2005 October 12 Wednesday
Immigration To America Increases Total World Population
Evidence from a new study by Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies strongly suggests that allowing poor folks from less developed countries to immigrate to America increases their fertility and therefore increases world population growth.
In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top-10 immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries a 23-percent difference.
Among Mexican immigrants in the United States, for example, fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children per women in Mexico. Among Chinese immigrants, fertility is 2.3 in the United States compared to 1.7 in China. Immigrants from Canada have 1.9 children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.
While immigrants from the top-10-sending countries have more children than women in their home counties, for immigrants from three countries India, Vietnam, and the Philippines immigrant fertility is lower in the United States than in their home countries.
Immigrants in the United States can differ in important ways from the general population of the countries they come from. If we adjust for their education level, which is a good predictor of fertility, we find that the gap with their home countries actually grows from being 23 percent higher to 33 percent higher.
Why would this be? They can afford more kids in the United States. If you think, like I do, that the world already has too many people then this result is yet another reason to oppose high levels of immigration.
Put a different way, given the education level of immigrants and the fertility of similarly educated women in their home countries, one would expected immigrants from the top sending countries to have 2.15 children on average in the United States, not the 2.9 they actually do have.
As for legal status, we estimate that the birth rate of illegal alien women was 3.1 children on average in 2002, or about 50 percent higher than the two children natives have on average. The birth rate for legal immigrants is 2.6, or about one-third higher than that of natives.
The high fertility rate of illegal aliens seems to be due primarily to factors other than their legal status, such as culture and educational attainment.
10% of all births in the United States are to illegal aliens. Time to deport them. Time to build a wall with Mexico and stop lettting them get in. Time to start enforcing labor laws against employers who hire illegal aliens.
We have previously estimated from birth records that there were 380,000 births to illegal aliens in 2002, accounting for nearly 10 percent of all births in the United States.
If illegals are allowed to remain in the country, either as illegal aliens or legal residents, births alone will add some four million people to the U.S. population over the next decade.
While immigrant fertility is significantly higher than that of natives, their presence in the United States is not the reason the overall fertility rate in the United States is much higher than in other western countries. Fertility in the U.S. is roughly 2.0 children, with or without immigrants.
New immigrants (legal and illegal) plus births to immigrants add some 2.3 million people to the United States each year, accounting for most of the nations population increase.
Immigrant fertility differs by education level much more than that of natives. For example, immigrants without a high school degree have 3.3 children on average, 74 percent higher than the 1.9 children for college graduate immigrants. In contrast, native high school dropouts have 2.3 children on average, only 27 percent higher than the 1.8 fertility for native college graduates.
Because immigrant fertility differs so much by education, immigrants now account for more than one in three births to mothers without a high school diploma.
Stop letting in the dummies. Stop letting in the poorly educated and low skilled. Stop subjecting ourselves to "getting hit on the head lessons".
Bottom line: immigration to the US boosts the fertility of the immigrants. So our population grows more rapidly and the whole world's population grows more rapidly. Worse yet, the least educated are popping out the babies most rapidly and their kids achieve far less in education and income. Plus, those poor folks get their medical costs and other costs of raising children paid for by taxes on the higher income natives.
This reminds me of the Walker thesis, where emigration is said to raise the birth rates of the sending countries. It was developed by Francis Amasa Walker, over 100 years ago, and still shows good, but not absolute coreelation with the facts of the world. Did these researchers control for the age differential between populations, though, considering that immigrants tend to be more concentrated in peak chilbearing years than the source populations? In general, net public subsidy of immigration is likely to increase the fertility of immigrants and their source populations. The evil of this lies in the increase of the aggression on the net taxpayer. Today, the children of foreign born are over 20% of those enrolled in public schools, while the foreign born in their totality, are only around 10% of the population. Census.gov, 'facts for features' 'back to school', has this information
"Today, the children of foreign born are over 20% of those enrolled in public schools"
Another reason why I vote against every school bond measure.
Consider a Guatemalan Indian and his bride sneak across the border and begin the raise
a family. The wife works as a maid in a hotel and her husband as bellboy. Together they
make $25 or 30,000 per year. They have but two children. The annual expenditure per student
in the school district their children attend is $8000 per year. This does not include the
schools capital plant which was funded through earlier bond issues.
