Immigration Keeps Population from Declining in D.C. RegionMaryland and the District continue to lose residents to other places, but they make up for the loss by gaining immigrants, according to Census Bureau estimates to be released today. Virginia came out a little ahead in the give-and-take with other states between July 2006 and July 2007, but it grew much more through immigration. The three jurisdictions had a net population gain of less than 1 percent for the year.
Thank God that immigrants are arriving to assume the horrid burden of living in the Virginia-Maryland metroplex, allowing the natives to move to West Virginia and commute for three or four hours per day. Without immigrants, the Greater Washington metropolitan area would soon look like the set for "I Am Legend."
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
41 comments:
Maybe immigration is as necessary to sustain the high taxes and bloated public sector there as it is here in NJ.
Steve,
Reminds me of the WSJ article from May, 2007...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010045
Here's a snip...
Start with the Coastal Megalopolises: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.
http://ethniccrime.com
This is rather tame compared to the latest New York magazine. They specifically credit illegals for keeping the city afloat.
(...when what they really need is techies-- their Web site crashes on my Safari.)
For decades, they relied on sophistry like "the color of the brain is the same for all races" (fallacy 1- assuming race is limited to skin color; fallacy 2- reducing the characteristics of a brain to its color). These days, the demagoguery is getting more warped: they pick some bit of statistical data, they concentrate on parts of it that'll suit their idiotic message (immigrants not causing decline in native population? Who the hell ever claimed *that* is what they do?), and this is the kind of schizoid drivel they concoct.
JD
For decades, they relied on sophistry like "the color of the brain is the same for all races"
-anon
How many times must it be pointed out that that is not true?
And why?
Why are so many people fleeing these areas that are targets of an influx of immigrants?
Influx of immigrants maybe...
It is pretty obvious that many people are fleeing these immigrants and the disease, crime and civilizational destruction that follows in their wake...
Problem is, we are running out of places to run and hide...
Thank God for Kudzu! If it weren't for Kudzu, my backyard would have no vegetation at all! The grass, sunflowers, and vegetable patch all seem to have vanished on me...the lousy deserters.
As to Wash. DC, it clearly needs more people like this (start 30 seconds in). White people are failing to have enough children in this gentleman's environment, for some reason. Therefore, let's not think of closing the borders anytime soon.
After all, whose hands would pick our crops?
Yeah, I'm thrilled for all of those Mexicans and other assorted illegals in No. VA. "Oh finally, an apartment for rent that is *only* $1000 a month. Oh wait, that's because it's rent subsidized by my tax dollars and therefore full of latin men grabbing their crotches and making crude comments at me, crime, Spanish, loud music/parties, and various other types of disorder."
Kaus has some good stats about illegals today. And good analysis as usual.
But the decrease in rate of growth that he cites from Pew is still frightful:
The growth rate of the U.S. Mexican-born population has dropped by nearly half to 4.2% in 2007 from about 8% in 2005 and 2006, according to an analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center. [E.A.]
Off topic but you've talked about the housing crisis, Kaus also points out that lower housing prices mean....more affordable housing!!!
(For those who can really afford a mortgage, that is.)
Which came first, the mass exodus of natives seeking to destroy the landscape by creating suburbs or the mass influx of illegal immigrants undercutting their wages and ruining the local public schools via overcrowding and the expense of providing translators?
Please distinguish between low and High skilled immigrants. Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
Commuting times are nuts, but people are greedy for big houses. What can we do? In order to maintain American supremacy, we have to keep growing our intelligent population, which means more high IQ immigration.
It used to be that cities existed to serve the people who lived there. Now, apparently, people exist to serve the cities and states we live in. Read a book like Dick Florida's bestselling kneeslapper "The Rise of the Creative Class" and you get the distinct impression that it would be fine for Dick if City X replaced it's entire population so long as it made it more exciting, vibrant, and, well, fabulous!
One can imagine a modern-day feudal lord, in the manner of Edward the Longshanks, proclaiming, "The trouble with Memphis is that it's full of Memphians."
Except that Memphis's mayor is black, and he actually does care more about his own black people than about the white and brown devils who would replace them.
