2005 July 08 Friday
Britain, European Muslim Citizens Seen As Terrorist Threats To United States

Peter Bergen, author of Holy War Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden, has an op/ed piece in the New York Times on the threat which British Muslim terrorists pose to the United States.

Why have so many of these terrorists come from Britain? Many British Muslims are young and poorly integrated into society and therefore vulnerable to extremism. In fact, Muslims have the youngest age profile of any religious group in Britain; around a third are under the age of 16. The unemployment rate among British Muslims runs almost 10 percentage points above the national average of about 5 percent. In the case of 16- to 24-year-old Muslim men, the unemployment rate is 22 percent. Not surprisingly, polls of British Muslims show a considerable sense of anger. Eight out of 10 believe that the war on terrorism is a war on Islam, while a poll conducted last year, under the auspices of the Guardian newspaper, found a surprising 13 percent who said that further attacks by Al Qaeda or a similar organization on the United States would be justified. One rap video that surfaced in Britain last year called "Dirty Kuffar" had lyrics that included the following verse: "O.B.L. [bin Laden] pulled me like a shining star! Like the way we destroyed them two towers, ha-ha!"

Last year a British government report estimated that between 10,000 and 15,000 British Muslims are supporters of Al Qaeda or related groups.

Bergen notes that the Visa Waiver Program (see below) allows increasingly angry and numerous European Muslims to freely enter the United States without any need for visa application and approval. The Muslim terrorist groups can get around the tougher screening of Middle Eastern visa applications by recruiting European citizen Muslims to terrorism.

Of course, however bad the British and European Muslim terrorist threat to the United States the threat is even worse for the British. Worse yet, while the British could negotiate political deals with the Irish Catholic terrorists there is no obvious and acceptable political deal that the Brits could negotiate with the Muslim radicals.

The argument that the British Muslims are "poorly integrated into society" suggests that, well, the Brits have not done a good job of integrating them. But the Brits haven't done any worse a job integrating Hindus and other groups which do not become terrorists. Also, Britain does not strike me as a particularly hostile place for non-natives. If some group feels so far out of place in Britain to engage in terrorist attacks then they obviously shouldn't be allowed to live there in the first place. The British people do not have any sort of moral obligation to totally rearrange their society and change their culture to satisfy any group angry enough to blow up busses and trains.

22 European countries are members of the Visa Waiver Program.

  • Andorra
  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg
  • Monaco
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Portugal
  • San Marino
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • United Kingdom

Two Western but non-European countries are members of the Visa Waiver Program.

  • Australia
  • New Zealand

Australia has some problems with Islamic terrorists.

A few non-Western countries are part of the Visa Waver Program as well.

  • Japan
  • Singapore
  • Brunei

Japan doesn't pose much of a threat but Muslim Brunei and partially Muslim Singapore do.

Our biggest terrorist threat from Visa Waiver countries emanates from Britain followed by France and Germany. Most of the British Muslims have the advantage of English language skills. They also have plenty of mosques which teach them to hate us non-believers.

While much is made of the threat of terrorists I still think that most Americans face a greater threat from immigrant groups that commit crimes at higher rates than from terrorists. Garden variety murders occur every day and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. At some point terrorists may find ways to pose an even greater threat than immigrant groups which have high crime rates (e.g. Hispanics and Africans).

The problem with the terrorist threat is that if only a very small fraction of society decides to become terrorists the cost to the rest of us would be enormous. One one hundredth of one percent of America is about 30,000 people. That many people operating as terrorists could kill more people than the US lost in the last 100 years as soldiers fiighting in wars. Therefore any group which has even a small fraction of its members leaning toward terrorism should be kept out. We already have enough people and so does Europe. Immigration should be done only when the benefits per person coming in clearly outweigh all the costs immediately and in the long term. In my opinion the United States could reduce the rate of immigration by a couple of orders of magnitude by putting a high IQ minimum on immigrants and eliminate huge costs and growing risks while retaining the bulk of the benefits of immigration.

