1) Proponents of limited immigration believe vast numbers of (mostly Hispanic) immigrants will erode the America's cultural structures.Neither of the above two explanations capture the rather simple argument against NAM immigration. The idea that cultural traditions MUST be preserved constitutes an unnecessarily nostalgic view of yesteryear. While cultural heritage and societal norms allow a common narrative to develop (imagine Chicago without the ivy walls of Wrigley), sustaining them should not override other concerns. The main objective of a civilization is to prolong its stable functioning and prosperity. Culture aids in this process, but other aspects of society that directly promote its functioning, like economics and human capital, should often take precedence over that objective.
2) Proponents of limited immigration are racists who just want to hinder the browning of America.
If the main goal is to promote society's success, then we must identify the primary means to that end. Studies like IQ and the Wealth of Nations suggest that the people who comprise one's society are the main variable in success. Why should we want to limit the browning of America? Take a look at Africa and Latin America. Do you see any wealth producing, socially stable societies on those two continents? It doesn't make sense to import entire groups of people who can't create productive countries themselves. Why import the turmoil of Mexico and Africa into our backyard?
10 comments:
Why import the turmoil of Mexico and Africa into our backyard?
I dunno...To pick our cotton? To pick our fruit? Wasn't that the reason we did it.
Look at what happened to the 'Indian' america when the 'Indian' immagration policies were so laz that they let any old white guy in. If they had a stronger immagration policy (shoot any white guy who got into range) then the america they knew would still be here.
For the most part, the WASPs are now incharge, and the 'Indian' from 1600 would never recognize the place. And we have the same problem. we need to take a lesson from the Indian and keep the immagration poicy strong (shoot ay 'brown' person coming here) or in 200yrs we will not recognize the place.!!!!! ;-}
Skilled Latin American professionals, and Nigerian Doctors, are probably a net plus for America. Salma Hayek, Ruben Blades (Panama Native), etc. are net pluses for America. Though a net minus for their home countries when they emigrated.
What America needs is the points system that Australia and New Zealand uses. Recognize it is not 1870 anymore, and that wealthy investors or highly skilled professionals are a plus. The global cognitive elite. Accept perhaps a million of the highest points, regardless of national origin, per year.
Everyone else is kicked out to retain wage stability. Lots more workers = lower wages. Supply and demand.
Latin America and Africa despite being poor are also very big and so will have some very smart people who are a net plus for us. We should take those, and keep out the rest who are a net drain. Too bad for those places (despite being big and producing some very smart people, they don't produce a lot compared to say, Finland or Japan). But America has to look after it's own interest not someone else's.
"Skilled Latin American professionals, and Nigerian Doctors, are probably a net plus for America. "
I used to advocate this until I started thinking about regression to the mean. That's why I'll stick almost entirely to Asian/European immigrants.
Here's some evidence of what happens with the children of high-IQ NAMs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1995-SAT-Education2.png
whiskey: What America needs is the points system that Australia and New Zealand uses.
Australia and New Zealand are well on their way to becoming Asianized colonies of Asian powers. But hey, if they stay rich, who cares? It's not like the founding Anglo culture had any merit or virtues, anyway.
Recognize it is not 1870 anymore, and that wealthy investors or highly skilled professionals are a plus. The global cognitive elite.
Not if they're nepotistically pursuing their and the their ethnic kin's interest at the expense of mine. Only naïve whites buy this quaint "proposition nation" and "diversity", stuff. I've met plenty of non-white "cognitive elite" who are unabashed and entirely unapologetic (and unsanctioned) in their practice of ethnic nepotism. My progeny, on their other hand, will face a world of legal harassment should they abjure "diversity" themselves and presume to look out for their own.
Accept perhaps a million of the highest points, regardless of national origin, per year.
Why just a million, testy? With populations over a billion each, India or China alone could surely provide a number of very high-quality, high-IQ individuals equal to or greater than the number of comparably endowed "old stock" Euros already here. If we were real patriots to this holy-ghostly abstraction "America", we'd clear out and let these superior specimens turn this bland, bloodless, strictly legal entity into that most competitive branch of the great global strip-mall that she was always meant to be! (Me, I selfishly prefer to hand down a coherent culture that my descendants can call "home".)
