Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 4 comments.

  1. Daniel Sterman Listener

    I remember seeing the same argument about cell phones and crime rates, but I don’t remember where either. A quick search, however, reveals this paper that resulted in no small number of news reports, any one of which might have been where Mona saw it: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/426/

    • #1
    • March 16, 2019, at 11:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Freesmith Inactive

    Some observations on this discussion:

    Immigration is a government policy — our government’s in this discussion. It is not a Commandment, nor is it a benefit program for the people of the world.

    It was nice to hear that David Frum is against “cherry-picking,” or skimming off the cream of the world’s young talent (with the implicit and cost-free extra “bennie” to offer them of a fast-track to American citizenship) while ignoring your own fellow-citizens. Nicer was his reply to Mona’s Panglossian assertion that America could do both, bring in the best from outside and develop our own people — “But we don’t.”

    Realism trumps dreamweaving.

    Jay piped up with the insight that those who want to “close the door” (the awful anti-immigration folks) seem to be the same folks who are ready to give up American leadership in the world. Yes, Jay, it’s no coincidence that the reaction to the “Invade the World, Invite the World” policy-makers has been equal and opposite. It’s downright Newtonian. And it should be very easy to understand that those who are comfortable with the US as world hegemon and therefore need a big government to match their big ambitions will be opposed by people who want small, limited, humble government and understand that you can’t have that and the empire, too.

    Bravo to Frum for pointing out the origin of our asylum treaties. They are as out-of-date today as NATO, the Marshall Plan and Bretton Woods.

    Finally, a word on immigration and crime reduction, which was mentioned as a quiet benefit of our decades-long, massive social experiment of importing Third World peoples into the US. True, it works, and even truer, it was consciously done. The idea, which took hold in several of our Democratic-run urban centers in the 90s, was that blacks presented unsolvable social problems. Instead of letting the problems spread, cities like Washington DC and Philadelphia decided to contain the black dysfunction by becoming openly “immigrant friendly.” Retrofits and new housing construction for gentrifiers and immigrant families began to proliferate and, after the speed bump of the real estate crash of 2006-8, have continued.

    Cities that didn’t go that route, Baltimore for instance, have become more black and more crime-ridden. Families and whites returning to the urban cores — in Philly that would include Fishtown, Old City, the river wards, New Liberties — are what has helped to reduce crime. Immigration played a big part, but you won’t get any Democrats to admit how. (Chuckle.)

    • #2
    • March 16, 2019, at 5:02 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  3. Freesmith Inactive

    One more thing. (I know you can’t get enough.)

    “Merit-based” immigration is not a formula for the success of conservative politics, so beware this nice-sounding argument for more Third World immigration into the US. 

    For example, Frum’s Canada has a merit system, but when you look at the 2015 election results, you will se that the more immigrants were present in a “riding” (a Canadian electoral precinct or district), the bigger that “riding” went for Justin Trudeau. And that’s even with Conservative incumbent PM Stephen Harper being a total squish on immigration — hardly a restrictionist.

    Taking in educated outsider ethnics works against conservative political strength. Attaining success and acquiring wealth do not make the former immigrants identify with conservatism. The new arrivals compete with the old guard. They identify with the outsider and the insurgent party, not with the traditional, the conservative party. Which is why immigrants rich and poor, Asian or Hispanic, Chinese, Korean or Indian, vote Democratic, the party of the outsider, the marginalized, the non-white.

    And that tendency, dear Ricochetti conservative, goes on virtually forever.

    See American Jews.

    • #3
    • March 16, 2019, at 5:29 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  4. rgbact Member

    Freesmith (View Comment):

    See American Jews.

    So you’re cherry picking Jews out of the many European immigrants that don’t blindly vote Democrat? Btw, Orthodox Jews largely vote Republican, so I think its more a religion thing. And non immigrant Hispanics are about 50-50. So “virtually forever” is questionable.

    Anyway, great podcast. David Frum shows why he’s such an enigma on the Right. Smart discussion on immigration….2 weeks after I heard him on Bullwark essentially sound like a Democrat.

    • #4
    • March 19, 2019, at 9:14 AM PDT
    • Like