Obviously this charming couple cannot begin to pay for just their children's education out
of their paychecks no matter how many lotto tickets they buy, to say nothing of the other
social and infrastructure costs they impose on society.
Their total utility is to increase the profit margin and reduce, somewhat, the cost of
operation of the hotel they work at. Big deal. I'd rather pay $10 more per night when I'm
a hotel guest than pay a couple of thousand dollars a year extra in property taxes just
so they can enjoy a better life in America. Hell, I'd just as soon given them a $1000/year
just to stay in Guatemala.
Then we have to consider the potential of their children. Given their background, both
genetic and social, it is very unlikely we are going to see any Nobel prize winners unless
it is of the Rigaberto Menchu variety. We will be lucky if their children merely attain the
status of lower middleclass in 25 years. Sorry, but I've had it with these folks turning
huge sections of our country into Latin American slums. I also would like someone to
explain to me how a mother and father can bestow upon their children something that they
themselves did not lawfully possess, i.e. citizenship. A burglar does not acquire title
to a home merely because he broke into it and any attempt by him to transfer a right to
that property, even though he maybe in possession of it is void.
"for immigrants from three countries India, Vietnam, and the Philippines immigrant fertility is lower in the United States than in their home countries"
For India at least, this may not be true. I'm an Indian here in the US. The norm among Indians in the US is to have two children. However in India, it's very common for middle/upper class people to have just one child. I would think that a lot of the Indians here in the US would have had one child if they had been in India.
Indian feritility rates vary greatly among people among people of different social classes and different ethinic groups. Peoples with high ferterility in India, who mostly do not come to the United States, could be masking this fertility increase in Indian immigrants.
"The annual expenditure per student in the school district their children attend is $8000 per year. This does not include the schools capital plant which was funded through earlier bond issues." Hugh Angell
Not only does it cost more to educate ESL children, these costs make it less likely that the children of US citizens attending these schools will get the kind of education needed to succeed today. There are numerous laws regarding how public schools must provide an "appropriate" education to children with special problems, including an inability to speak and understand instruction in English. These requirements can be very expensive, including teachers with special language skills. However, there are no laws requiring public schools to provide students with a sound math and science education, including well-stocked and up-to-date labs and teachers well-versed in math and science. When money is an issue - and whenever is it not? - guess which choice is made. Then everybody wonders why the US spends so much money on schools while the quality of education at most public schools goes down. It's simple when you think about it.
Shouldn't you normalize by wealth?
I'm certain even illegals in the US are more wealthy _because_ they came, and certainly more wealthy than the average in their home countries.
If you had numbers like these, you could say either:
"while they have more children, an immigrant family is still more wealthy after immigrating."
"despite moving to a richer country, an immigrant family becomes more poor after immigrating because of higher fertility".
Also, I noticed you ignord this story:
Because U.S. and foreign born workers belong to different skill groups that are imperfectly substitutable, one needs to articulate a production function that aggregates different types of labor (and accounts for complementarity and substitution effects) in order to calculate the various effects of immigrant labor on U.S.-born labor. We introduce such a production function, making the crucial assumption that U.S. and foreign-born workers with similar education and experience levels may nevertheless be imperfectly substitutable, and allowing for endogenous capital accumulation. This function successfully accounts for the negative impact of the relative skill levels of immigrants on the relative wages of U.S. workers. However, contrary to the findings of previous literature, overall immigration generates a large positive effect on the average wages of U.S.-born workers. We show evidence of this positive effect by estimating the impact of immigration on both average wages and housing values across U.S. metropolitan areas (1970-2000). We also reproduce this positive effect by simulating the behavior of average wages and housing prices in an open city-economy, with optimizing U.S.-born agents who respond to an inflow of foreign-born workers of the size and composition comparable to the immigration of the 1990s.
Perhaps you should advocate something very simple, many people can get their heads behind:
Enforce border security, while increasing legal immigration by allowing those with high IQ (e.g. 120+) or high educations to enter.
There are two barriers to fixing the present situation.
The first, which has been examined many times on Randall's site, is the taboo against discussing intelligence in different groups, social classes or segments of the population. People are equal in the eyes of God, and should be in the eyes of the law, but that's where it stops. They are not equal in intelligence or in what they can contribute to society, and the refusal to acknowledge any such differences means policies about population growth and immigration are based on assumptions that are not only false, but incapable of correction because they must be ignored to be politically correct.