My cousin lives in a fairly upscale, suburban portion of Virginia (Fairfax County, I believe). When last I visited her family, her son was wearing a t-shirt with all the names of the kids in his elementary school graduating class. Easily half of them were foreign, mostly Arab, Indian or Oriental.
Not by a long shot do most Americans understand how big this wave of immigration is, and how quickly it will overwhelm them and this country.
We keep hearing how big the issue is in places like Iowa, which is "only" 3% immigrant. Trust me, the issue is a long way from reaching its zenith. It won't go away until it's dealt with.
There are a lot of Americans who are perfectly fine with neighborhoods that are 50% immigrant. The vast majority are not.
Please distinguish between low and High skilled immigrants. Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
No, but they have an effect on politics that is at least as importnat, if not more so. Cubans, for example, have done quite well; but they have permanently distorted the political process in Florida.
Taking in massive numbers of immigrants, especially if they aren't white, will only result in undermining any attempt at managing immigration. For the average American, immigration politics is a small part of a very big picture. For immigrant Americans, looking to bring all 500 of their nearest and dearest friends over on the boat, is is THE picture.
Just to to The Derb, who has lots and lots of Chinese in-laws who are very well versed in American immigration law.
Commuting times are nuts, but people are greedy for big houses.
What can we do?
If you have only growing home sixzes, then your commute problem is expanding geometrically only. If you have both growing home sizes and growing population size, then your problem expands exponentially. Which problem would you rather have?
Besides, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the more estranged Americans become from their neighbors the farther apart they want to live. Sprawl in the South, for example, only really took off with desegregation.
In order to maintain American supremacy, we have to keep growing our intelligent population, which means more high IQ immigration.
Or shrinking the growth of our low IQ population. Furthermore, American supremacy can only be insured when the "Americans" you're talking about are actually loyal to America. The data seem to indicate that very large portions of them are more loyal to their own ethnic group than to their country. The data also seem to show that the best way to make them more loyal is to close the doors for a while, and force them to become a part of us.
Please distinguish between low and High skilled immigrants. Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
Commuting times are nuts, but people are greedy for big houses. What can we do? In order to maintain American supremacy, we have to keep growing our intelligent population, which means more high IQ immigration.
Hi Johnson. Please accept this missive from the other side of the universe, where economic man is laughed at.
Allow me to demonstrate how odd your thinking is to me with an analogy: "I'd like to improve my lot; I should give my house, wife, and kids to Bill Gates - then I'd be a billionaire!"
That's really how you sound to me. Maybe another analogy will help: "Yeah, the Johnson clan is slowing down a bit; we need to expand to stay on top; once we've thrown out our kids and replaced them with kids from the Smith clan (their kids are so much smarter) we'll be in the clear!"
I just don't get it. Economics are a means, not an end.
This is before I get to the fact that cognitive elitism is just a smarter invasion (smarter for them I mean - dumber for us), and the inevitable fact that the 3rd world's main problem is 3rd worlders...people you want to import...
To be fair to WaPo, "immigration" here means immigrants from other states, not necessarily from other countries.
Johnson said:
Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
This is either ignorance or mendacity. Millions of native tech and engineering workers are experiencing a significantly lower quality of life today due to the H1B visa scam and immigrant affirmative action programs.
Please distinguish between low and High skilled immigrants. Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
Of course, they will. The genetic distance between them and us creates a conflict of interest that lowers cooperation and thus economic productivity. They are also not as "individualistic" as we are; they do not engage reciprocally in the sort of non-nepotism discussed in "What Makes Western Culture Unique".
But who cares, anyway? The issue isn't quality of life. It's life itself. Their presence in our territory does not further our interest in survival.
Another one along the same lines is - We need immigration, legal or otherwise, to prop up social security. Nice.
I think Steve's message will get more traction if his anti-immigration stance took on a more anti-muslim, anti-Mexican stance as opposed to a blanket anti-immigration stance.
There are a lot of Americans who are perfectly fine with neighborhoods that are 50% immigrant. The vast majority are not.
There are immigrants, and then there are immigrants. I can't figure out why anyone would be bothered by middle-class Asian immigrants moving into the neighborhood. They're generally quiet, law-abiding people who respect the value of property (and therefore take care of it) and mind their own business. What more could one want in a neighbor?