In the longer run if technological advances reduce the obstacles to carrying out large and very lethal terrorist attacks then I predict some countries will enact legislation that allows them to revoke citizenship even of the native born. Banishment is the most obvious way to respond to a group that rejects the legitimacy of a society and which seeks to kill many of its members.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 July 08 03:09 PM  Immigration Terrorism


Comments
razib_the_atheist said at July 8, 2005 3:18 PM:

Also, Britain does not strike me as a particularly hostile place for non-natives.

you are correct, and the british are proud of the constrast with continentals on this point.

oh, and do african immigrants have high crime rates? i know about credit card fraud and what not, but i thought it was mostly white collar? african immigrants are rather well educated.

Jim said at July 8, 2005 3:53 PM:

the visa program is for visitors up to 90 days. anyone staying longer than that is breaking the law. we need a system to enforce the law.... granted 90 days is plenty of time to carry out a terrorist attack, but certainly better than disappearing into the u.s. for years of planning

maybe we need to look at punishment, i mean what do we do with illegals in this country now? - give them a free ride home? this is like a cheech and chong movie i saw where the mexican family call ins on itself when there is a wedding in the family back in mexico to get a free ride home.... how about take all their possessions from them and impose severe penalties on their illegal employers? (maybe they'd think twice and hire the american guy for $2 extra per hour if they were risking jail time)

it's so frustrating to see our immigration laws so blatantly disregarded, especially when contrasted against what my highly intelligent, american-educated co-workers need to go through to do it legally

Harry said at July 8, 2005 11:11 PM:

The further irony is that the US has a rapidly-growing Muslim population, and in large part it's indigenous here (from conversion) as much as from immigration. Urban African-Americans are rapidly converting to Islam, and it's in large part because of the utter and disastrous failure of affirmative action. Liberals (and quite a few conservatives-- affirmative action began with Nixon, remember) promised urban blacks that affirmative action would finally help them to escape the ghettos and gangs and get the skills needed to enter the professional workforce. Instead, affirmative action and racial and gender preferences merely became a tool to promote and enrich already wealthy minorities and immigrants, screwing over urban blacks who were hurt even worse, since money and attention were drawn away from e.g. improving schools and urban infrastructure.

Into the gap stepped in Muslim community groups who helped to rebuild the local roads, paint the shops, get kids to school in the morning and so on. Unsurprisingly, quite a few inner-city residents (not just African-Americans either) were therefore drawn to Islam this way, and it's been making incredibly fast inroads because the US political elite is too busy in a state of self-congratulatory fantasy about affirmative action, which has done absolutely nothing for urban blacks. Yet another way that affirmative action is destroying the USA. Buy that plot of land on the Riviera while you still can, because there won't be much of anything valuable left in America within 20 years.

Kenelm Digby said at July 9, 2005 2:51 AM:

Of course, including Britain on the visa waiver program is a very bad and ill-conceived policy.Britain IS NOT the nation of 40 years ago, as many Americans, I guess believe, it IS NO LONGER a nation of warm beer, tea and cucumber sandwiches, of the friendly "bobby on the beat".In actual fact Britain is a less White nation than Argentina.This fact must always be borne in mind by Americans when considering Britain.
An actual majority of London's population (and of other major cities such as Birmingham) is non-White.A very great proportion of those aged under 30 are non-White, and reliable projections point to an actual non-White majority by mid-century.
Of course, a high percentage of these racial aliens are radicalised muslims.
For the sake of coomnosense and good policy,Americans in general, and the policy makers in particular must re-align their attitudes, thoughts, affections and plicies toward Britain.It is a totally different place inhabited by a totally different race to the nation you defeated in 1776.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 3:55 AM:

Urban African-Americans are rapidly converting to Islam, and it's in large part because of the utter and disastrous failure of affirmative action.

kosmin's survey of american religious life indicates there are many more black catholics than black muslims. the latter get the press though.

.A very great proportion of those aged under 30 are non-White, and reliable projections point to an actual non-White majority by mid-century.

really? whites are going to go from 92% to

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 3:57 AM:

less than 50% of the population in 50 years? assume 50% growth rates of non-whites (the clip from 1991 to 2001), the number of whites would need to drop 20 million in absolute numbers for non-whites to be a majority in britain.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 3:58 AM:

majority by 2050 that, assuming current rates for non-whites.

