Chicago still suffers from the political machines that were created during mass immigration of Germans and Irish in the 19th century! Immigrants engage in block voting, and political machines arise to whip that vote. That results in corruption, because people’s vote is based on ethnic loyalty and group interests instead of the merits: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/24/illinois-d...

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. Chicago is the poster child for why immigration precludes good governance: https://scholars.luc.edu/ws/portalfiles/portal/40036336/Ethn... (pp. 527-529).

This makes what appears to be the opposite of your claim.

In what way? The cited portion, which discusses theories in the field, says:

“The rainbow theorists argue that the machine was a functional body (Merton 1968) that pursued political incorporation of many ethnic groups in the political party. In return for loyalty to the political party, machines delivered a variety of social services to ethnic immigrants, in addition to jobs, friendship, and opportunities for social and economic advancement. The rainbow coalition of mostly white-ethnic groups was sustained through a virtually endless supply of ‘municipal gold’ (Erie 1988) that the machines controlled. This exchange system seemingly guaranteed ethnic loyalty to the machine.”

The remainder of the article shows how Irish domination left the Polish with the short end of the stick: “Through this study we try to show that Polish Americans in Chicago were on the short end of the exchange arrangements in the machine, receiving few rewards, especially as their independence from the Democratic party expanded during the Daley era.” The Poles were punished

This is basically Pakistan, except instead of clans it’s immigrant groups voting for their own co-ethnics and jockeying for advantage. It’s a far cry from the political debates of the founding era, which were based on principles and political theory, not ethnic tribalism.

So, what, are you advocating throwing everyone out of the US who isn't native American? Literally everyone else immigrated here.

That’s not a helpful lens because it overlooks the patterns of settlement. Nearly all the founding fathers were British. During the 18th century, German and Scandinavian immigrants formed their own communities across the midwest. Ethnic politics had little opportunity to arise in these communities, which were individually mono cultural. That result of that is quite different from a mass influx of a foreign population with a distinct group identity into an existing city or town.

In terms of what we could do now, we should stop illegal immigration and asylum entirely. We should also end family reunification. And skilled immigration should be spread out around the country (there are top universities everywhere). All that would prevent the development of ethnic enclaves, and over time lead to the weakening of disparate ethnic identities. That’s what happened during the immigration restriction from 1924-1965, when the foreign born population share dropped by 2/3, and the salience of ethnic identity among European Americans was greatly reduced.

It's only "not helpful" because you don't have a good argument against it. :)

Also, the founders were not British. Most of them were second and third generation immigrants.

In addition, I don't think you realize how funny this statement is:

> Ethnic politics had little opportunity to arise in these communities, which were individually mono cultural

I wonder if you can spot the massive gaping hole in this logic. I doubt it.

Being born in a British colony in the early 1700s to British subject parents did in fact mean you were also a British subject. Several were also born in Great Britain proper. They were also nearly all ethnically English or Scottish.

Indeed, most of the founding fathers were British.

The Washington family was British landed gentry dating to the 12th century. Their ancestral home dates to the late 1100s.

It demonstrates that the Irish, for a time, had outsized political power, at the expense of the Poles, who outnumber them dramatically. In the time scale you're talking about, essentially everybody is an immigrant. Meanwhile: what's the immigrant ethnic bloc exercising outsized power in Chicago today?

The problem isn’t about which ethnic bloc has more power, it’s that people have such strong ethnic identities that they’re forming ethnic political blocs in the first place and doling out patronage on the basis of ethnic group. That’s a recipe for dysfunction and corruption, as we see in Chicago. People will forgive a lot of corruption and graft for their ethnic tribe. And the winners of those elections are robbing the treasury to pay for benefits targeted at their co-ethnics.

150 years after their inception, assimilation of ethnic whites has largely ended those political machines. But the effects are cumulative. Chicago still lives with the consequences of the machine politics of the Cermak to Daley era. And ethnic politics still plays a large role in Chicago between whites, hispanics, and black people: https://www.hispanicfederation.org/news/new-poll-shows-dead-... (“One interesting finding is that one-third of Latinos think Vallas may be Latino.”).

But that's exactly what your source doesn't show. There are more Polish people living in Chicago than in Krakow; it's the largest population of ethnic Poles in the world anywhere outside of the largest metros in Poland itself. And they don't effectively exert power as a bloc. Your source shows one bloc, of Irish; today, the most effective wielders of power in Chicago are Black. There's no coherent immigration story to tell here.

It comes off a little bit like it would if you claimed that immigration brings with it organized crime, because La Cosa Nostra was dominated by Italians. But LCN is not in fact the story of Italians in America, and wasn't replicated by other ethnic blocs.

People share affinities and affinities structure interactions, and naturally some of those structural affinities are going to be ethnic. But if they weren't ethnic, they'd be religious, or political, or economic, which is what US history actually demonstrates.

If you're going to make the case that any of this matters in Chicago politics, though: cite the immigrant bloc that controls and distorts Chicago politics. Which ones are the illegitimate aldermen? I don't like most Chicago alderpeople, so you're not going to hurt my feelings.

The article says Poles did have ethnic identity: “What little has been written about Poles suggests that the Wolfinger view may be correct: Polish Americans still vote for Poles if they have the opportunity to do so.” The article’s thesis is that Poles were unable to effectively exercise power as a block because the Irish got there first and froze them out of the ethnic grifting.

Whether or not tribalism exists among white ethnics today is besides the point. Corruption is self-perpetuating. The real question is what Chicago would look like today if it had never experienced mass immigration, starting with the Irish. I strongly suspect it would be a better governed city today, like Toronto before the recent mass immigration.

There is a single well-governed city in the world that has experienced mass immigration from multiple ethnic groups, and that’s Singapore. And that’s got an authoritarian, top-down government, and seems to be engaged in selective immigration to maintain a stable ethnic composition and Chinese supermajority.

> But LCN is not in fact the story of Italians in America, and wasn't replicated by other ethnic blocs.

There’s two different things. Mass immigration alone gives rise to ethnic, religious, and cultural conflict, which undermines democracy. Then sometimes you import specific problems from specific places. Organized crime is a bigger problem in Italy even today than in England or Scandinavia. And it was a definitive part of the story of Italians in America. It took decades to eradicate that problem.

I didn't say they didn't have an ethnic identity! I live just outside of Berwyn! I used to live on the north side! There are obviously Poles in Chicago. I asked if you could point to a way in which Polish concentration in Chicago had distorted our politics, especially since your source is mostly about how the Poles got stuffed by people who were here longer than them.

Now we're talking about Singapore for some reason. Is that a concession that you can't identify the aldermen who are illegitimated by their immigrant support?

The whole argument sounds familiar. "Those entitled minorities have the nerve to make not being discriminated against a high priority when voting." It is all classic scapegoating and assigning sinister forces who conspire to make people do things that they would all do on their own anyway and refusing to accept any responsibility on your part.

The obvious solution of "stop being a racist douchebag so minorities can actually feel secure enough to be able to act on other priorities" being of course completely off the table as the speaker views such behavior as a birthright and sacrament. It does happen. Now voters of Irish descent take 'is an Irish Catholic' as a nice to have at most instead of an essential.

But the same counterproductive behavior is doubled down upon as their sacred sacrament of racist douchebaggery shall not be denied. Look at how a very religiously conservative bloc, Muslims ended up shifting to the left by necessity from the racism they encountered post war on terror.