Second, it seems impossible to convince the great majority of Americans that population growth is not an indication of progress. Maybe it's because growth is such a holy grail in the business world and people don't understand that economic growth and population growth have no necessary correlation.
The negative effects of population growth are all about us congestion on the roads, ever-greater sprawling of cities but few among the chattering classes ever connect such malign developments with population. They talk as though cars and shopping malls generate spontaneously or are a plot by evil developers. But there are more cars and more malls because there are more people all the time. And the academics who should be thinking all this through have no contribution to make except to recommend that we save open space by stacking people up in high-density housing and hector everybody to bicycle or ride in car pools to work.
This blindness to the two major contributors to social and environmental degradation is not only creating huge islands of poverty and dysfunction into which our national wealth must be drip-fed to stave off chaos, but bringing to middle-class life more and more of the traditional inner-city problems exacerbated by crowding.
So If only high IQ people were allowed to immigrate to the U.S. , thier birthrates would be raised, resulting in a net average IQ boosting effect for the world on average (and all the rise would be in the U.S.!). This would raise average world utility. More smart people on earth would raise the returns for being lower IQ, since It seems they are complementary.
also, Randy can you find any fallacies in that story Ivan Kirigin said you ignored (on Marginal Revolution)? I am skeptical of it. It seems to contradict the laws of supply and demand, and the work of Borjas, but I am no economist.
Regarding the Marginal Revolution story, it states that immigration raises the AVERAGE wage of US born workers. Maybe this is accomplished with most of the gains going to highly skilled, well paid workers. A small percentage increase in wages among the top 10% could easily make up for a much larger percentage decrease in wages for the bottom 20%. They don't seem to address at all what immigration does to the wages of High School dropouts, or other low skilled workers. We could let in 5 million illegal immigrants, and have basically no effect on the supply of engineers and accountants. Janitors on the other hand may not be so happy with the result.
This is interesting. An increase in wages of high-wage workers means more tax revenue, as the vast majority of revenues come from the most rich. An decrease in wages at the bottom might cause more government spending on 'entitlements' such as welfare, medical care, unemployment, etc.
From a policy perspective, you would have to know the exact distribution to glean benefit or harm.
Further, you need to take into account the remittance payments by immigrants making more money than before immigrating.
Also, you can take into account studies like the MR one I linked. [On a side note isnt it good to lower the wages of non-immigrant unskilled workers and high school drop-outs? What better incentive program, when combined with duration limited welfare?]
The situation is complicated. Considering that free trade has happened in goods and services but not labor, I support more immigration. If complaints of the inherent negative impact of immigrants are valid (caused by lower average group IQ or worse culture or lower class/education -- who cares which?), filter the immigrants.
I think we all agree the present state of not enforcing laws is bad. I would say a simple reaction to only build a bigger fence is inappropriate.
The report Tyler links to about immigration effects on labor prices contradicts what Harvard labor economist George Borjas has found. Borjas has found that the law of supply and demand works in labor markets just as it does in other markets. Increase supply and prices fall.
Tyler likes immigration. I just used the word "Borjas" in a Google search on MarginalRevolution.com and found no matches. You might ask him why he never links to reports from the leading expert on immigration labor economics.
Note the mention of housing values in that study. If they are arguing that immigration drives up housing prices and are including housing price appreciation in income then that is retarded. What abou the next generation that has to pay more for houses?
Intuitively Borjas makes more sense. By "ignored" I should have said "hadn't seen or hadn't commented about".
Still, it seems the problem isn't really about immigration. Unreasonable theft from taxpayers to give to those whose lot in life is a product of their choices (most especially immigrants who chose to come to this country) is bad. Our over-funded but horribly government-administered education is bad, regardless of the number of immigrants (government funded but market administered makes so much more sense).
In that regard, I really don't care how many poor, low-skilled people there are. It's only about what others say I owe them.
Perhaps I have this view, in part, because I expect automation to become much more powerful in the near term (I am a roboticist working in computer vision). It doesn't really matter how many people are low-skilled today, because most of the current viable service jobs will disappear in as little as a 5 year span starting 8-10 years from now. I am a firm believer in the unambiguous benefit of increased productivity, but we need to reinforce the culture of self-reliance. A very large mass of people will need to learn a great deal to stay competitive.
