Immigration

Immigration

By Rick Adamson

8.17.18

Historically, the vast majority of past legal immigrants changed their values, 
not America’s, when they came to this country. They came here to become 
American, not only in terms of language, citizenship, and national identity, 
but also in terms of values. Similarly, the vast majority of illegal residents came 
for work and returned home when the work was done.

They came to pursue the American dream; one of freedom and opportunity.

What happened?

Well,  everything changed in 1964-5. The Immigration and Nationality Act 
of 1965 (the Act), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way 
legal immigrants were selected by ending the National Origins Formula 
that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act 
of 1921. The focus became skills of immigrants and/or their family relationships 
with U.S. citizens and residents (chain migration). 

Here is an article entitled "The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act."

Further, in 1964 President's Johnson's "Great Society" began with the war 
on poverty pursuant to which welfare policy changed drastically, e.g., for the 
first time food stamps were made available along with Federal aid for K-12 
education of the poor, etc.

The result? Rapid increases in the foreign born population. Here is a 
summary:

√  Between 1960 and 2016 the number of foreign born residents (1) of the 
Country increased by approximately 33,000,000 people and represented 13.5 
percent of the population (a total of about 43.7 million- which is four times 
the number of any other Country).(2)

√  The average growth rate of foreign born residents for the five decades 
between 1960 and 2010 (after the Act) was 34 % (the average Growth for the 
five previous decades (1920 -1960) was a negative 6 %).

√  Historically legal immigration amounted to approximately 250 thousand 
per year but since the Act was passed it it has averaged over 670 thousand 
people per year. In 2016 1,184,000 people obtained lawful permanent residency. (3) 
This is in spite of the finding by a study which concluded that 400,000 
is about the right number. Funny, without chain migration (the ability 
of a skilled-much needed immigrant-to sponsor family members without 
regard to their skills) the 1.2 million would be approximately 400,000.

√  Many of those coming for work have decided not to return home due to 
the newly created welfare State which includes citizenship for children born 
on U.S. soil, children's education, school meals and welfare for poor children 
(if citizens) of foreign born residents, etc.

We are a country of immigrants and immigration is important. But smart 
immigration policy would dictate that the levels be managed so as to fulfill
the Country's needs for workers, and perhaps other legitimate purposes, 
but so as not to harm our existing citizens. Such purposes do not include 
intentionally changing the composition of the electorate for political reasons.

Mass immigration is fueling unprecedented population growth which 
depresses the wages of poorer Americans, overcrowds our schools and 
strains our already fragile environment.

Today's immigration is extremely costly. Unlike previous eras of 
immigration, today's immigrants are 50 percent more likely to use welfare 
than native-born Americans. Providing for the needs of immigrants costs 
American taxpayers as much as $20 billion a year. We cannot provide 
high quality education, healthcare, and retirement security for our own 
people if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor, unskilled immigrants. 
America is still working to meet the challenge of assisting our own poor 
and disadvantaged; mass immigration compounds the problem and 
impedes efforts to raise the standards of living for all.

And That’s that!

For more of this subject click here.

Notes:

(1)  The term "immigrants" (also known as the foreign born) refers to 
people residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. 
This population includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents 
(LPRs), certain legal nonimmigrants (e.g., persons on student or work 
visas), those admitted under refugee or asylee status, and persons illegally 
residing in the United States.

(2)  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-
immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

(3)  https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table1

Communism/Socialism

Communism

© 2018 Rick Adamson  

By Rick Adamson 5.2.18

I saw this on a cousin’s wall and, although I do not know its original 
context, it struck a chord.

If people truly believe what the poster says then they have been poorly 

instructed and have no earthly idea what they are suggesting.

Having had the pleasure of knowing and hearing the stories of a Russian immigrant I can tell you that unless you want the government deciding whether you can attend college, where you work and live and how much you earn you do not want communism. Although, it might eliminate some anxiety as there would be less angst’s over not being born rich because everyone would be earning the same $2.00 an hour.

It might sound good on paper or in discussions but it doesn’t really work that way and produces an inherently unfair society. I wish these young people would learn a little history and stop replacing reason and logic with ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, and the denial of all traditional truth claims.

I am reminded of a quote by Jordan Peterson as he describes how lucky we are: “The highly functional infrastructure that surrounds us...is a gift from our ancestors: the comparatively uncorrupt political and economic systems, the technology, the wealth, the lifespan, the freedom, the luxury, and the opportunity.”

 
Are things perfect, of course not? We are human beings; flawed and 
discontent with an almost insatiable desire for things we do not possess.

I would remind these youngsters that for most of mankind’s existence 
extreme poverty was the standard as it is for much of the world’s 
population today. That means lack of food, clothing and shelter as 
opposed to the American definition which equals middle class in most parts of the world.

The secret of America’s success is the opportunity it has provided its people. The opportunity to do as one pleases only limited when one infringes on another’s rights.