Anyway, with specific reference to DC (my hometown), I think you'll find that many locals are acutely aware of what has happened in Prince George's County, MD. They welcome ... well, perhaps "welcome" is too strong a word ... let's say tolerate the influx of Hispanics to formerly white working-class areas and Asians to middle-income areas in preference to becoming two-thirds black, as has happened in PG.
Speaking of class, another way to look at this is simply to consider that the Washington area is heavily tilted toward the elite end of the economic spectrum. According to many people hereabouts, the elites don't care if working and lower-middle-class whites are displaced. Perhaps population and housing trends in metro DC simply reflect that tendency writ large.
Meanwhile, whites do move further and further toward the fringes of the metro area - as they do in virtually every other city - but they move mostly in search of more house and land for their money; especially they seem to want new houses, preferring a 2-hour commute from a large, brand-new house in the exurbs to a short commute from a smaller, older house closer to work. This is not a new trend, but it has accelerated as the population has grown more affluent and as corresponding expectations have risen dramatically. I'm amazed when I talk to 25-year-olds who are buying their own houses, or to 30-year-olds who are buying brand new, 5-bedroom McMansions. That level of property wealth was almost unheard of 25 years ago. This increase in demand, as much as pressure on the supply from immigration, is what's driving housing costs up. The general affluence of the DC area exacerbates the tendency.
"David said...
Thank God for Kudzu! If it weren't for Kudzu, my backyard would have no vegetation at all!"
Exceedingly well put. Bravo!
One reason that whites are failing to have children is that it is becoming ever more expensive for adults today to raise them in the manner in which they were raised (hour+ commutes, private school or home schooling instead of public school, higher rates for schools, hospitals, and prisons that cater to illegals, etc.).
Johnson: It's true that an Indian doctor won't raise pit-bulls in his back yard, play loud music at night, or hold me up at the gas-station. However, neither can I expect him to value or continue the traditions that make my country MINE.
They're generally quiet, law-abiding people who respect the value of property (and therefore take care of it) and mind their own business. What more could one want in a neighbor?
And I wouldn't disagree with that one bit, as relates to individuals. It's not a question of whether individual immigrants (even illegal ones) are good or decent people. It's a question of the effects of large scale immigration on an entire nation. It is no contradicton to believe that most immigrants are good people while at the same time understanding that mass immigration is bad for a community and a nation.
It's true that an Indian doctor won't raise pit-bulls in his back yard, play loud music at night, or hold me up at the gas-station. However, neither can I expect him to value or continue the traditions that make my country MINE.,
The problem with this argument is that it has been made against every immigrant group for at least the last 160 years. For example, Irish Catholics came to a country that was, until then, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Nowadays, with a century or more of hindsight, we say that earlier immigrants assimilated into the melting pot; but, in doing so, they changed the pot. (It's true that all these immigrants were Europeans, but I promise you that my WASP ancestors did not consider the Irish to be from the same culture as themselves ... not by a long shot.)
The argument you make, Martin, is essentially one that says, "sure we've absorbed millions of immigrants and changed in the process, but now we've got the place the way I like it, so we have to stop." It will inevitably fail because immigration been such an integral part of our history and because acceptance of immigrants is part of the very culture you want to preserve.
It makes economic and social sense to stem the flood of unskilled workers into a society that increasingly rewards only high-IQ, high-skill citizens; but arguing against all immigration makes one a modern-day Know Nothing, and we know how successful that movement was.
>steve wood said...The problem with this argument is that it has been made against every immigrant group for at least the last 160 years.<
and rightly so.
>For example, Irish Catholics came to a country that was, until then, overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Nowadays, with a century or more of hindsight, we say that earlier immigrants assimilated into the melting pot; but, in doing so, they changed the pot.<
irish generated the corrupt big city political machines that persist to this day. the italians generated mafia untold billions sucked out the economy. the jews established horrible destructive frankfurt school poisonous culture of critique and organized funded the radical left in america. assimilation of these immigrant groups has been long painful expensive and is unfinished to this day. the "melting pot" was in some ways gravely wounded by the 1900 great wave.
>The argument you make, Martin, is essentially one that says, "sure we've absorbed millions of immigrants and changed in the process, but now we've got the place the way I like it, so we have to stop." It will inevitably fail because immigration been such an integral part of our history and because acceptance of immigrants is part of the very culture you want to preserve.<
only 5% of the people who have lived and died in the history of the united states have been immigrants. 95% have been born and raised natives. immigration fetishists ignore the facts. immigration costs the natives. immigrants are not saints.