Harry said at July 9, 2005 5:43 AM:

"kosmin's survey of american religious life indicates there are many more black catholics than black muslims. "

First of all that's in large part a result of the high immigration levels of Hispanic and Haitian blacks from the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil, Panama and Cuba, who have indeed boosted the number of ethnic African Catholics. Among the native-born black population, the proportion of Muslims is far higher than the Catholic population. Second, be careful not to confuse the terms "Muslim" with "Nation of Islam" members (Farrakhan's group). People get this mixed up all the time, but members of the Farrakhan group are a tiny, tiny minority-- the vast majority of African-Americans within the Muslim faith have been Orthodox Sunni Muslim since the 1970s, and those numbers are indeed quite high. Just spend a couple days in inner-city Chicago, NYC or even Houston and you'll be amazed at all the mosques with African-American murals nearby, and the Arabic names of the African-Americans at the nearby shops.

It's not inevitably a bad thing since the Muslim groups often do a lot of important community service, emphasize family cohesion and support education, and in fact I have several black friends who are Muslim and very decent people. My concern is that many blacks have embraced Islam explicitly as a spurning of the country's culture, and in no small part because they're sick of the self-congratulatory rhetoric (especially from liberals but also some conservatives) that affirmative action has helped them. Affirmative action has been a disaster all around, angering and minimizing the talent of accomplised whites and Asians while simultaneously doing absolutely nothing to help the plight of inner-city blacks and Latinos, i.e. the little things where the mosques and Islamic community centers have stepped into the breach. It's another reason why affirmative action has to go-- it distracts the political class from doing things that actually do make a difference.

As for Britain: "assume 50% growth rates of non-whites (the clip from 1991 to 2001), the number of whites would need to drop 20 million in absolute numbers for non-whites to be a majority in britain."

British whites have an extremely low birth rate that's comparable to the rates in Continental Europe, well below replacement. Some people expect it to get even lower as "laddism" spreads through the British male population (making many young British men undereducated and unemployable or underemployable). The British divorce laws, among the harshest in the world to productive husbands, probably don't help either-- AFAIK Britain is now the only place where a male divorcee loses over half of his future (post-divorce) income as well as that accrued during and even before the marriage, a tremendous economic disincentive to marriage and children, so it's probably going to get worse as more traditional immigrant family structures fill the breach. In fact, Italy and Spain's birth rate is only superficially lower than that in the UK (which is already well below replacement in general)-- when you peek behind the numbers, you see that the only reason for the slightly higher British fertility rate is due to the immigrant population, which is often 4-5 times higher than the native white birth rate (similar to the levels in Italy and Spain). There's also a not-insignificant rate of emigration of British whites especially to the Continent, to Mediterranean countries e.g. Reporters often tout the higher birth rate in the US, but it's a similiar situation here-- the white birth rate is higher, but not that much higher than in the UK and Italy (and again well below replacement), with most of the growth coming from the Latino immigrant, black, and Arab communities. (The highest regional growth rate in the US is among the Arab population in the upper Midwest.) So the demographic shift of the West is a real thing, and Muslim groups particularly are fast on the rise in both Europe and North America.

raj said at July 9, 2005 12:14 PM:

Things I predict might happen in the Western World in response to Islamic terrorism:
1) Publicly advertise heavily for the need for Muslims to join governmental spy agencies to help infiltrate the more extremist factions.

It will be time for the moderate Muslims preaching 'this is not Islam' to put up or shut up. If they fail to heed this call, it will have dire ramifications on their public perception. The public wants actions not words at this point. If the moderate Muslims help us, the following possibilites have a far less chance of occurring.

2) Asylum laws, specifically, will be much more strict and less sympathetic.

This will test the compassion (or stupidity, or both?) of the White majorities in the various countries when faced with sincere hard luck stories. However, after this many tragedies due to terrorists I am of the opinion that the majority of the population in the various countries won't be swayed by such tales as they might have been in the pre 9-11 past. At some point, society will say 'us or them'.

3) Immigration laws and immigration policy, in general, will be strengthened.

That Abu Hamza al-Masri was actually supported by the British taxpayers while he was preaching such venemous speech is absolutely ludicrous.
a) Welfare programs for immigrants will be scaled back.
b) The deportation process will be easier and faster.
c) The various Western and non- Western allies will voluntarily decide to suspend the visa waiver program for the public safety of all.
d) Unfortunately, if even legal immigration becomes more strict, this may mean people like my parents don't get a chance to come to places like America.


