“Immigrants ‘find their way’ to ______(city or state)!”
Although Joel Kotkin writing at New Geography doesn’t use that phrase I’ve come to hate, he implies it.
They don’t ‘find their way’ to your city by magic!
The majority of the cities he cites in his wrong-headed assessment of immigrant demographics are cities the US State Department and their nine major contractors CHOSE for refugee resettlement. Once refugees from certain ethnic groups take up residence, those same contractors do the paperwork to bring in the family and others of that ethnic group—like Catholic Charities did with Kurds in Nashville. Then secondary migrants of the ethnic group move there to set up their little Nation within our Nation. Nashville is known now as Little Kurdistan (and it isn’t a positive thing!). Minneapolis is Little Mogadishu represented by Keith Ellison (as I said yesterday).
I believe that the State Department and the Left-leaning contractors are purposefully changing the demographics of cities in order to turn them from Red to Blue expecting the state to soon follow.
Immigrants largely vote for Democrats because they, for the most part, want to be taken care of by the government.
And, if cities are benefiting I’m not seeing it unless you count the federal welfare dollars that come to the cities with the refugees and other low-skilled immigrants. As for the businesses they establish and Kotkin touts, they are funded by you, the taxpayer, through micro-loan programs also administered by the immigration contractors. Furthermore, Kotkin isn’t factoring in the drain on the local school systems and the criminal justice system (Kurdish gangs in Nashville!).
Here is Kotkin (Why The Red States Will Profit Most From More U.S. Immigration) emphasis mine (hat tip: Richard Falknor, Blue Ridge Forum):
In recent years, the debate over immigration has been portrayed in large part as a battle between immigrant-tolerant blue states and regions and their less welcoming red counterparts. Yet increasingly, it appears that red states in the interior and the south may actually have more to gain from liberalized immigration than many blue state bastions.
Indeed an analysis of foreign born population by demographer Wendell Cox reveals that the fastest growth in the numbers of newcomers are actually in cities (metropolitan areas) not usually seen as immigrant hubs. The fastest growth in population of foreign born residents–more than doubling over the decade was #1 Nashville, a place more traditionally linked to country music than ethnic diversity. Today besides the Grand Old Opry, the city also boasts the nation’s largest Kurdish population, and a thriving “Little Kurdistan,” as well as growing Mexican, Somali and other immigrant enclaves.
Other cities are equally surprising, including #2 Birmingham, AL; #3 Indianapolis, IN; #4 Louisville, KY and#5 Charlotte, NC, all of which doubled their foreign born population between 2000 and 2011. Right behind them are #6 Richmond,VA, #7 Raleigh,NC , #8 Orlando, Fl, #9 Jacksonville,Fl and #10 Columbus, OH. All these states either voted for Mitt Romney last year or have state governments under Republican control [Just wait until all those immigrants of the last decade are voting!—ed]. None easily fit the impression of liberally minded immigrant attracting bastions from only a decade ago.
[I don’t know about Birmingham, but all of the other cities mentioned by Kotkin are cities aggressively being populated with refugees by federal refugee contractors. Is it possible that the cities were thriving because they didn’t have a lot of immigrant poverty (until now!)?—ed]
Although the New York metropolitan area still has the greatest numeric growth in immigrants since 2000, a net gain of more than 600,000, there’s no question that the momentum lies with these fast growing immigrant hubs.The reasons are not too difficult to fathom. In the modern global economy, migrants represent the veritable “canaries in the coalmine”. They go to economic opportunities are often the greatest, which often means thriving places like Nashville, Raleigh, Charlotte, Columbus or #11 Austin, TX. Housing prices and business climate also seem to be a factor here; all these areas have lower home prices relative to income than many traditional immigrant hubs.
[Again, all US State Department refugee resettlement target cities—ed]
As a result, many immigrants are moving from their traditional “comfort zone” cities with historical larger immigrant populations — New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago — to generally faster growing, more affordable cities.
This is insanity! Studies show that the majority of new immigrants are a drain on the economy and that they take much more from public assistance than they return through paying taxes (most don’t make enough to pay taxes!).
This is drastically reshaping the demographic future of the country. Over the past decade the increase in foreign born residents accounted for 44% of the nation’s overall population growth rate. With the U.S. birthrate heading downwards, at least for now, immigration represents perhaps the one way regions can boost their populations and energize their economies. It may be America’s biggest hope as well in keeping Social Security and Medicare from collapse.
[Ask the Germans and the French if their wholesale importation of immigrants saved them using this ridiculous supposition—ed]
It might be a surprise to Kotkin (maybe he really doesn’t know about refugee resettlement) or new readers here, but we knew and Catholic Charities knew that Nashville was being “changed” with the importation of Somalis and Kurds and others!
Kotkin concludes with this:
A decade ago, after all, who would have seen Nashville, the ultimate symbol of our country heritage, as a rising immigrant hub?
Readers, we have a whole category on Nashville(45 posts!), go here and weep. My most cynical side wonders if indeed Nashville was targeted for Muslim immigration because it was the buckle of the Bible Belt—what an opportunity to stick it in the faces of rednecks.