The fact that this article offends left-wingers so much by simply mentioning demographic change (i.e. population replacement of Europeans) shows exactly why it was so badly needed. If China can be predominantly Chinese and Nigeria can be predominantly Nigerian, why can't Europe and the U.S. - which was built up by Europeans - be predominantly European? Doesn't mean no newcomers are welcome, that would be an absurd position. But a conservative immigration policy does mean prudence both in terms of numbers and in terms of the choice of which newcomers to allow in, as newcomers with more similar cultural backgrounds simply blend in more easily. If we don't do this, what our ancestors have built up is at risk of being washed away, and this is what we're seeing across the West these days.
The group which inspires the most passion in the contemporary
American immigration debate are Latinos who afaik are descended from (a) Europeans and (b) people who were in this hemisphere before then so I don’t get the relevance of this argument? Ofc, as a leftie, I dislike the argument as a whole, but I really don’t get the assimilationist argument wrt America in this case – I don’t see why assimilating Latinos is any harder than with immigrant groups in the past? In fact, the opposite might be true?