>arguing against all immigration makes one a modern-day Know Nothing, and we know how successful that movement was.<
20th c. version of know nothings gave us the immigration timeout 1926-1965 that produced great domestic tranquility with a low gini coefficient high productivity society meaning small gap between rich poor.
immigration restriction is good for the country. it always has been good for the natives. only elites want mass immigration cheap labor. we need another immigration timeout to improve the gini coefficient. could it be that certain guilt tripped wasps will be more amenable to immigration timeout but only after whites are a minority in the united states? will that be the delicious denouement that heals weak minded guilt tripped wasps' psychic wounds? stay tuned until 2020 census when "surprising" data causes champagne bottles to pop in liberal salons across the nation.
The argument you make, Martin, is essentially one that says, "sure we've absorbed millions of immigrants and changed in the process, but now we've got the place the way I like it, so we have to stop." It will inevitably fail because immigration been such an integral part of our history and because acceptance of immigrants is part of the very culture you want to preserve.
The two (contradictory) arguments I keep hearing over and over (and over) re:immigration are:
1) That this country has absorbed millions of immigrants, and it hasn't changed us.
AND
2) This country has absorbed millions of immigrants, and it's improved us.
Number one is obviously, patently false. Shall we count all the ways in which we've changed since, oh, 1900?
Federal spending was about 5% of GNP; today it's around 33%. Federal judges kept their place in line, today they've corrupted the democratic process (plentiful examples available). Protestant Christianity has been completely and entirely kicked out of schools. In increasing number of meddling wars in the world that have cost us trillions and taken the lives of tens of thousands of Americans. And an increasing, neverending effort to brainwash the American people on the joys of diversity, which we will keep feeling like a boot on our faces forever.
Nope, America hasn't changed at all since 1900 - not one bit.
As for the other argument - that it's made us better? Well. Isn't that, ahem, RACIST? Isn't it racist to suggest that we WASP & German/French/Dutch/Scotch-Irish buttheads were completely incapable of running a decent country and needed your Irish/Italian/Greek/Jewish ancestors to come over here and bail us out? As I recall, the immigrant saying back then was: "America, where the streets are paved with gold" not "America, land of the WASP buttheads who desparately need our help."
Yes, it is racist. In fact, if I lived in Canada I'd take that complaint to the Human Rights Commission. I'd have ample evidence to support my case.
It makes economic and social sense to stem the flood of unskilled workers into a society that increasingly rewards only high-IQ, high-skill citizens; but arguing against all immigration makes one a modern-day Know Nothing, and we know how successful that movement was.
And who the hell, may I politely ask, is making that argument? No one I know. All the "anti-immigration" folks I know are asking for is a reduction in the number of immigrants to a reasonable level. A few are asking for an immigration time-out, but no one is asking for a complete, forever ban on all immigration, period.
To take in 1/2% of our population each year in immigrants is by no means a reasonable number. It's insanity.
Tech workers and doctors from India aren't going to erode our tax base and ruin our schools and lower our quality of life.
So what? They aren't Americans and they bring their culture and families with them, building Sikh temples and arranging marriages for their kids.
Having seen it in spades in 'Silicon Valley' -- what it looks like, what it feels like -- I can unequivocally say...No thanks. I have nothing against them personally: they can become as happpy and well-educated and wealthy as they are able. But I would strongly prefer they do it back where they came from. And belong, IMO.
francis k said:
20th c. version of know nothings gave us the immigration timeout 1926-1965 that produced great domestic tranquility
Brilliant.
And the usual immigrant suspects hated the 1924-1965 IMMIGRATION TIMEOUT (example here).
But even that 41-year period barely integrated the US's disparate populations. It was entirely salutary, but IMO a century-long period would have been more stabilizing still.
No invading horde likes it when the natives stand up for themselves and defend their turf! The attitude is, "How dare they oppose my saintly family! What an outrage that they refuse to put their land and resources at my disposal! We are much more deserving of what they have! We have earned it, we have suffered, we deserve what they have - it's OURS and we will take it!"