4) Changing citizenship laws

If the situation becomes dire enough. I think citizenship laws in places like the US or Britain will be changed so that citizenship is not automatically given to people born in the country.

Hopefylly, the moderate and liberal Muslims will fullfill their obligations to society and prevent the rest of these possibilities from coming to be.

Randall Parker said at July 9, 2005 12:45 PM:

Raj,

I do not expect the moderate and liberal Muslims to be of much help. Yes, some will report suspicious activity to the FBI. But I do not expect any sort of political or religious Muslim movement to counter Jihadist Salafist teachings.

If you get a chance watch the new PBS Frontline segment Al Qaeda's New Front. Also, read a lot of the pages that you can get to from that link.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 4:00 PM:

So the demographic shift of the West is a real thing, and Muslim groups particularly are fast on the rise in both Europe and North America.

of course henry, but do you have a problem with 6th grade math? as i said, assuming current rates of growth for whites and non-whites (this assumes that birthrates and immigration rate do not drop), the absolute number of british whites will have to drop from 55 million to 35 million in 50 years for non-whites to become a majority by mid-century. this is not plausible even assuming sub-replacement rates (currently in the 1.55 range for whites). i am being annoying about this because conversations like this devolve into broad assertions without a good grounding in the numbers. you have to extrapolate to 2100, not 2050, for non-whites to become a majority, and this difference is not academic. barring transhumanism we'll all be dead in 2100, but many of us will be alive in 2050.

but note, much of the growth of non-whites is driven by immigration. long established minorities like hindus (vs. bangladeshis) or west indian blacks (vs. africans) show relatively little growth (more than whites, but trivial when judged on the basis of their absolute numbers). as for black american muslims, kosmin has found several times from several sources that black muslims are only 1% of the black american population. you can search one nation under god if you are skeptical and review the methodology, it'll take 5 minutes max.

raj said at July 9, 2005 5:09 PM:

"I do not expect the moderate and liberal Muslims to be of much help. Yes, some will report suspicious activity to the FBI. But I do not expect any sort of political or religious Muslim movement to counter Jihadist Salafist teachings."

You may or may not be right. What I want governments to do is have newspaper and TV advertisment campaigns specifically asking for help from Muslims that believe their religion is being hijacked and are patriotic. There are about a billion Muslims in the world. Let's say that only 1% are sympathetic to us. That is still 10 million people of diverse backgrounds to choose from who might heed the call to arms. This would potentially be more than enough people to choose from who could infiltrate the terrorist networks. I am suggesting we need to see if I'm right, and we really haven't publicly asked this of the Islamic community so far.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 5:23 PM:

Unfortunately, if even legal immigration becomes more strict, this may mean people like my parents don't get a chance to come to places like America.

did they come through family reunification? people like your parents don't have a chance to move to europe anyway, my uncle has a ph.d. in petrol engineering and has been working on the drilling operations in the north sea for 15 years and he's still in the process of becoming a british citizen. far easier to just sneak in via asylum laws or something like that. my cousins who live in england regularly get beat up by the other "bangladeshis," because those bangladeshis are mostly from the syhlet district of bangladesh (a chain migration effect), and they target those who are not from syhlet. FYI, syhletis are known for their conservatism, so britain is basically drawing from the hicks of a backward country (from what i gather this is a problem with a lot of the migration to europe, just like in mexico, the westernized elite has a good enough deal that they stay in algiers and keep drinking fine wines while the country-folk risk life and limb to cross the oceans).

so i would say re: immigration

1) a canadian system which emphasized skills aso opposed to family or country quota would effect the least assimilable stream of migrants first.

