Ross Douthat Quotes

Western societies will have to focus on the dangers of too rapid cultural change. That might involve some limits on the rate of immigration and on the kinds of immigrants who are permitted to enter.

For years, we have underestimated the challenges of mass immigration.

I respect those who openly advocate for unlimited immigration to the United States. Open borders is an intellectually coherent, defensible position.

It would be unwise for the modern Republican Party to come across as hostile to immigration. That has been the losing position in American history for 200 years.

It is the purpose of the majority of the Immigration Committee to encourage assimilation, yet this bill has already done more than anything I know of to bring about discord among our resident aliens.

The immigration issue is, I recognize, one that generates a lot of passion, but it does not make sense for us to want to push talent out.

Everyone has an opinion when it comes to immigration - strong, intense opinions.

I personally believe that a democratic society is morally entitled to set and enforce a limit on the number of new immigrants admitted each year.

But then I came to the conclusion that no, while there may be an immigration problem, it isn't really a serious problem. The really serious problem is assimilation.

Regardless of how one feels about immigration, it is necessary for Japan’s future and it is good for Japan’s future; our social-economic situation requires it.

I would be very distressed if we were to try to shut our doors to immigration in this country. I frankly don't envisage that happening, but I understand that there's always that tendency on the part of people who are here who, having come here four generations earlier, want to shut the door. And I don't think that's a good idea.

You cannot have one or two million immigrants a year and still have English as the only official language of the country.

Massive immigration has only just begun. It is the biggest problem facing France, Europe and probably the world. We risk being submerged.

For many decades the country was very sparsely settled. There was abundant free land. Labor was scarce. The number of immigrants was still very small, and nearly all of them were sturdy pioneers, essentially homogeneous and readily assimilated. There was, therefore, little need to worry about any immigration "problems," and it was comforting to the consciences of our ancestors to keep the doors wide open.

The attitude of America toward the ever increasing flow of immigrants to its shores, has gradually changed from indifference to concern. The problem, from a sociological point of view, seems to be whether or not so many diversified races can make for national solidarity. An answer is found in assimilation, not by force or coercion, but rather by guidance, understanding, and protection.

I am in favour of migration; I simply want to control the numbers.

In the immigration debate, some things are constant. They never change. One is that opponents of immigration reform will use it as a wedge issue and will blame everything from unemployment to rising health care costs on immigrants.

France can certainly accommodate foreign people on its soil long-term, those with foreign citizenship... as long as they respect French laws and French values, which is often a problem on the immigration issue. It's not really a problem with Israel on this topic.

I believe in immigration. But I feel people think it would be better if there was an Australian-style points based system so we could actually get a good system.

America draws tremendous strength from its diversity, which prompts the question, as Congress contemplates comprehensive immigration reform, why are some lawmakers aiming to curb diversity instead of promoting it?

We should be able to have a conversation about immigration; we should be able to have a conversation about what skills we want to have in the U.K. and whether we need to go out of the U.K. in order to get them to boost our economy, and I don't think we should have a situation where we can't talk about it.

Only a Conservative government can credibly deliver the overhaul in approach that will ensure the controlled immigration that Britain needs to prosper in the 21st century.

I'm the daughter of proud immigrants myself, but it's clear that successive federal governments have allowed the rate of immigration to NSW to balloon out of control.

What many of us object to is the politicians who, for whatever reason, forget that societies cannot easily absorb huge numbers of new citizens. I resent the suggestion that this perfectly reasonable view is motivated by racial hatred or personal spite.

The U.K. government has been clear that it wants to use the opportunity of leaving the E.U. to design a future immigration system that works in the best interests of the country. A key part of this system must be creating an environment that allows us to achieve sustainable levels of net migration.