Unfortunately, the only effective recourse in the face of that attitude is force (I advocate legal closure of borders). Which is why, francis k, your conjecture:
certain guilt tripped wasps will be more amenable to immigration timeout but only after whites are a minority
- is hollow. As a minority, Whites would not be able to effect an immigration timeout (except possibly by staging a violent revolution: not recommended for the faint-hearted).
While we still have time to settle this issue relatively peacefully, here is Ron Paul's position on immigration. Among other things, he wants the 14th Amendment amended to end "birthright citizenship." No one else goes to the root of the problem like Dr. Paul.
"I can't figure out why anyone would be bothered by middle-class Asian immigrants moving into the neighborhood."
Because they are biologically and culturally alien. That's displacement; in the long run, it's genocide.
How about we replace your entire extended family with Asians? Hey, they'll be real quiet and work real hard. How can anyone argue against that?
"The problem with this argument is that it has been made against every immigrant group for at least the last 160 years."
And if Americans of 160 years ago had known that the descendants of those immigrants would claim that immigration is fundamental to the American character, and that the tap could never be turned off, they never would have let those people in, nor should they have.
If you adopt a dog from the SPCA, does the SPCA call you up and say: "hey, you already adopted one dog, you must adopt another one, or five, or ten"? Would you listen to the SPCA, or trust them, if they did this?
"The argument you make, Martin, is essentially one that says, "sure we've absorbed millions of immigrants and changed in the process, but now we've got the place the way I like it, so we have to stop.""
Yes, that's about right. So? Why is that any less legitimate than your opposing argument: "The country isn't quite as I would like it to be, so we need to open up the flood-gates."? Why does your opinion count for more than mine? If anything, I think a lot more people agree with me than with you. And, you know, in a democracy, that's supposed to count for something.
Johnson: It's true that an Indian doctor won't raise pit-bulls in his back yard, play loud music at night, or hold me up at the gas-station. However, neither can I expect him to value or continue the traditions that make my country MINE.
As a 1.5 generation Indian American (mom born in US, dad in India) I'm not going to take offense at the comment if you believe it to be true. It's just that I have seen Indian Americans at all areas of the American political spectrum. The governor of Louisiana is a right wing Indian. Indian Americans are one of the most well integrated minorities in the country and have respect and admiration for the US. Just look at Dinesh D'Souza. In fact, the Indian community constantly agonizes over how Americanized their youth have become.
I think that different immigrant groups are totally different animals. High IQ immigrants will absolutely generate more income. Half of the tech boom in the late 1990's was generated by Indian IT workers who then passed on tons of jobs to others.
If you want to look at things economically, with comparative advantage, yes, American IT workers will slightly lose out by high IQ indian immigrants (and slightly because there is already an IT shortage in India and these jobs generate many more jobs).
But, EVERYONE else will tremendously benefit from more high IQ workers.
smart fraction theory perfectly illustrates this.
We should look for high IQ immigrants from all countries.
Again, by making this site more of a white supremacy bastion than a haven for rigorous analysis devoid of PC, all of us suffer.
"Again, by making this site more of a white supremacy bastion than a haven for rigorous analysis devoid of PC, all of us suffer."
I think this accusation has no basis in fact. You should read earlier posts. The point is that different ethnic groups often bring political cultures/strategies that are at odds with American democracy. I myself have stumbled upon a hive of Indian activists who were working to align our laws to that of an as yet mythical one world order. National boundaries didn't exist for them. I didn't ask them but I'm almost certain they would identify themselves as citizens of the world rather than Americans. Can you understand how horrified I was to discover that I was being targeted not for violating a law of my own country but for being in violation of the dictates of some UN resolution?
We should look for high IQ immigrants from all countries. - Johnson
And does that same argument go in reverse, for India, Johnson?
Why isn't India trying to aggressively recruit smart white Americans to their country? Why have their laws, in fact, barred white Amricans from becoming citizens? Why, in fact, does the Indian government seem so obsessed with sending it's most talented people here? Because it's good for America? Why, how generous of them!
I'll drink your medicine, Johnson - right after you do.
Immigrants - Asians especially - have made substantial economic contributions to this country; of that there is no doubt. But economics is not what it's all about.
Whites would not be able to effect an immigration timeout (except possibly by staging a violent revolution: not recommended for the faint-hearted).