2) even if absolute nubmers of entrants declined, remember that many people who emigrate here bring wife + kids. if you focused on single professionals in their 20s you could zero in on the most value-added group (obviously the wife and kids are usually just dead weight for a long time anyhow as far as skills and economic value), and if you put barriers up as far as spousal immigration goes, you have a recipe for faster absorption.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 5:36 PM:

also, like some jews, many of us who are "visible minorities" are scared about the concomitant association of racialism with immigration restrictionism (you know, the type of people terrified by "racial aliens"). some of us worry that if we get on board for immigration restriction the worst case scenario is that we get shipped back to our nations of origin (or our parent's nation of origin). but is that such a bad thing? most of us would slot ourselves into the overseas oligarchy (that is, from asia). myself, i could be an oligarch in bangladesh with people kissing my ass if i wanted that. i much prefer being a plebian in the united states as one among equals. but i want to preserve a nation where plebians call the shots and there is equality before the law, so i am willing to take the vanishingly small risk of mass deportations of non-whites to preserve this polity (unlike many non-whites i have lived in 90-99% white areas my whole life, so i'm not terrified of white racism). if i lose the sure bet it won't be like i'm going to the gas chambers. those who come for genuine reasons of political persecution might look at things differently, but most immigrants are economic migrants.

Engineer-Poet said at July 9, 2005 6:02 PM:

Razib, you wouldn't be a plebian anywhere you went.  Your diction alone puts you in America's upper tier.

raj said at July 9, 2005 6:24 PM:

this is irritating. this article from the NYT is about what issues confront Britain after the bombings, but they don't even mention immigration anywhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/weekinreview/10questions.html

BTW, Razib, I don't know exactly how they got into the US, but I doubt it was family reunification.

Randall Parker said at July 9, 2005 6:26 PM:

Razib,

You say:

some of us worry that if we get on board for immigration restriction the worst case scenario is that we get shipped back to our nations of origin

That is exceedingly unlikely. We stopped immigration before and then did not start stripping citizenship from anyone. Look, if that was ever going to happen it would have happened already.

Your reaction to me is yet another reason why we shouldn't let in people who are going to tend toward paranoia about their own groups and their relationship to other groups. If people can't be rational about the best interests of the country then I'd just as soon keep them out.

If we do not drastically restrict immigration the average IQ level is going to decline enough to make the United States a less classically liberally place. We will become more like Latin America. We'll have more racial quotas for the dummies. We'll have more gated communities. We'll have more class warfare, higher taxes, corruption, and crime. The argument for restriction is obvious and not hard to make.

Randall Parker said at July 9, 2005 6:36 PM:

Razib,

As for the arguments on when various groups become the majority: The point of majority is not the point when, say, Muslims become a big political problem. Even at 20% they'll become a big problem. They'll be swing votes.

What happens when some group is a swing vote is illustrated by Italy during the Cold War. The communists were a big enough voting block and the socialists were too that the other parties became corrupted because they formed coalitions to keep the communists out. The voters effectively couldn't vote the most corrupt party out of power as a way to keep the corruption down.

Another way it plays out is illustrated by Israel with some small parties extracting concessions that annoy the heck out of everyone else.

As for the white nationalists: But we see the opposite effect of Hispanics voting for more Hispanics to come in. We have openly partisan Hispanic politicians who see it as their job to extract stuff from whites to give to Hispanics. Am I supposed to suffer this so that you don't have to worry about being persecuted by white nationalists?

Perhaps you aren't speaking for yourself. But those others who think that way constitute an argument against having let their parents into the country in the first place. If people can't put the best interests of the nation first and we develop larger numbers of various groups whose members vote their perceived ethnic group interests then we are headed down as a nation.

Harry said at July 9, 2005 6:41 PM:

"of course henry, but do you have a problem with 6th grade math? as i said, assuming current rates of growth for whites and non-whites (this assumes that birthrates and immigration rate do not drop), the absolute number of british whites will have to drop from 55 million to 35 million in 50 years for non-whites to become a majority by mid-century. "

Get a clue Razib and pay attention to the content of the posts, at no point did I indicate that non-whites in Britain would become a majority-- that was the post of someone else, and you seem to be mixing up the arguments here. Since you appear to have reading comprehension issues, I'll summarize my points briefly here: The US has a fairly dysfunctional way of addressing the persistent social problems of its African-American minority (i.e., useless and failed affirmative action initiatives)-- a large contributor to that community's shift toward Islam-- and the UK meanwhile (like the rest of Europe) has both low native birth rates and high fertility rates for its immigrant (especially Muslim) populations. This does not mean that the native population will become a minority within one or even two generations-- I patently do not foresee that. However, there will be a demographic shift in the UK and Western Europe (as well as the USA) without a doubt, and this will fundamentally and probably permanently change the political and societal dynamic within such democratic societies.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 6:50 PM:

Perhaps you aren't speaking for yourself.

well, duh, did you read the rest of the comment?

as you say....