“In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally.” Fernand Braudel

“Those who have promoted the prevailing social vision, in which lags, gaps or disparities to the detriment of “certain” people are the fault of “other” people, are trapped in the corollary that these lags, gaps or disparities should disappear, once those “other” people are constrained by civil rights laws and policies. But nothing of the sort has happened in the wake of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s.

However dramatic the increase of political representation of “certain” people at local and national levels, there were no correspondingly dramatic reductions in economic disparities”. Thomas Sowell

The goal of society should be to provide freedom and opportunity. The struggle for the individual should be to be the best person one can be; not to be ever happy or to have some government give you happiness-it isn’t going to happen.

People must develop their human capital (skills), work hard and be 
responsible if they want to live a happy and purposeful life in pragmatic 
America.

But, for those who really want communism, I suggest a stint in Russia, Venezuela, Cuba or China. Go ahead give it a try. If after a few years in one of these places you still believe there will be plenty of folks that will listen to your pitch.

Peterson says of Postmodernists (like the one pictured), “...are obsessed with the idea of oppression, and, by waging war on oppressors real and imagined, they become oppressors themselves.”

He sees liberals, or leftists, or ‘postmodernists,’ as aggressors, think “Antifa”. The danger, it seems, is that those who want to improve Western society may end up destroying it.

And That's that!

Russian Election Meddling

Russian Election Meddling

© 2018 Rick Adamson

By Rick Adamson 7.16.18

Although I am outraged the Russians interfered in our elections their money investment was not significant (less than $50 Million vs. $2+Trillion spent by the campaigns.) Face book ads vs. 52 major newspaper endorsements for Hillary vs. 2 for Trump.

And to the hacking and leaks-what was leaked? Email from John Podesta’s (Hillary’s campaign manager) gmail account and email from the Democratic National Committee’s computers. These sources were not government controlled and contained no secret government data but, rather, embarrassing spurious correspondence which was of very little interest.

What would be more interesting would be to know more about the
Democrat’s interference/sabotage of Sanders campaign. What hypocrites!

The leaks occurred in the summer of 2016 by which time most people had
already decided for whom they would vote.

Every interested party tries to affect elections. That’s not new. We just need
to understand what the foreigners did, how they did it and stop them.

As to all these indictments-Surprise Surprise. We were told in Nov. 2016
and again in Jan. 2017 by our intelligence agencies that Russia had been
messing around with our system.

Interestingly, although these shenanigans began in 2014 nothing was done
about it and you would know nothing of it today if the election had turned
out differently. Go figure.

And That's that!

Moral Self-Licensing

Moral Self-Licensing

© 2018 Rick Adamson

By Rick Adamson 5.15.18

“Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad,” from Social and Personality Psychological Compass by Anna Merritt, Daniel Effron, and Benoit Monin.

"Research shows that people tend to reward themselves after they do a good deed — so-called moral licensing. So if people vote to redistribute other people's money, perhaps they feel less guilty about not giving away their own money.

For example, people eager to help the poor may not feel they have enough money or skill to contribute to the poor, but by voting for higher taxes (to redistribute the income of others) they believe they are helping. From this perspective, they have fulfilled their moral obligation.

Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, provide good examples of this kind of self-deception. They fly private jets spewing carbon dioxide while admonishing the public to limit carbon emissions, as if their crusade for the greater good exempts them from the very thing that they insist is immoral.”  The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class by Conard, Edward

As Jordan Peterson said as he considered his beliefs: "Anyone who was out to change the world by changing others was to be regarded with suspicion.” And of the people he knew: "their beliefs and modes of being seemed to disguise frequent doubt and profound disquietude." I would add perhaps Dysphoria or Rumination or both.

I heard a radio talk show host say the other day that being liberal licensed a person to hide behind liberal causes while, at the same time, pursuing opposite courses of action. For example, Eric Schneiderman just resigned as New York Attorney General amid assault claims by four women, even though, he was investigating the Weinstein companies and advocating for the #MeToo movement.

Now look, we are all human. We are all flawed and imperfect but if one must grandstand from soap boxes shouldn't they at least live by what they preach?

To be clear, I am not preaching here!!

And That's that!

Illiberalism and the Postmodern Left

Illiberalism and the Postmodern Left

By Rick Adamson

7.18.18

© 2017 Rick Adamson 2018

I recently read “The Closing of the Liberal Mind” by Kim Holmes. Dr. Holmes attempts to explain how and why Liberals and Conservatives think so differently about government and civil society. In certain instances he does this using philosophical terms and references many philosophers which is above my level of expertise but I found it interesting and helpful in trying to understand current thinking in the country.