Thankfully, automation in education should rise as well :)
Ivan Kirigin writes:
[On a side note isnt it good to lower the wages of non-immigrant unskilled workers and high school drop-outs? What better incentive program, when combined with duration limited welfare?]
Ivan, even with very limited welfare, declining wages for unskilled workers seems to be more of an incentive for them not to work. Even without welfare, you can sell drugs, rob people, bum off your parents, etc. etc .. Your fallacy seems to be in believing that anyone can be anything if they just try hard enough. All those poor natives that are being displaced by immigrants have to do is start studying and go to college, trade school, or whatever. But IQ is pretty static throughout peoples lifetimes, and that is a huge factor in success in life. In other words, no matter how hard they try, most low IQ americans are pretty much screwed by massive unskilled immigration.
Ivan Kirigin writes:
[If complaints of the inherent negative impact of immigrants are valid (caused by lower average group IQ or worse culture or lower class/education -- who cares which?), filter the immigrants.]
Discussion of group differences in IQ as well as the superiority/inferiority of different cultures is pretty much off limits. Think of the impact of a policy in which only high IQ people were allowed to immigrate. Hispanic numbers would plummet, and African numbers would plummet even more. Asians would probably be admmitted in huge numbers. Do you really think that would fly? Liberals, Democrats, and many Republicans would absolutely scream, as would ethnic interest groups. Why advocate a policy that will never happen in PC america? Immigration restriction, because it can be race/IQ neutral, is a solution that might actually happen in America before hell freezes over.
Ivan Kirigin writes:
[It doesn't really matter how many people are low-skilled today, because most of the current viable service jobs will disappear in as little as a 5 year span starting 8-10 years from now. I am a firm believer in the unambiguous benefit of increased productivity, but we need to reinforce the culture of self-reliance. A very large mass of people will need to learn a great deal to stay competitive.]
So in other words, all low-skilled people are going to be made obsolete anyway, so it doesn't matter how low thier wages are driven by mass immigration? No, it seems that a)robotization is an argument against low-skilled immigration, because we won't need them and will still have to take care of them once they aren't needed. Why make it harder on low-skilled/low IQ people if they are going to be less and less needed anyway? And once again, Low IQ people are generally low IQ for life. It's not just a matter of trying harder. b)all that low-skilled immigration will slow robotization, because wages will stay low enough to make labor still the good choice for a long time (japan is roboticizing faster than the U.S. and they have virtually no immigration, those two things *are* connected).
And about Libertarianism: More Low-IQ people will undermine this, no matter what the strength of your ideas. More low-IQ people equals more socialism and more welfare, in a democracy. An america with tons of low-skilled/low IQ people, but no welfare may seem fine to you, but those two things are virtually contradictions (unless low-IQ/low skilled workers are dissenfranchised, a political impossibility).
Poor people vote. They vote for wealth redistribution. Hispanic and black poor people vote for wealth redistribution even more than white poor people. Let in lots of Hispanics and the Libertarian dream becomes even less likely to happen.
Lots of libertarians favor open borders. But open borders leads to more welfare state.
Today (not in the robotic near future), you can be self reliant on a low-skill wage. This means that working harder, even with a low IQ that only affords a low-paying job, can avoid the doll. I suppose this belief is irrelevant if, in fact, the culture is to demand others work for those who wont work for themselves.
This ill culture should be solved sooner, rather than later. It isn't a vile foreign element seeping through our borders. It is domestic.
"Immigration restriction, because it can be race/IQ neutral, is a solution that might actually happen in America before hell freezes over."
Restriction based on education and IQ can be group/race neutral. If group differences cause certain groups to pass more, so be it. The policy can be proposed without mentioning potential group differences.
"a) robotization is an argument against low-skilled immigration, because we won't need them and will still have to take care of them once they aren't needed."
The gravity of this huge leap in productivity needs to be appreciated. A welfare state is cheap if labor is far cheaper than the cost of taking care of a human.
"b)all that low-skilled immigration will slow robotization, because wages will stay low enough to make labor still the good choice for a long time (japan is roboticizing faster than the U.S. and they have virtually no immigration, those two things *are* connected)."