Am I supposed to suffer this so that you don't have to worry about being persecuted by white nationalists?

no randall, you don't have to suffer, because i'm not worried about being persecuted by white nationalists.

As for the arguments on when various groups become the majority: The point of majority is not the point when, say, Muslims become a big political problem. Even at 20% they'll become a big problem. They'll be swing votes.

that is exactly the, a point udercut when others make grand claims (ie; islamic europe) that can be easily debunked by 30 seconds of google searching.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 7:00 PM:

at no point did I indicate that non-whites in Britain would become a majority-

no, but you decided to respond my reply to that assertion. look, i'm demanding that you bit a big precise with the numbers, for example, you say:

which is often 4-5 times higher than the native white birth rate (similar to the levels in Italy and Spain)

the british TFR is 1.55 children per women. the spanish one is 1.15, the italian one is 1.28, these differences are not trivial.

However, there will be a demographic shift in the UK and Western Europe (as well as the USA) without a doubt, and this will fundamentally and probably permanently change the political and societal dynamic within such democratic societies.

and i agree with this, i simply wish people to be more quantitative, because these public policy questions are difficult as it is. a more accurate model of the sitaution allows us to project the scenarios with more ease.

for example, india and singapore are nations where 10-20% of the population is muslim. obviously that is a big issue and a factor in how the political class makes decisions of national import.

additionally, as i have stated, there really isn't that much evidence that islam is making enormous inroads into the black american community (see my citation link above). yes, they are vocal, they are prominent, and they make good copy, but just like the exaggerated numbers given for the american muslim community, black muslims overplay their numbers as well (pentacostalism for example is clearly far more vibrant).

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 7:05 PM:

i mean british white TFR. btw, here is some data on british TFR by ethnic group (ie; TFR for "pakistani" is 4.7, british white is 1.5).

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 7:14 PM:

and while i'm being a prig, i will add that if you look at percentage of total alleles floating in the population argentines likely are a lot less than the "97% white" that they claim, almost certainly at least 10%.

razib_the_atheist said at July 9, 2005 7:34 PM:

finally, on the african american muslim thread: about 1/3 of american muslims are black natives, but this is trivial because there aren't really that many muslims (probaqbly 300-600 K out of a muslim population of 1-2 million, so 1-2% of the black american population).

Stephen said at July 9, 2005 9:55 PM:

I think the only immigration statistic that really counts is the inter-group marriage rate. If that rate is high, then that's a sign that the immigrant group is integrating, if its low, then its a sign of ghettoisation / alienation. Using inter-marriage stats, an immigration quota system could be built that allocates greater numbers to groups that are more prone to inter-marry - kind of a feedback loop.

I've seen ethnicity based inter-marriage stats, but I don't recall having seen inter-marriage stats broken down by religion, and I suspect inter-religion marriage rates might be less than inter-ethnic rates.

Kenelm Digby said at July 10, 2005 3:38 AM:

Dear Razib,
Any statistic or pronouncement on "race" from the British Home Office is invariably a damnned lie.
As a londoner, I prefer to chooose the evidence of my own eyes on my regular journeys on foot, or on public transport or motor vehicles of all parts of this huge sprawling metropolis, from Hackney to Kingston, from Golders Green to Bromley etc, etc.Even on this anectodal evidence, I admit, at least 50% of the faces I encounter are non-White.

Kenelm Digby said at July 10, 2005 3:54 AM:

To return to the original thesis of Randall'ss post.

American's MUST fundamentally re-assess their perceptions and attitudes towards Britain, and as Randall has noted, strict scrutiny of immigrants who described by that catch-all term "British" is in order.

