Emigration/Immigration and Cultural Change

This is just the expansion of a theory that I had proposed on David’s Medienkritik blog on German-American relations and German media bias against America. The blog is available on the link for anyone that may be interested.

The basic premise of the theory is that a culture, in this case the German culture, is effected by its emigration/immigration patterns throughout history. A good example is Germany verses the United States from the early 18th Century to a period just prior to World War II. Short-term examples can be found for other European countries during the 19th Century mainly in the Scandinavian countries, Ireland and Italy. A case could even be made to support the theory using the United Kingdom during the “brain drain” years of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. It’s possible, but I haven’t researched it, that a case could be made for the current emigration/immigration movement from Mexico and Central America to the United States would fit this theory. By the way, the United States is not the only country that fits the recipient class as Canada and Australia also figure as immigrant rich countries.

The theory boils down to a simple statement. The emigrant population from a country, whether poor, rich or middle class, is drawn from the most adventurous and risk taking portion of the population. This emigrant population has a number of advantages that they bring to the receiving country. First, they are willing to work had for their success or the success of their children. Second, while they may not be highly educated they support and encourage their children to achieve an education and succeed. Third, the immigrant and his children contribute to the development of their adopted country in ways that are deprived to the country they left. This effect has a permanent effect in the receiving country, but the loss is not long lasting, only a generation or two, to the losing country.

Let us use the United Kingdom and the “brain drain” mentioned earlier as a short-term example. After World War II and into the 70’s, the United Kingdom lost a large number of highly educated and talented people to the United States, Canada, and Australia. The questions that you need to ask about this “brain drain” are simple. What caused it? What were the long-term advantages to the receiving country? What were the results to the losing country? How long did it take the losing country to recover?

In the case of the United Kingdom the answer to the first question is obvious. A liberal and socialist government raised taxes and placed restrictions on business development that restricted peoples natural inclination to improve their “lot in life.” For the United States this admittedly small population shift didn’t have the profound effect that earlier immigrants had because it was simply too small. However, it did have some effect in medicine and the other scientific fields. What happened in the United Kingdom? Well, they lost their parity in the military, medical, and scientific fields. Did the United Kingdom recover? The answer is yes and in only a single generation after the conservatives under Margaret Thatcher took the reins of government in the 80’s.

Now let us look at a large and more long-term shift in populations. Germany started losing population even before the emigration with the death of nearly a third of the population during the Thirty Years War. Recovery was underway when the 18th Century brought the emigration because of lingering religious restrictions and the rising population caused economic hardships to the rural population of mostly farmers. The result was emigration to both the British colonies of North America and the prairies of the Russian Volga region.

What effect did this have on the assortment of independent states that would later make up a United Germany? A short-term population relief of the rural areas along with a pronounced rise in food prices was the primary result. What was the effect in the British Colonies? A near doubling of the population and the colonies became major exporters of raw materials and food to the “mother country.” It is interesting to note here that of the 40,000 or so Hessian troop brought to the colonies during the Revolutionary War, nearly 8,000 choose to stay and married into the existing formerly German families. What was the long-term result of that immigration to the new United States? The rise of a middle class of mechanics and artisans, which put the country on the road to a later industrial powerhouse, was the primary result. Did the future Germany recover? Yes, but continued emigration slowed this recovery until the mid 18th Century.

The mid 18th Century saw another major loss of population for Germany. The failure of the so called 1848 revolution caused a major loss of an educated middle class to the United States. What did Germany loose besides this educated middle class? Very little as the emigrants did not make up a large percentage of the population. What did the United States gain? A large population of educated and dedicated people that went on to build businesses schools, and colleges throughout the under populated regions around the Great Lakes, along the Mississippi River and into Texas were the primary results. How long did it take Germany to recover from this population shift? A generation at most, but because of this population shift along with the political disunity Germany missed the empire building of the United Kingdom and France during this period.

After the American Civil War, a new emigrant population began arriving in the United States and continuing for over 40 years. While this immigrant population would nearly double the population of the United States, it differed in that many countries in Europe contributed. At this time, we also see the first signs of Asian immigrants.

Continuing with the German example, millions left Germany to take up lands that had become available on the prairies of the Midwest. Educated and inventive these people not only farmed, but built businesses and industries that turned a country from essentially a rural farming economy into an industrial power in 50 years. What was the effect in a now united Germany? As a percentage of the population, the emigrants were spaced out so that natural population increase replaced the losses. However, culturally Germany became more autocratic and centralized and the population accepted these changes. Thus, we have the “respect for authority” culture that developed in Germany. The 20th Century cost Germany much because of the world wars not only in terms of population, but also in terms of a vast cultural change. However, that cost was replaced by the “miracle rebirth” of Germany first under an Allied administered government and later under more conservative German governments. It was only with the rise of the liberal governments in the last few decades and their emphasis upon a socialist state that the economy and spirit of the German people has suffered.

So does emigration cause a collapse of a nation’s culture? The short answer is no, but only if the nation encourages population growth and economic freedom. Does immigration cause a nation to grow and prosper? The short answer is yes, but only if the immigrants integrate into the existing culture and they are allowed to seek their own economic prosperity and educational advancement without government interference.

Thus ends a long story on a theory that may be valid but needs more research than I can give it. Full research would have to look at all the emigrant countries, past and present, along with all of the immigrant countries, not only the United States but also Australia and Canada. I would also think any proof requires looking at the results of the massive immigration into the United States from Mexico and Central America that currently exists. Are these immigrants integrating into the American culture? Also the question of Islamic immigration into Europe should be examined. Are they integrating into the European cultures? If neither Europe nor the United States encourage this integration then what happens? Do both regions loose power and influence both militarily and economically? Do they stagnate? Just some points to consider.

Medicare Part D: A fiasco from the start

The Nevada Appeal editorial board has a very interesting opinion that they have published.  Look here to read it.  The following is my comment to their editorial.

Fix it!  I’d rather that they junked the whole mess or at least set it up much like the veterans program where they do bulk purchases and then handle the distribution themselves.

I spent hours researching various plans for my mother with excellent help from the pharmacists at WalGreens.  Then I spent more time with help from an insurance agent filling out the forms well before the January start date.  What happened?  She still doesn’t have a card from the insurance company as they are backed up for weeks if not months.  The insurance agent has tried to help, the pharmacist has tired to help, the state has tried to help, but we are looking at weeks of bungling around by the federal government.  Meanwhile, my mother needs medicine now not months from now!

Turning this whole mess over to congress to fix will take years and just produce another boondoggle.  Witness just how long it took them to produce this horror of a federal government monstrosity.

On a very related topic, now we have the current state AG saying that importing drugs from Canada under a state approved list of pharmacies can’t be done because of the liability to the state.  I find it strange that his predecessor didn’t raise objections in the months between the time the legislation was signed and he resigned to take a federal judicial position.

I looked into online pharmacies and couldn’t find any I would trust.  At least the state Pharmacy Board has the resources to research and examine the Canadian Pharmacies that will be on the website.  I applaud the Pharmacy Board for voting to go ahead with implementation of the law at this time without waiting.