Related to what I just mentioned: a robot will be cheaper than a low-skilled laborer. This isn't a matter of economies of scale, making lower wages slow advancement. It is a matter of getting a technology that works, and adopting it as fast as possible. The research for this technology is large everywhere, not just Japan, because of the well funded US military initiatives. The same sensors and technology which allows a car to drive 20mph off-road can be used to navigate around a house. Add just a bit more functionality, and you have a robotic aide for the elderly which will last a decade but cost less than a year's salary of a live-in nurse. This kind of order-of-magnitude drop in cost for a service makes low-skilled labor (and non-creative high-skilled labor) irrelevant.
The bottom line: more low-skill workers won't slow adoption of this technology. The growth in immigration in recent years coincides with a large growth in research funding in robotics, from aibos to roomba to the Grand Challenge.
"Lots of libertarians favor open borders. But open borders leads to more welfare state."
You're talking about minorities. They tip the political landscape, but don't decide it. Without native support, there would be no such corruption of the limited government principles this country was founded upon. Further, Hispanics do not vote for the left nearly as predominantly as blacks. Either way, I'm not willing to disfavor immigration because of the way I expect immigrants to vote.
Ivan Kirigin writes:
[Restriction based on education and IQ can be group/race neutral. If group differences cause certain groups to pass more, so be it. The policy can be proposed without mentioning potential group differences.]
The "disproportionate impact" on different races would surely be brought up in a national discussion, despite the legislations race-neutrality. Think of affirmative action which pervades much of private and public american life. The fact that SAT tests don't explicitly discriminate by race has not stopped affirmative action in college admissions. Employers are not allowed to give IQ tests, so how would anything like them be allowed for immigration? Remember, the U.S. is 27% black and hispanic, so despite claims of race-neutrality, this will not be allowed to happen. I acknowledge that the proposal is not racist, but for sure it will be called racist. Every second that goes by this becomes more true, as hispanic numbers and influence grow. Remember, Canada instituted a selective immigration policy back when they had very few underperforming minorities to protest about disproportionate impact (and Political Correctness was less ascendent), and Australia is conveniently located in Asia.
Furthermore, mass immigration of high IQ immigrants, though they would be extremely valuble to america as a whole, would not be tolerated by americas high IQ elites. It would be competition for them, in high up jobs and in top university positions/admissions. Don't high IQ elites have a disproportionate impact on policies?
A liberal-black-hispanic-high IQ alliance would surely kill IQ based immigration restriction in the cradle. Blanket immigration restriction seems like a policy that could actually happen, so I will spend my time advocating that.
Ivan Kirigin writes:
"Lots of libertarians favor open borders. But open borders leads to more welfare state."
You're talking about minorities. They tip the political landscape, but don't decide it. Without native support, there would be no such corruption of the limited government principles this country was founded upon. Further, Hispanics do not vote for the left nearly as predominantly as blacks. Either way, I'm not willing to disfavor immigration because of the way I expect immigrants to vote.]
Can you deny that California becoming a Democrat lockdown had anything to do with massive immigration? Can you deny that it will happen to more and more states in the southwest because of massive immigration? It is not a farfetched prediction! That doesn't help economic libertarianism at all. And speaking of "native support" for "corruption of limited government principals", when unskilled natives get thier wages driven down by mass-immigration (remember, the study cited by marginal revolution spoke of "average wages"), they are more prone to vote against limited government and for government intervention. It's left leaning immigrants driving poor natives leftward as well. That's no recipe for libertarianism.
Humanity is not compatible with libertarianism.
You are making the same mistakes the communists made. You desire an ideal society that is not achievable in this world with human nature. If humanity was more compatible with your ideals then governments would already be smaller and less invasive.
You have a moral responsibility to not make the perfect the enemy of the good. You have a moral responsibiliy to not make the same kind of mistake that the communist idealists made.
You need to accept that not everyone has the capacity or the motivation to respect the rights of others. You need to accept that, on average, the races differ in their capacities to respect rights. You need to accept that people with lower average IQs are more likely to be needy, more likely to ask for government help, more likely to vote for it, and that there's a large fraction of the total population that will support their desires.
You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. Stop doing that.
Thank you, Randall, for this clarification and the interesting parallelism between ostensibly different ideologies. Perhaps herein lies a genuine gap between a market fundamentalist social-darwinism (Ivan) and how shall I call it a patriotic stern conservatism (you) which I did not adequately take into account. (I'm not yet sure about it, nor convinced of the only negative connotations you see in the idea of "welfare state", I'll try to figure this out better over the weeks and months to come).
