I also think you can’t group Latinos as a voting bloc that swings one way on party or policy. Sure Latinos in Nevada lean blue and are more liberal but in Florida they are conservative and are voting Republican.
Overall though I disagree with the framing. Why is a white minority a bad thing? Canada’s response to such demographic shifts is much more measured. We’re building a country together.
I addressed this question: "Or will that leave them as individualists in a country dominated by inter-group competition, as current polls suggest?"
Of course this is not guaranteed - once Whites are a minority (in the US, not just globally), other races in the US may also turn away from in-group preference, and the culture might turn away from harping on white privilege all the time. It's just that that hasn't happened yet.
I agree this is interesting to watch. Minorities have more voice in the culture as the demographics change, and some in the majority want to push back. Identify politics is toxic, no matter where it comes from. The media and politicians don't seem to be helping.
That said, if immigration was becoming a major issue then you would see shifts in the electorate backing say the People’s Party that performed dismally in the last federal election.
Could that change? Sure. But it would have to be via the Conservatives and that’s a risky policy shift for them to make.
Don't expect large amounts of immigrant solidarity from Latinos going forward. I think trump got slightly upwards of 40% of the Latino vote...
This is not universally true. While many Latinos do indeed vote this way, others resent having to compete for jobs and social services with more recent arrivals.
2. Does their past and often even current behavior towards other immigrants deserve any gratitude?
People who share kinship ties and cultural ties built the physical and political world of the country. My wife’s family fought in the American revolution, and settled the Oregon coast. All the rugged frontier individualism that permeates American culture is her people. By contrast my family came here on a plane I. 1989. My ancestors contributed nothing to this country. This country’s culture, institutions, etc., bear none of their imprint. If they had, this would be a very different country. We have a whole country that they made but it’s not this one.
I was mostly objecting to your simplified division of people into those "correct" groups whose country this is and those who are foreigners that don't belong here (I know you did not use these words, but that's how your comments sounded to me). I come from a place that has a long history of sentiments like that, and as far as I can tell, there was never anything good coming out of them.
So when is the cut-off date for having "built the physical and political world of the country"? My ancestors (on different branches of the family tree) came here in the mid- to late-19th century and early 20th century — to what extent do their contributions count?
2. Yes.
And even worse is this paragraph implying some kind of future risk to white people if they were not in political control:
> Will they be treated with gratitude for sharing their country, and so can afford to act colorblind, forsaking racial solidarity? Is gratitude what they're being shown now?
Seriously, I would ask you both define gratitude concretely and justify why it matters. Otherwise you’re just vending fear.
I'm not suggesting that. Only that they, on average, exhibit in-group preference, to a degree that correlates with how important they say their racial identity is.
I’m not even sure how you would quantify that. What counts as “in-group preference”? What do you mean “on average (…) to a degree that correlates with(…)”?
For a sufficiently weak “in-group preference” and “correlates with”, this is a very easy claim to make.
Sure, Indian Americans are more likely to support increased GC quota from India. They’re also more likely to have personal experience with how frustrating and difficult the GC system is for immigrants from India. Is that displaying in-group preference, or is that simply being more knowledgeable about a broken/unfair aspect of our immigration system that most people are unaware of?
And just how much more likely are Indian Americans to support increased GC quotas from India compared to say white people, normalized against confounding factors like having background knowledge on our arcane and complicated immigration system? How do you relate this against how likely Indian Americans are to say that their race is part of their identity (which as you say is the degree of correlation on in group preference)?
And is this behavior (in-group preference) consistent across a wide degree of issues across all races? Many people have already pointed out in the comments some counter examples with Latinos for example. Is this just an outlier?
That's not what being racist means. Here's a definition.
characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
His statement showed neither prejudice, discrimination or antagonism.
OP has not stated this directly but come very close, implying that members of race X, for whom their race is part of their identity, will support opinion Y if such is preferential to members of their race.
At its core this is still prejudiced. Op has thrown a zillion cultural confounders and nuances to the wind and presented an argument based totally on race.
You've just described demographic research.
Prejudice is defined as such:
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
>At its core this is still prejudiced. Op has thrown a zillion cultural confounders and nuances to the wind and presented an argument based totally on race.
Reductive perhaps, but not prejudice.
> It would be racist - actually racist, not the politically correct “racist” - to suggest all members of the same race have the same beliefs.
Of course there is political and social homogeneity of racial groups. I can prove it by showing you voting statistics. By and large, your race/ethnicity and to some extent gender predicts which party you vote for. Also, people tend to live in neighborhoods that are not mixed. The funny thing is that politics relies on this heavily. That's why Biden says things like "he'll put y'all back in chains" and it's why there is a call for diversity in powerful positions like the supreme court and federal judges, because people assume judges of their own race will be more understanding to them (or maybe there is a more sinister reason like punishing opponents more harshly). This is a huge part of identity politics actually all over the world. I think both sides use it to be fair. You should ask Japanese people if they object to the idea of political and social homogeneity of their ethnic group.
