Sunday, September 2, 2007

The Islamic States of America?

From Half a Billion “Americans”? by Srdja Trifkovic, August 31, 2007 (minor typos have been edited out of the text):

The latest report from the Center for Immigration Studies on how immigration may impact the future size of America’s population has been released. Their findings are based on the Census Bureau projections, and show that if immigration continues at current levels, the U.S. population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060—a 167 million (or 56 percent) increase. New immigrants and their descendants will account for 105 million (or 63 percent) of that increase.

The report says that, at the moment, approximately 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the United States each year and 350,000 leave, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. The total projected growth of 167 million would exceed the current total population of Central America (41 million), the Caribbean (37 million) and Egypt (79 million). The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to the present population of Mexico.

The immigration statistics that Dr. Trifkovic cite here factor in illegal immigration, and, to be accurate, they should.

Even those staggering figures are based on the assumption that immigration levels will remain static. Net immigration has been increasing for the past half-century, however, and there are no signs that the trend is changing. If it continues, the increase caused by immigration may well be higher than the projected 105 million—taking us easily to an America of half a billion people five decades from now.

Notice also that Dr. Trifkovic here calls attention to the change in the rate at which immigrants are arriving; that rate has been accelerating, but the Census Bureau projections apparently are not factoring that in?

On the other hand, if the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000—which can be done if the political will is present—future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060. That would be some 80 million fewer than the current level would add.

Enforcing existing immigration laws would have quite an impact.

But, as Dr. Trifkovic so astutely points out, there is the question of political will.

If El Presidente Jorge "My Way or the Highway" Arbusto doesn't have the will to enforce them, do you think President Hillary would?

By the way... why won't Washington enforce the laws and seal our borders?

One of the most interesting findings of the report is that immigration does not have an impact on the overall aging of this country’s population—which is a key argument used by the proponents of open-door policy. In reality,

At the current level of net immigration (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nation’s population will be of working age (15 to 66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year. If net immigration was doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But that level of immigration would create a U.S. population of 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.

Yes, that is interesting.

Why is it significant?

Some countries have found themselves in an entitlement crisis. They have promised government subsidies and pensions to people, especially retirees, even as birthrates have gone down. Consequently, they have created a problem -- not enough people in the work force to pay for the pensions of the retirees, plus the subsidies for those of working age who don't work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Their solution is to open up the doors of the nation, and import immigrants.

But, some of these immigrants get generous government aid, and have no need to work.

Absent the need to work, if the culture of these immigrants does not instill in them a desire to work, then they become an added drain on those who do work.

If, in addition to that, they do not integrate into the host society, but rather adopt a hostile, even predatory, attitude towards their new home, then you really have a problem.

If, on top of that, the host culture is too "politically correct" to say anything about the developing problem, you have a recipe for disaster.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The report does not tackle the national security aspect of the problem. The number of Muslim immigrants in the united States is growing more than twice as fast as the already rampant total. Growth of overall immigration since 1970 has been 300 percent, but growth of immigration from the Middle East over the same period has been 700 percent—from under 200,000 in 1970 to 1.5 million in 2000. In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents—almost 100,000—than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted legally in 2005, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is it that specifically Muslim immigration is addressed in the context of national security?

On current form, in 2010 the expected number of immigrants from the Middle East alone will exceed 2,500,000. Lavishly financed by Saudi and other Middle Eastern oil money, an intricate jihadist infrastructure has come into being to cater to this large and growing community. The number of mosques and Islamic centers stands at around two thousand and keeps growing. The total number of mosques increased 42 percent between 1990 and 2000, compared with a 12 percent average increase for the evangelical Protestant denominations, and a two percent average increase among old-line Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups.

There's Saudzilla! Establishing an infrastructure for its version of the Religion of Peace....

Notice how Saudi Arabia will not even allow so much as a Bible in the Kingdom.

How's about some reciprocity, Your Majesty?

That would fly in the face of the obvious goal: Arab Imperialism superimposed on Islamic Imperialism. Saudi Arabia is doing a high-finance version of what the Arabs did so many centuries ago when they swept out of the depths of the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of Allah: Arab Colonialism.

The figures for immigration from the Middle East are already matched, and are likely to be exceeded, by the number of Muslim immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh). Currently Muslims account for one-tenth of all naturalizations, and their birth rates exceed those of any other significant immigrant group.

In order to be effective, these Muslim immigrants have to be Saudified and Wahhabized. This is why, in the global plan, Saudi Arabia funds mosques not just in the West, but in South Asia and elsewhere, as well.

