This is even true amongst friends. Look at a search on the subject on the website of the Great White Whale of the immigration restraint outfits, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) here.
Better â€“ or more patriotically - managed countries are more responsible about immigration policy. The latest example comes from Singapore: Singapore Withdraws Red Carpet for Foreigners With Eye on Vote By Shamim Adam Bloomberg.com February 23 2010
Singapore is, of course, an interesting case, a 274 square mile City-state with the 5th highest GDP per capita in the world. As J.Phillippe Rushton has noted, it breaks the general pattern of tropical counties being unprosperous â€“ because 75% of its population are ethnic Chinese, a classic demonstration of the IQ/National Wealth thesis. Most of the rest are pretty high quality too.
But the global slowdown is being felt, and
foreigners make up one in every three people. The government plans to slow the inflow to avoid being â€?overwhelmed,â€? and unveiled higher levies for overseas laborers, cooks and janitors in its Feb. 22 budget.(These levies have been a deliberate effort by the government to prevent Singapore moving to a cheap labor economic model. The contrast to America is pitiful.)
In the past few months, the government has lowered healthcare subsidies for permanent residents, increased public school fees for non- citizens, and tweaked a balloting system to give Singaporean children twice the chance of getting into the educational institution of their choice.Once again, in direct contrast to America, affirmative action is designed to benefit the native born majority, not immigrants.
Although to its credit, Bloomberg has reported this story, the notoriously top-down edited service clearly strongly disapproves. The notion it advances that these changes are in response to electoral pressure is absurd. The ruling party
has been in power since 1959. Its politicians currently hold 82 of 84 elected seats in parliament. Prime Minister Lee in a speech on Jan. 25 noted a speculation â€?feverâ€? of early elections, while adding that itâ€™s not imminent.Furthermore the quotation it ends with of the architect of modern Singapore, â€?Mentor Ministerâ€? Lee Kuan Yew noting positive aspects of immigration is seriously unrepresentative. As Steve Sailer reported this grim but deep-thinking figure saying in 2005:
Lee Kwan Yew, noted in a recent interview: "In multiracial societies, you don`t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."Americans need to heed the example of Singapore.