I read today that Jeb Bush is keen to incorporate Puerto Rico into the United States to make it the 51st state. I can imagine why a Puerto Rican might be all for this. After all, becoming part of America would probably increase Puerto Rico’s wealth as well as improving its security and its health and education systems.
I can also understand why Hispanics already in America might support this. The larger the Hispanic population of America, the more powerful their lobby groups become and the more successful their push for the greater Hispanicization of America.
I can also understand why devotees of La Raza would welcome Puerto Rico’s incorporation into the United States since this can only strengthen their aim of filling up parts of America with Hispanics until secession and a merger with Mexico become real possibilities.
I can even understand why Jeb Bush and people like him would want to Hispanicize America since he loves Hispanics and their lifestyle. As well as the Jeb Bushes of America, some white Americans feel guilty about their whiteness or believe that ‘America is a land of immigrants’. (In reality America is really a country of European immigrants, most of whom came from Britain). Yet some people say we are all ultimately immigrants and we are all the same under the skin so borders are unnecessary dividers of people. Apart from that, aren’t Hispanics the descendants of the dispossessed native Indios whose lands white Anglo-Saxon Protestants stole two centuries ago? It’s therefore a bit rich to want to keep them out now. Garrett Hardin has a reasonable reply to that view point here.
My own view is that people are not all the same and that white Americans would be foolish to let Puerto Ricans flood into America. It would dilute the already diminishing influence of Europeans, especially Anglo-Saxons, in America and unless you wanted America to resemble Mexico or Columbia more closely, why would you want more Hispanics in your country? Even for someone with no dog in the fight, say some Martian watching Earth from up in space, white one-worlders must be a puzzle: Why are they so keen on turning the country their ancestors built into a Third World hell-hole?
I am not a ‘one-worlder’ but a ‘them and us’ person and this also shapes the way I see immigration to Britain. Why would any native Brit choose to allow even more blacks, more Muslims, more Roma or Irish gipsies into Britain? After all, these are neither our people, nor do they represent a valuable addition to our nation. Yet simply because some official has chosen to issue them with British passports supposedly puts them in my in-group. Such a legalistic interpretation of ‘nationhood’ is a bad joke. By allowing anyone to become British politicians have emptied the word of meaning. Simply possessing a wine red passport says nothing about you and your loyalty.
I know there are those who believe the real challenge to social harmony comes not from groups with discernible patterns of criminal and anti-social behaviour but from bigots like me. Yet the important question is whether the incorporation of Puerto Rico into America would be a net gain or loss to those now living in America and I happen to think it would be a loss.
Regarding immigration, if anyone has a way of distinguishing good from bad immigrants at the border I would like to hear from them. As far as I can tell there is no way of telling which Muslims are likely to become radicalised, which blacks are likely to become a drain on society or which Roma are likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour. And even if we could assess immigrants on an individual basis that doesn’t always help. People can be carriers of negative traits at both the genetic and cultural levels without being affected by those traits themselves. For example, the Law of Regression to the Mean suggests that the children of relatively intelligent and urbane blacks are likely to be less intelligent and less urbane than their parents and thus more prone to all the anti-social behaviour. On the other hand a relatively unintelligent Japanese couple are more likely to give birth to a child cleverer than themselves meaning that at the immigration desk it might make more sense to choose the stupid Japanese couple over the bright black couple.
Also, while first generation Muslims are often grateful to escape their own benighted Islamic countries, their second and third generational children are far less grateful and much more likely to become West-hating jihadists. You can either put this down to them having been unfairly ‘marginalised’ or a bit thick and thus are unlikely to get their jobs of choice, a circumstance they react to with anger and resentment as though some awful injustice has been done to them.
Of course none of this suggests that we don’t have our own stupid, indolent, anti-social, criminally-inclined native white Brits. It’s just unfortunate that we are stuck with them and aren’t allowed to dump them on some tiny rocky outcrop in the middle of the North Atlantic. But we can’t, and importing even more stupid, indolent, anti-social, criminally-inclined people from abroad strikes me as a bad idea.
Until we have some way of separating the wheat from the chaff I think the best immigration policy is to deny entry to all the above-mentioned groups. I also think that America’s future looks rosier without Puerto Rico weighing it down.