One of the great myths of our times—large numbers of immigrants will resuscitate dying cities.
We’ve written several times previously about Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake hoping to boost the population (and the economy!) of Baltimore city by bringing in thousands of impoverished third worlders.
Didn’t we see in the recent riots that African American gangs in the city don’t appreciate diversity in the same way as the mayor, go here to see what I mean.
In keeping with my new vow to keep it short. Here is the gist of the latest repeat of the same old news, this time from The Economist (hat tip: Cathy). Please read the whole propaganda piece yourself. (See what I mean below***)
IN COMMON with colleagues across the rich world, the mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, worries about refugees sent to her city by federal officials—a quota that this year, for the first time, may include hundreds of Syrians. Less typically, a big anxiety for Ms Rawlings-Blake is that too few refugees will settle in her home town.
Baltimore, a once-thriving port and factory town, has lost a third of its population since 1950, dropping to about 622,000 souls.
Like other north-eastern cities, it has grappled with economic decline, shrinking tax rolls and the toxic legacy of race laws which corralled black residents in districts blighted by bad schools and crime. Urban-renewal projects have brought tourists and professionals back to some districts after decades of white flight. But one of Ms Rawlings-Blake’s favourite projects—to attract 10,000 new families to Baltimore—remains a far-off dream.
For more than a decade, Maryland’s largest city has been used as an entry point for refugees, with federal agencies led by the State Department sending 700-800 there each recent year from such troubled places as Nepal, Iraq and Eritrea. About two-thirds moved on after a few years…. [Surprise! Not!—ed]
There is more here.
Go here for our previous posts on Baltimore.
***And see here, the British publication The Economist is all for “free immigration!” Here is what the oh-so-intelligent beings at The Economist believe in:
It takes an editorial stance ofclassical and economic liberalism which is supportive of free trade, globalisation, free immigration and cultural liberalism (such as supporting legal recognition for same-sex marriage).