He attributes much of our current thinking to the Enlightenment which was a period where European politics, philosophy, science, religion and communications were radically reoriented during the course of the “long 18th century” (1685-1815). Enlightenment thinkers in Britain, in France and throughout Europe questioned traditional authority (Kings and the Catholic Church) and embraced the notion that humanity could be improved through rational thought and change. The American and French Revolutions were directly inspired by Enlightenment ideals.

“The French Revolution failed, argues Schama, because it tried to create the impossible: a regime both of liberty and of … state power. The history of the revolution is proof that these goals are incompatible. The American Revolution succeeded because it chose one, liberty. The Russian Revolution became deranged when it chose the other, state power. The French Revolution, to its credit and sorrow, wanted both. Its great virtue was to have loosed the idea of liberty upon Europe. Its great vice was to have created the model, the monster, of the mobilized militarized state…” Krauthammer, Charles (2013-10-22). Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics (p. 134).

The French approach deteriorated into Socialism then morphed into Marxism and Communism and the revolutions in Russia, China, Cuba and Vietnam, among others. In all cases the independent “civil” institutions (Church, schools, family, community organizations) that lie between the state and the people in the U.S., were eliminated and replaced by the Government (the “State”). Note, I reluctantly listed schools as they have effectively been nationalized in the U.S., and, of course, there is a great battle raging against religion in America.

It seems that the major issues are the difference in thinking about the role of the State and of human nature. Some on the left believe that humans have inherent capabilities to be good people and that through rational thought they can create utopia. Some on the right believe that human behavior requires moderation which is best accomplished through independent “civil” institutions. The latter was the basis of the American Revolution; the former was the basis of the French revolution.

I would just ask; if humans, through rational thought alone, could create utopia, why has it never happened? And if it is true that human behavior requires moderation and there are no independent “civic” institutions who/what is to be done? Answer: State control, totalitarianism/autocracy.

Now, I do believe most people want fairness and equal opportunity for all. They believe in a safety net for the truly needed. But they do not believe that Socialism is the way to get it. They believe that such an approach would ultimately deteriorate into a State which exercises unbridled power, as it always has (which is further evidence that human society benefits from / requires civility (some moderating influence) in order to get along and improve everyone’s position.

Currently, the Postmodern Left (a fusion of very old ideas from radical egalitarianism with very new notions of culture and morality) has replaced the progressive liberals of yesteryear (i.e., Clinton, Johnson and Roosevelt, et.al.). These folks mostly focus on cultural issues whereas there is an economic faction which is not much different (Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren).

"They are Humanists which is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."...LeMay, Michael D.. The Death of Christian Thought: The Deception of Humanism and How to Protect Yourself (Kindle Locations 19-23). Aneko Press. Kindle Edition.

A postmodernist, according to Dr. Holmes, “is someone who believes that ethics are completely and utterly relative, and that human knowledge is, quite simply, whatever the individual, society, or political powers say it is.”

“Professors Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont describe it this way: a fascination with obscure discourses; an epistemic relativism linked to a generalized skepticism toward modern science; an excessive interest in subjective beliefs independently of their truth or falsity; and an emphasis on discourse and language as opposed to the facts to which those discourses refer (or, worse, the rejection of the very idea that facts exist or that one may refer to them).” Holmes, Kim R. (2017-12-12). The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left (p. 38).

They are saying that Postmodernists practice a form of illiberalism which emphasizes identity politics, victimology and a K-16 educational system that privileges self-esteem and dignity over knowledge and wisdom. Their illiberalism undercuts rational discourse replacing reason and logic with ‘feelings’, ‘emotions’, and the denial of all traditional truth claims. They think the state must be endowed with unlimited powers to create this new order, and the rights of the individual must be radically sacrificed for the greater good. Where once freedom of speech and expression were sacrosanct, today illiberalism employs speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, and shaming rituals to stifle freedom of thought, expression, and action. It is a set of ideas in politics, government, and popular culture that increasingly reflects authoritarian and even anti-democratic values, and which is devising new strategies of exclusiveness to eliminate certain ideas and people from the political process. As an example, here is an extract from “It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics” by David Faris.

Dr. Holmes adds: “To wit, how a society is ordered culturally is as much a political question as deciding what kind of government is best for the people. The results are a cornucopia of identity theories promising perfect diversity. All adversity, even that which is biologically inherited, can be wiped away by simply adjusting one’s attitudes.”

I wonder just how the attitudes of such a diverse society can be adjusted absent a State that demands it, under threat of punishment, or one that controls all information and knowledge? (Oh, North Korea just came to mind!)

Not to mention the fact that our Constitution does not allow our government to involve itself in such social matters, even though it does; especially the Courts.

Keep in mind that our founders were liberals, that is, classic liberals as they believed in liberty and freedom. However, they wanted a general government limited to the defense of those principles as opposed to the one they rebelled against. They never expected the general government to be involved in managing civil matters or social welfare programs; that was left to the independent civil institutions. This pretty much explains the other side.

And That’s that!