But America has to look after it's own interest not someone else's.
No shit.
But isn't it odd how "America" can have interests completely at odds with the interests of actual Americans?
OneSTDV,
Do you care at all about the ethnic genetic interests of American Whites? Or are you okay with non-White immigration as long as the immigrants have high IQs -- like Northeastern Asians? Would you be perfectly fine with the idea of America being a White-Asian society?
>Rohan Swee 8/15/2009 12:56 PM
Good post, Rohan Swee.
It's too bad more people don't realize that a White with just a High School Diploma will have, on average, smarter children than a Black with a Graduate Degree!
It's too bad the school system is too busy teaching the children about Martin Luther King to bother teaching about Regression to the Mean.
But if you taught kids about Regression to the Mean, you'd make them less ignorant of reality and therefore empower them.
Whereas when you teach them that the epitome of a hero is a philandering black man who made it so there's legally mandated discrimination against White Men, all you do is make the white kids feel guilty and therefore render them powerless.
And as for the Minority Kids, they'll just be a bunch of slaves living off the Liberal Elite's dole anyway, and thus aren't perceived as a threat.
Besides the problem of hurting our genetic interests, a serious problem with importing even High IQ Immigrants is that it increases the chances of this Country having a major Race War once carrying capacity is reached.
Race Wars ALWAYS happen in Multi-Racial Societies.
Also, they are never pleasant, to say the least, and often a Race will find itself embroiled in one in spite of having a strong preference for peace (see Armenians in Turkey, Ukrainians in the Soviet Union, Indians in Uganda, Whites in South Africa, etc).
The North East Asian outmarry rate is very high for those who are American born and college educated. For Asian women it is in the range of 40%. For Japanese American's it is much higher in the 60-80 percent range (where I could find data).
Another thing I've noticed is that Asian's tend to keep ceremonial traditions alive, but otherwise norm to their host countries. One worrying tendency is for Asian's to vote liberal/democratic, and to inherently see statism as a desireable polity.
If we hosted a large Asian population, then the outcome would be similar to Vancouver, Australia, Seattle and other areas where the Asian population inter- marries with (predominantly) whites. Those areas seem to be stable with low racial tension. Indeed, if there are tensions, it is with other races, such as Pakistani's, Blacks, or Arab/Muslims.
With North East Asians, given the outmarry rate, the assumption has to be that there will be no future race war. The two races are most similar in that they are both Ice Age peoples, who have genes coded for long range planning, and subordination of base instincts.
The notion that North East Asians and Whites are compatible is evident in the data, and in the out marry rate.
Indian's (from the subcontinent) have strong traditions that encourage marrying within their race, and perpetuating their culture. Regression to the mean is worrying for importing subcontinent Indians. For the same reason, bright Malay and Philipino stock should be avoided. The same can be said of Romas and Balkan whites. In other words, if you are going to have a legal immigration policy that pays attention to HBD statistics, then it would be a good strategy to think about the what kind of gene pool you want in your population base.
But, we don't immigrate along logical lines do we? We are currently immigrating southern Indian/Mestizo's from South Mexico and Central America. These tribal groups are illegal aliens primarly, and they serve as modern day slaves. The "worker" enriches the owner. This desire to live easy off the sweat of another's brow, seems to be a defect in the human condition. The selfish attitudes of the "Owners" doesn't allow them to see our dystopian future, where the offspring of the slaves don't contribute wealth in proportion to their demand for it.
The next cycle will begin, where the children of the immigrants, will want their own slaves, so the demand for low capacity imports will continue. American Hispanic border towns, such as El Paso show this dynamic, only they can get their "workers" to walk back home to Mexico every day.
Another complexity with regards to North East Asian immigration is the white/asian (amerasian) kids can sometimes look Hispanic. This is particularly true if the Asian is of Philipino or Malay stock. In that case, the genetic cues i.e. skin tone and features that confer genetic fitness, such as intelligence, can be confused to the observer.
Post a Comment