>And even worse is this paragraph implying some kind of future risk to white people if they were not in political control:
Is there a political risk to anyone of being a minority? Do you think that if whites were a minority that it's impossible that other groups might seek to punish them? It's not unprecedented that happens. It happened to Indians in Uganda.
In fact until 2008, the majority of Hispanics said there were “too many immigrants” in the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/19/latinos-hav.... It flipped around then, I assume for the same reason it flipped among democrat leaning white people—party polarization. But even today 85% of Hispanics think the level of foreigners in the country is about right or too much, while only 15% say they’re are too few.
I agree ethnic solidarity politics is a danger, especially because some people are trying to push it so hard to keep minority voters in line (see the recent MSNBC article that basically excommunicated Nikki Haley from Indian Americans). But with 40% of Hispanics voting Republican in 2022, I think they’re headed the same way Italians, Irish, etc., did in previous generations. (Of course in the meantime the damage was done, with FDR getting elected, so there’s that.)
That's the author's point about why the U.S. will need immigration in some form or another going forward, because the only alternative will be a shrinking population and an increasingly older demographic.
I'm seeing numbers that conflict with your assertion, above. I've heard that Latinos are in favor of border security, more so than immigration. From one of the references in the featured article [0]:
> Less than half of registered Latino voters believe that the U.S.-Mexico border is totally secure ... over half of respondents said border security is a more important issue than immigration, 59% to 35%.
Trump was very much anti-immigration, was very outspoken campaigning on that topic, and took what actions he could to decrease immigration when he was in office. Given this he got more Latino votes than Romney did in 2012 - 27% of Latinos voted for Romney in 2012, 29% for Trump in 2016, and grew his share of the Latino voteg to 32% in 2020 [1].
I don't think the numbers you quoted support your point, especially given the more specific conflicting data I found. The article you got your numbers above from talked about perceptions of discrimination in the U.S., and how those perceptions have changed recently. I would assume that when minorities are treated differently by the majority because of their race they will say that their race is important to their identity, they can't escape being what they are and have to live with how they are treated. Why would you assume that means they'd treat other people unfairly? It doesn't have to be that way. Black South Africans gave amnesty to the whites there for the horrible things they did.
> The simple reality is Whites will become a minority in what was an 84% White country as recently as 1970. Will they be treated with gratitude for sharing their country, and so can afford to act colorblind, forsaking racial solidarity? Is gratitude what they're being shown now?
Immigrants choose to come here, even when it's very difficult to do so, and they very much appreciate what the opportunities they have in the U.S. They want to work for better lives, just like those who immigrated before them. They certainly don't come here to hate on whites and ruin the country.
Southern and eastern European immigrants were looked down upon, mistreated and feared as the "others" by white anglo-saxon protestants a century ago, but by 1970 they are part of that 84% white population statistic that you quoted. They are one of us. Turns out there was nothing to be afraid of.
[0] https://usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/04/latino-v...
[1] https://www.as-coa.org/articles/chart-how-us-latinos-voted-2...
As an outside observer, it seems to me like the fears were borne out. Irish and Italian immigration got FDR elected, which ultimately resulted in seismic changes to the original constitutional design (rubber stamping of quasi constitutional administrative state, etc).
The culture of America also changed. It’s hard to visit NYC and not notice the strong Italian influence in the city. Depending on your taste you might think that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But I bet those 1910s New York WASPs would prefer New Amsterdam to New Sicily.
I don't hear many WASPs today complaining that their fears from a century ago came true, nor many who are bothered by Italians at the moment. To the contrary, Italians are now counted as caucasians in the statistics, and there are different out-groups that people blame now for the country's problems and are afraid of.
I'd say that WASPs have had to share more power, as opposed to being ousted from power. Changes in transportation, communication, and geopolitics may have led to the administrative state regardless. I don't think that WASPs are being treated worse than other groups. Maybe it's human nature for groups to not want to share, and that's a big part of the problem.
Southern Italian immigrants brought their culture to the entire city, and eventually to city administration. It wasn’t just the food. In terms of how people carry themselves, in terms of orderliness, etc., NYC is much more like a Mediterranean city than a British or Dutch city.
> I don't hear many WASPs today complaining that their fears from a century ago came true, nor many who are bothered by Italians at the moment.
All those people are dead, and the ones there currently have no other reference point.
> Maybe it's human nature for groups to not want to share, and that's a big part of the problem.
Why do they owe it to anyone else to share what they built?
I agree with you that there is a cultural component to this, and that opinions vary around that. There's also many factors influencing how a culture changes over time, and it's hard to avoid change. But there's also an economic component to immigration that should be part of the conversation.
