no mine should be shut so long as there was one piece of coal to be brought up, regardless of the cost.)

By the way, if you are not familiar with Tino Sanandaji , you should be (as should every thinking person):

I first learned about him because he did a very good analysis of America’s education system, looking at it by disaggreagating racial groups: how did our European-descended kids compare to Europe’s, our African-descended kids to Africa’s Africans’ our Asians to Asia’s Asians. But what I really like about him is his analysis of immigration in Sweden, where he lives.

I’m a huge fan of Thomas Sowell, and have most of his books sitting on my shelves, but many of them are unread. His work on race and culture, whatever it’s called, is on the ‘soon’ list.

Have you heard or read the news stories about how mostly Muslim immigrant men are treating women in Germany as well as France? There are now “no go” places for women because they feel threatened by cat calls, whistles and much worse.

It is not the responsibility of western culture to adjust these Muslims who are accustomed to having their woman covered sometimes from head to toe. It is the responsibility of the Muslims to adjust the culture of the host country. If they can’t do that, then they need to go home.

I know that under your “woke culture” only people of color matter. Here is an example of where women of all colors are treated poorly. Perhaps you might consider making an adjustment to your philosophy.

I have no problem at all with anyone immigrating to this country so long as it is done in an orderly matter. That means no open borders and a system that will filter out criminals, human trafficers, drug dealers and importers, spies who are out to do harm to this country and terrorists. In other words, if you are coming here to be up to no good, you are not welcome.

As for your “70 year old white male” introduction, you just hit upon the trifecta of bigotry. In just five words, you demonstrated ageism, racism and sexism. Congratulations!