Quite frankly, Britain is NOT the Anglo-Saxon nation that gave America the legacy of its language, laws, culture and institutions any longer.In the last 40 years it has mutated (due to perverse political policies pursued by an ignorant elite), into something else, a horrible ant-hill of third world welfare recepient invaders and an inreasingly frightened and angry core of English people who are fleeing London and the main towns en masse for the countryside and safe havens overseas.
To all Americans: The "mental image" you might have, from films, books etc of Britain being a cultured European nation of great antiquity and culture, the land of Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Edmond Burke, Thomas Locke, Charles Dickens etc etc is TOTALLY WRONG.Perhaps if you visited 40 years earlier you might have got a taste of that, but think of New York City writ large: That is Tony Blair's Britain.

raj said at July 10, 2005 4:56 AM:

this is an improvement. the LA TImes article at least hints at the need for immigration reform (w/o ever mentioning it directly, that is) to solve England's inability to deal with Islamic terrorists:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-crossroads10jul10,0,2067629.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I guess the immigration debate in England needs to start somewhere.

raj said at July 10, 2005 5:16 AM:

another report. this from the NYT about Britain's extensive civil liberties that often aid the terrorists. again hinting at the need for immigration reform w/o ever having mentioned it directly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/international/europe/10qaeda.html?hp&ex=1121054400&en=63f4d035a1e68f74&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Kim said at July 10, 2005 8:09 AM:

Razib wrote: "...if i lose the sure bet it won't be like i'm going to the gas chambers."

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, coolie.

Randall Parker said at July 10, 2005 9:42 AM:

Raj,

The immigration debate among the elites in Britain is further along than it is in the United States. That the LA Times and New York Times can't mention the elephant in the room is pathetic. This is why I'm a blogger. Some has to discuss the elephants.

Randall Parker said at July 10, 2005 2:05 PM:

Stephen erroneously states:

I think the only immigration statistic that really counts is the inter-group marriage rate.

If you believe that you do get to feel better about demographic trends in the United States. But you get that warm feeling at a considerable cost to all of us. Policy made on the basis of this incorrect feel-good belief produces more crime, more racial preferences, more taxes, more social pathology, more crowding, pollution and higher housing prices. (and I'm leaving out some stuff for brevity)

razib_the_atheist said at July 10, 2005 3:15 PM:

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, coolie.

i'm left speechless by such articulacy.

Stephen said at July 10, 2005 6:02 PM:

Randall, if people assimilate (the inter-marriage rate being a proxy for that measurement), then what's the problem? It seems to me that its a classic application of behavioural economics -- enlightened self-interest etc.

Randall Parker said at July 10, 2005 7:10 PM:

Stephen,

Assimilate to what? To urban ghetto culture? To methamphetamine-abusing trailer trash culture?

We are not a single culture. Our Catholics didn't all become Protestants. Our high plains Swedes and Norweigans are very different than the Scots-Irish in the Appalachians.

We are not a single homogeneous group with equal cognitive abilities. Plus, cognitive abilities are not assimilated for the most part.

Stephen said at July 10, 2005 11:32 PM:

My guess is that any ghetto is predominantly an ethnic monoculture. If that's the case then the ghetto's occupants would tend not to marry outside that ethnic culture (because a smaller proportion would tend to have intense relationships outside the group) and so, in so far as the ghetto is representative of that culture, that culture would tend to fail the inter-marriage test. By failing the test, that culture is restricting the flow of immigrant replacements, and without those replacements the natural attrition rate would tend to cause the ghetto to evaporate over time.

I agree entirely that the country is not a single culture, and that's why the test works ie all the test measures is the extent to which those immigrant cultures are willing to mix with people from other cultures, and conversely, the extent to which the incumbent cultures are willing to mix with the immigrant culture.

As for cognition, I'm not entirely happy with letting the government decide what is or isn't a valuable cognitive component - ie whose going to decide what mix of people we should have with bents for being creative, good at words, good with numbers, good spacial skills etc? So I'd rather leave it to the market (ie the general population) to determine what mix of cognitive abilities they value, and let natural selection take its course.

Randall Parker said at July 11, 2005 1:24 AM:

Stephen,

Leave it to the market? Should we leave the punishment of criminals to the market? Get the government out of running police departments, jails, and courts? Just let private individuals decide who to kill or who to imprison using their own money?

Also, if cognitively incompetent people vote idiots into power is that just the market in action?

Let natural selection take its place? So then do you advocate the abolishment of Medicare and the lifting of the requirement on emergency wards to treat all comers regardless of their ability to pay? The government subsidies and the forced subsidies by people who have insurance are paying for subsidise that prevent natural selection from taking its course.