Far from enhancing America’s “diversity,” the coming deluge threatens to impose a numbing Third-World sameness, to eradicate the remnants of this country’s identity, and to demolish what survives of her special character. On current form, not only will English-speaking Americans of European origin become a minority in their own country half a century from now, but they will share an increasingly overpopulated, polluted, lumpenproleterized, culturally unrecognizable country with tens of millions of actual or potential jihadists and their accomplices, aiders and abettors.

The concern here does not seem to be those immigrants who come here and work, and who integrate into, or at least are friendly to, American society... in short the concern does not seem to be those immigrants who appreciate their share of the Land of Opportunity.

The concern is those who come here essentially to take over and take (unfair) advantage.

Whether this colossally criminal idiocy can be stopped, and how, is open to doubt. The cultural-Marxist ruling class sees self-annihilation of peoples with a historical memory and a cultural identity as the key to its revolutionary project. The founders of the United States rebelled against King George for sins far lighter than those of which our rulers are culpable.

"colossally criminal idiocy" -- heh.

King George....

The problem is the new King George, and the previous King Bill.

How's about Queen Hillary?

The Islamic States of America? -- It will never happen here.

You can bet on that.


WomanHonorThyself said...

If, in addition to that, they do not integrate into the host society, but rather adopt a hostile, even predatory, attitude towards their new home, then you really have a problem..
Precisely my friend!..a huge problem at that!!!!!!!

Yankee Doodle said...

Thanks, Angel.

You'll like the posts that are coming up on this topic: The Valhalla Exchange.

anticant said...

The demographic time-bomb is the most potent weapon the Islamists have - far more powerful than terrorism and the suicide bomber.

If unrestricted immigration to the USA and Europe continues even at its present rate, our entire culture will be transformed by the middle of this century.

It is not a question of nothing changing until Muslims constitute 51 per cent. of our populations; as soon as there are 10 per cent plus, our open way of life will be under siege.

How is this to be stopped, and by whom? One problem is that restricting immigration contradicts the free trade shibboleths of capitalism, globalisation, and the unimpeded flow of goods, services, and people which many mistakenly equate with 'democracy'.

In the UK, there is a growing realisation that the Politically Correct 'multiculturalist' dogma of the past couple of decades is not working, but as yet there is no political will to take the necessary remedial action, and appeasement of Muslim demands for 'special' treatment of their 'holy' way of life is still the order of the day.

Unless this changes quickly, I fear the worst.

Yankee Doodle said...

There are many factors involved merely in the demographic equation, Anticant.

Beyond that, there are many more.

And, not everyone buys into these "free trade shibboleths" nor does everyone buy into democracy.

The United States of America, I should point out, is not a democracy; too many people think it is, and too many people think democracy is what we should be spreading.

Those who do not wish to spread democracy, wish to preserve stability instead. Both, however, are disadvantageous to the values America was founded on, and to the values at the heart of England.

Aurora said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aurora said...

I personally think that democracy is highly overrated. If you've got 51 percent of a country voting in a Chavez for example and 49 percent desperately opposed, in a country like, say, the U.S., that's just under 150 million people who didn't want a government, who knew the truth but who had no choice. There are other options. I've read a little on it and need to read a bit more.
You ask if Hillary will do any better for the country. We all know that we're in a world of hurt under that woman. Perfect example of where democracy can lead. The irrelevant majority selling out the rest of the country whilst being led around by a very smart handful of people.

Yankee Doodle said...

Exactly, Aurora....

Would Hillary's government be any better,
Than had been that woman's man's?
"I pledge allegiance to the flag...
and to the
Republic for which it stands...."

anticant said...

We will probably never agree on a vocabulary of political terms, but I use "democracy" to mean a society where there are free elections based on universal suffrage and it is possible for an alternative government to be voted in.

Does not this apply to the US of A?

And in a democracy, Aurora, the losing side has to abide by the electorate's verdict, however perverse. What is the alternative? Armed rebellion?

Yankee Doodle said...

"I use "democracy" to mean a society where there are free elections based on universal suffrage and it is possible for an alternative government to be voted in.

Does not this apply to the US of A?"

Yes, that applies to the US.

"And in a democracy, Aurora, the losing side has to abide by the electorate's verdict, however perverse."

That does not apply to the United States.

That is why the United States is not a democracy; it is a republic with democratic principles.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it places limits on what can be done through democracy. A majority of 99% of the voters cannot legally infringe upon the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the remaining 1%.

"What is the alternative? Armed rebellion?"

As a last resort, yes. That's why we have a Second Amendment -- in case the Government fails to abide by the First.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1848