The faint-hearted and the hard-hearted are not always different people. Quite often, they are the same people who have been pushed to the edge of their limits.
As the white share of the population plummets the demands for redistributing the wealth and for a larger racial spoils system will only increase. Most whites right now are inclined to a generous nature, because they're still doing pretty well. They've never had to fight - really fight - for anything. As expectations fall, however, they will learn.
Whites will survive in this country. My fear, though, is that democracy won't. Freedom has been in decline this whole century. Civil rights laws took a big bite out of property rights, and the freedom of speech, and the freedom of self-defense. Companies get sued for tens of millions for minor slights by errant, low-level employees. I saw a company the other day that lost $60 million in a lawsuit because a manager called some employees "camel jockeys." One strike against freedom of speech, another against property rights, in a single blow.
It will only get worse.
"But, EVERYONE else will tremendously benefit from more high IQ workers."
No. You wouldn't be a very good book-keeper, as you don't like to fully "balance the books."
On the one hand, we have whatever increase in productivity that occurs from the high-IQ immigrants.
Some of that helps the immigrants themselves; on the other hand, it hurts those natives displaced from their professions.
Surely, of course, your point is that some natives are benefitting from the increased productivity.
Very well. That's the benefit.
How about the costs?
- genetic costs: influx of alien genetic information; given eventual carrying capacity limitations, that's a loss of genetic interests for the native ethny. Read Salter.
- loss of social cohesion and organic solidarity of the native culture, as alien peoples with different cultures, extended phenotypes, etc. come into the mix
- the fact, and this is unfortunate if it offends, that people may not want to be exposed to the alien phenotypes and cultures; the mere presence of the immigrants "offends" and decreases quality of life (which is not just measured by "economic production"). This is above and beyond the genetic losses and the loss of cultural and societal homogeneity.
- high-IQ migrants, by defintion, will be intelligent, upwardly mobile people, who will, eventually, have access to the levers of power in the society, and can flex their economic, political, and social "muscle" for their benefit and to the detriment of the native groups.
Now, of course, you are going to argue that the benefits outweight the costs, but I don't see it. Economic "productivity" isn't everything. "Blood" matters. Kinship matters. Race matters. Culture and civilizational history matters.
"America" is nothing more or less than its peoples, and their histories. A 'stronger America' does not resonate to some of us if our people are being displaced, demographically, economically, politically, etc.
I'd choose "slower growth" in exchange for greater homogeneity and the chance not to have to be exposed to peoples I'd rather not be exposed to. If I wanted to see Indians, I can visit India. I don't want any as neighbors.
"We should look for high IQ immigrants from all countries."
No, we should not. We should cultivate native white intelligence.
"Again, by making this site more of a white supremacy bastion than a haven for rigorous analysis devoid of PC, all of us suffer."
No, non-whites such as yourself may suffer.
"but no one is asking for a complete, forever ban on all immigration, period."
Speak for yourself. I'd like to limit immigration solely to those of European descent, and even there, only highly educated and English-speaking peoples.
That's just for starters.
EVERYONE else will tremendously benefit from more high IQ workers.
In your world, my or my grandchildren's living in Section 8 paid for by higher-IQ people is a tremendous benefit. They might be able to scrape up a few shekels and buy a used techno toy invented by their overlords (from science done by our great-great-grandparents). Fun!
Much as zero-sum is derided, it describes much of importance in our finite world. There are only so many living spaces at any one time; only so many jobs at any time. Either you have a given job, or the alien who skipped the border (on foot or with an H-1B) has that job. The resources to "make your own" are finite, too: you have your brain pace Julian Simon (assuming you or your parents had access to adequate nourishment, which is costly and finite), but access to its implements and their material is finite.
There are presently and ultimately only so many slots. I want my family - me and mine - to have the country we tamed and created. You can call that "white supremacy" if it makes you feel good. Someone has to be supreme, and you seem to be angling for the job.
If high-IQ aliens are so smart, why don't they stay in their own countries and make something better out of them? Uh-huh. It may be because their intelligence is less akin to that of a creative member of a rooted community than they might like themselves and others to think.
Btw, why is it called "imperialism" when whites take over a country or a culture that isn't their own -- but it's called "progress" when non-whites take over white areas, hm? I guess it depends on who's speaking.