I've given you lots of evidence of the many problems caused by immigration of the dummies. You seem to want to just wave away the evidence based on your faith in something. What faith is that?

Stephen said at July 11, 2005 6:07 PM:

Leave it to the market? Should we leave the punishment of criminals to the market? Get the government out of running police departments, jails, and courts? Just let private individuals decide who to kill or who to imprison using their own money?

I think you're constructing a straw man here. I've not argued that at all.

Also, if cognitively incompetent people vote idiots into power is that just the market in action?

But what aspects of cognition add up to voter competency? A voter might be competent when it comes to word skills, but incompetent when it comes to math skills. Which government department do you want to be in charge of deciding which competencies are worthy? In any event, surely voter incompetency would tend to cancel itself out when applied to candidates? As for candidate competency, what government department would you task with deciding the approved competencies for candidates?

Let natural selection take its place? So then do you advocate the abolishment of Medicare and the lifting of the requirement on emergency wards to treat all comers regardless of their ability to pay? The government subsidies and the forced subsidies by people who have insurance are paying for subsidise that prevent natural selection from taking its course.

More straw men.

I've given you lots of evidence of the many problems caused by immigration of the dummies. You seem to want to just wave away the evidence based on your faith in something. What faith is that?

Honestly I don't wave away the evidence, indeed, it has got me to thinking a lot about the problems (and whether they are problems, or whether they are merely symptoms of something deeper) and their causes, effects and solutions. I'm also thinking about whether the solutions have side-effects, both desirable and undesirable. I'm not yet persuaded that we know enough to justify messing with the fundamentals of society and democracy. When examining these areas I think it wise to follow Churchill:

"The genious springs from every class and from every part of the land. You cannot tell where you will not find a wonder. The hero, the fighter, the poet, the master of science, the organiser, the engineer, the administrator or the jurist - he may spring into fame. Equal opportunity for free institution and equal laws."

From my perspective, the question of who to let in is a lot more complicated than the question of whether to totally stop immigration.

Randall Parker said at July 11, 2005 11:18 PM:

Stephen,

You tried to pass off all the problems with immigration by claiming that as long as there is intermarriage there is no problem. I responded by pointing out that there are many external costs. You try to tell me I'm setting up straw men. Oh, come on.

Even intermarriage is not a solution to the terrorism threat when the immigrants are Muslims. Cross-religious couples in many cases raise their kid in one religion or the other. Muslim men who are firm believers are going to tend to demand that the religion for the kids will be theirs. Not that they are all intermarrying anyhow. Make a big enough immigrant population of one ethnicity and religion and they form their own communities. The less religious intermarry while the more religious do not.

Then you say "whether they are problems". I see some serious resistance to reality in that clause.

Solutions have side effects. Yes, of course.

Stopping immigration or putting requirements on immigratio is not "messing with the fundamentals of society and democracy" any more than our current immigration policy is "messing with the fundamentals of society and democracy".

As for this wishful bit of thinking:

"The genious springs from every class and from every part of the land. You cannot tell where you will not find a wonder.

There is something called probability. Let us turn that around. You can't tell where you will find a murderer. When you go out for a walk at night you might just as well walk through a ghetto as thru an upscale neighborhood. After all, you can't tell where you will find a murderer, rapist, or robber. But oh wait, in your own life you do make decisions based on probabilities.

What psychometrics tests of intelligence measure is predictive. (PDF format - you ought to read it) It finds, for example, that Australian men with IQs 85-100 twice the rate of vehicle deaths as men of 100+ IQ. Men below 85 IQ have 3 times the rate of vehicle deaths.

If you test people for IQ early in life you can predict that very few of the low IQ people will file patents, make scientific discoveries, become medical doctors, become airline pilots, or other cognitively demanding tasks. This is predictive Stephen.

yasarbinhasanbingursain said at November 13, 2007 7:20 AM:

salam this yasar iwant to be spy iam 16 . if can give me chance i can complete my studies to from abroad . i want be piot and a spy . i will scrafice my life for any muslim . insahallah if help me i will be thank ful to u sir . if reply me soon i will renew my passport . iam indian. but my grand father was from yemen.
thaning u


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright