What was the justification when immigration policy preferences of less than 10% of the electorate dominated 90% of the electorate for decades from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, and even today, dominates with more than 75% opposing increased immigration?

Source:  US Department of Homeland Security

It must have been an overwhelmingly obvious justification for that 10% -- so obvious that the 90% could be discounted as ignorant if not xenophobic rubes, unworthy of anything remotely resembling consent of the governed, normally considered the overriding human right in any significant dispute.  That human right was tossed out the window for some reason.

What was that reason?

The reason most frequently trotted out during this era was that "diversity is our greatest strength" and that the "greatness" attributed to the United States was "diverse" because it was a "nation of immigrants".

OK, that sounds good, but what was the support for this assertion -- support that must have been so overwhelmingly intense and urgent, even if obvious to only an "educated" elite, as to justify throwing out the most fundamental of all human rights for decades in, not just the US, but in all of European derived governments -- in a policy that most believe to cause irreversible changes?

Whatever that support might have been, the most comprehensive academic study of the actual results of that massive violation of human rights supported the opposite conclusion: //

Let's look at the long term, not in terms of anecdotal polemics, but in terms of statistics: A large number of operationally defined data points comparing "diversity" and "human development" in the world maps (see below), of these. Superficially, what we see is that in areas with the highest "diversity" we find the lowest "human development". At the other extreme, such as Scandinavia with its very low "diversity", we see the highest "human development" (Norway was ranked #1 in "human development" by the UN).

But this is a relatively superficial view of these maps. With a closer reading for what might be called "long term" effects, we see that in the places with the longest history of "diversity", such as sub-Saharan Africa, there is not only the highest "diversity" but the lowest "human development". Moreover, the apparent exceptions in places like the US and Canada were, until recently, so lacking in "diversity" that the attitudes of men in those prior eras, by today's standards, are considered "white nationalist" if not "white supremacist" or even "Nazi".