"As a 1.5 generation Indian American (mom born in US, dad in India) I'm not going to take offense at the comment if you believe it to be true."
Well that's good, as I don't intend to offend. On the whole, I rather like Indians.
"It's just that I have seen Indian Americans at all areas of the American political spectrum. The governor of Louisiana is a right wing Indian."
So tell me - I'm curious - how many "right-wing" Americans are provinical govenors in India?
"Indian Americans are one of the most well integrated minorities in the country and have respect and admiration for the US. Just look at Dinesh D'Souza."
Dinesh D'Souza is of course Catholic, not Hindu or Muslim. Not that either Hindus or muslims would be a big problem in this country as long as they remain a small minority.
"In fact, the Indian community constantly agonizes over how Americanized their youth have become."
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the whole assimiliation thing isn't going so well. What happens when the kids rediscover their heritage, blame America for having americanized them, and take on their role as perpetually aggrieved and victimized racial minority, as so many other minorities have?
"If you want to look at things economically, with comparative advantage, yes, American IT workers will slightly lose out by high IQ indian immigrants (and slightly because there is already an IT shortage in India and these jobs generate many more jobs)."
Okay, economically. I do have friends and relatives who are IT workers, and whose jobs are in danger. Also there's the fact that Indians are eligible for preferences (in government contracting, government loans, and probably college admissions too) that are denied to me or my relatives. Why should I be taxed to provide economic assistance to someone like you - assistance that I myself am not eligible for.
Also, perhaps I would like to look at things non-economically. This is my country. It is not a big fat Pinata for the distribution of goodies on the peoples of the world. We have a right to say: it's our's, not your's, get out.
"But, EVERYONE else will tremendously benefit from more high IQ workers."
India will not benefit by this brain-drain of its brightest citizens. Of course, you might just reply "To hell with Indians", in which case, I ask you, why can I not also say the same?
"Again, by making this site more of a white supremacy bastion than a haven for rigorous analysis devoid of PC, all of us suffer."
It is nothing of the kind. It is not white supremacy to defend my status and prerogatives in my own country - the only country that I have.
Johnson: " Again, by making this site more of a white supremacy bastion than a haven for rigorous analysis devoid of PC, all of us suffer. "
You are the supremacist here since you say America needs fewer whites and more high IQ Indians, especially among the elites. Saying that Americans who refuse to be displaced are white supremacists is dishonest and the contrary of rigorous thinking. Your position that it is moral to choose immigrants for their high IQs and immoral to choose them for their European looks and ancestry is absurd. Americans are European. If it is wrong for them to have any preference for Europeans over high-IQ Indians, you might as well tell them it is wrong to have any preference for Americans over foreigners. Your arrogant position makes clear that non white immigration kills social cohesion. Importing high IQs from China or India can only help create social classes, with a racial element, as in India. It makes it harder for the white upper class to stand by the white lower class because Indian and Chinese immigrants have no reason to show solidarity with the lower classes. It blocks social mobility within the white population.
I suspect you want more Indian immigration because you are Indian, not as you say, because you want the American GDP to increase thanks to the high Indian IQ. No one on earth thinks it is more important to raise the economic production than to have a meaningful life and be succeeded on earth by one's own children. What is your response to Svigor who said: "I should give my house, wife, and kids to Bill Gates - then I'd be a billionaire!" ?
I'm wondering why my more detailed answer to "Johnson" has been censored, while other comments, which are just as "forceful" have been allowed through.
Was it because I cited the dreaded "Dr. S?"
Concerned Netizen:
"... And the WASPs gave us slavery."
No, Netizen, my WASP ancestors gave you a country, a country which they tore out of the wilderness with no help from you and yours after you crapped up your homeland and desperately needed someone to take you in.
As far as slavery, that came from the Jews and the Irish and the Geramsn, and the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Romans and the Greeks and countless other peoples. It was something that MY people fought to keep out of this country 350 years ago, and something MY people fought and dies to eliminate.
Nice try, Netizen, but I got my education years before PC was rammed down American throats so I know better. If you want to find GOOD immigrants, look to the Germans, Norwegians, Czechs, Moravians, Swedes, and Bohemians.
Post a Comment