The only non-controversial immigrants to the U.S. were the Native Americans, since they came here first. The Europeans who came next went on to import slaves to work plantations, enriching the south. They gave land to immigrants in the west, to secure it. They used immigrant labor in the north to industrialize, leapfrogging Britain and Germany to become the richest country in the world. Immigrants literally built NYC, the railroads, and other infrastructure like canals back in the day. Immigrants were brought over as indentured servants, then later as transport was cheaper they made their own way over, poor and desperate for work. More recently we've had Mexicans in cunstruction (up until 2009) and are still bringing in doctors and nurses to rural area.
I assume that one of the dynamics that has always been in play is that the rich like the cheap labor that immigration provides, and would prefer that the poor majority who eventually notice that they have to compete economically blame the immigrants for their problems, as opposed to blaming the rich who profited. This same thing has happened over and over in our history - the rich employ the immigrants, until the poor notice they are being screwed. Did you know that prior to the world wars there were no border checks for immigration? Passports prior to that time were for commerce only, not for people. Now it is the opposite. Money can move freely across international borders, and labor has become something to arbitrage. I predict that we'll have more immigrants as pleases those with money, perhaps to reduce inflation in service sector wages as boomers continue to retire by the millions and labor shortages continue to increase over the next decade or two. The alternative is what we have today - service sector wages increasing along with inflation.
The people making money off immigrants don't appear to care about the future of the culture, it appears they never have, not when they brought in slaves, not when they were industrializing, or building railroads, or houses, or picking strawberries. This is why I question the popular narrative on this topic. It's not just the rich who profit, the middle class enjoys lower prices, also. Is it fair to blame the immigrants? Why don't we talk about the economic component of this? Why don't we talk more about immigration checks at meat packing plants and farms and construction crews and motels?
I'm curious what you think about the economic component of this, and how important that is to talk about compared to the cultural component?
But I think focusing on the economics is short termism. I agree with Lee Kuan Yew (founder of modern Singapore) that “culture is destiny.” The most successful country in the history of the world, that’s the product of a singular British culture, should be really skeptical about importing huge populations of people from a different cultural background. Fundamental cultural dispositions, such as levels of social trust, are both important to national prosperity and extremely sticky over generations. See: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/just-like-home/
I agree. And I wonder if this is talked about enough.
> But I think focusing on the economics is short termism.
I'm inclined to say economics is the root cause of immigration, and should be talked about more.
Would everybody be in favor of decreasing immigration if they knew if might mean a 10-15% lower standard of living for all citizens? I assume the net effect would be more jobs for poor people, higher prices for everyone, and less profits for the rich. Would the richest ten percent allow that to happen?
We're already seeing some of that as we roll into another year of inflation, with service worker wages and food prices leading the way. Every year three million boomers are leaving the work force. Other countries are having big problems with the lack of young workers. Latino immigrants have been a boon to the U.S. in this regard the past couple of decades.
> The most successful country in the history of the world, that’s the product of a singular British culture, should be really skeptical about importing huge populations of people from a different cultural background
The U.S. has already imported huge populations from different cultural backgrounds, and prospered at the same time. We absorbed more immigrants, as a percentage of population, in the 19th century than we are now [0] (a bit more, for over 60 years, slavery goes back earlier than this reference shows).
Would the U.S. have replaced that singluar British culture as the most powerful nation on earth if it were not for immigrants? What if the U.S. as a new country wasn't making money exporting cotton? What if the civil war never happened? What if we took longer to settle the west and push out the Spanish? What if we didn't industrialize at the scale we did before the world wars?
> Fundamental cultural dispositions are extremely sticky over generations.
I grant this. We don't stay isolated in small homogeneous groups any more, we have national media and cheap international travel mixing us all together. We agreed that opinions vary as to whether this is a good thing or not. One could also wonder how much of the problem is the animosity that some people feel towards immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants themselves.
Gosh, as far as culture go, I'm more concerned that so many of our civic and social institutions that tied communities together, things like clubs, leagues, and third places, have deteriorated over the last 50 years, than I am about immigration.
In general I do share many of your concerns, to some extant, but am opposed to only talking about the cultural component of this, which we both agreed is a matter of opinion. Changing demographics, the geography of long borders with disparate neighbors and cheaper transportation may make much of this inevitable, not just in the U.S., given human nature, politics and economics. They are people like us. Can't just shoot them all, right? The world is a changing place, and we are along for the ride sometimes.
[0] https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm...
That's no surprise - while only 15% of Whites see their race as very or extremely important to their identity, that number is 56% for Asians, 59% for Hispanics, and 74% for Blacks [1].
The simple reality is Whites will become a minority [2] in what was an 84% White country as recently as 1970 [3]. Will they be treated with gratitude for sharing their country, and so can afford to act colorblind, forsaking racial solidarity?
Or will that leave them as individualists in a country dominated by inter-group competition, as current polls suggest?
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/04/09/race-in...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-officia...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...