Only one question, concerning your last but one paragraph: Does this "large fraction of (..) total population" include you, and if not, is this kind of recognition of an irremediable human imperfectness not enough to make it (the named propensity of many) morally normative? Aren't you then holding an essentially elitist philosophy of life as you suppose the average American should better jump (with you) to your conclusion that it's time for a new closed-borders idea of patriotism, which is but not, as yet, explicitly seen as filling the American tradition? And in that case (elitist philosophy), doesn't that run counter to the basic idea of democracy (which is not holy, but, as I think, rightly the most cherished cultural heirloom of western societies)?
[Sorry if I sound stubborn to you: I'm trying to elicit clear statements from you to help my above mentioned own orientation, concerning the interplay of morality as empathy (with a view on economics and democracy) on the one hand and morality as discipline (with a view to patriotism and recognition of hard facts) on the other.]
As for negative connotations of the welfare state: It is as much a symptom as it is a problem. The lower the percentage of a society that needs or thinks it needs the welfare state the more healthy the society is going to be.
Look at the correlation between good governance and IQ. Or check out this gif graph from Linda Gottfredson on IQ and various indices including being a chronic welfare recipient (same graph here). The welfare state grows as a result of having large numbers of low IQ people who can not hack it.
A lot of reality-denying conservatives who do not want to admit publically to the importance of IQ (in part due to the race taboo coming from the Left but for other reasons as well) make the argument that the welfare state causes all the pathology of the lower class. Well, the welfare state exacerbates the problem. But if we could magically boost the IQ of the average welfare recipient by 30 points the ranks of those on welfare would rapidly shrink even without changes in eligibility rules.
Does the large fraction of the population include me: Well, we are all flawed to varying degrees. As Jesus said "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (perhaps not an exact quote). But I'm talking about average differences between groups that are easy to see as making a huge difference in the odds of crime, government corruption, unemployment, illegitimate children, child abuse, etc. Why are Brazil so much poorer and corrupt than the United States? Genetics. Why is Finland so much less corrupt than the United States? Genetics.
Elitist philosophy: So if I'm not promoting an idea that the majority agrees with I'm elitist? If that is elitism and elitism is bad then you are saying that no one should promote an idea that the majority does not already agree with.
BTW, the idea of closed borders on immigration is not new. I'm promoting the return to an old idea. When I was born that idea was in effect as official policy.
Lots of rearranging of the deck chairs on this thread. But here is the logical destination of the arguments: the sad reality of race is upon us like the heaviest weight and no fancy intellectual footwork will avoid this burden.
We are faced with the awful history: the race wars of all recorded millenia (In fact, evidence suggests homo sapiens genocided the neanderthals). There is the violent exits of Greece and Rome from the world stage. Then the bitter legacy of the Nazis leading to the Islamization of Europe and the browning of America.
What's an intelligent person to do? It's obvious that the solution to innumerable social ills is to create/retain the whitest society possible. That is the uncomfortable truth. I would include Asians except their IQ is heavily weighted away from verbal which produces their awful political dead end societies.
But building a white society today is utterly taboo. So we are left rearranging the deck chairs knowing full well that jiggering of the government structures is just so much window dressing. We are on the downside of empire. All of the unproductive squabbling and failure to alter our future course confirms this.
Think of the impact of a policy in which only high IQ people were allowed to immigrate. Hispanic numbers would plummet, and African numbers would plummet even more. Asians would probably be admmitted in huge numbers. Do you really think that would fly?
Mass Asian immigration is not the path to a bright Western future. You cannot swap out white Westerners for Asians in our society without huge ramifications. You can see how the new de-Westernized Ivy League (with it's majority contingent of Asians and Jews) has deteriorated as a result of this swapping out process. It is a disaster.
The Asian IQ is verbally "challenged". This characteristic has an enormous cultural impact. Obviously.
There is some literature out there describing the new Jewish/Asian high IQ vanguard. Where these two groups will compliment each other and build a brave new world. So be it. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Because that brave new world will be anti-Western and - from our frame of reference - just another nightmare. Utterly contemptuous of liberty and individual freedom.
Diaspora Jews are culturally incapable of promoting true freedom for all...because that means a lack of control of the scary gentiles that surround them.
The Asians are conformists to their very core. Do not look to them to carry the torch of liberty.
Sorry to be so politically incorrect.
You will of course hear differently at places like GNXP. But the bottom line is race matters. Asians can never be Westerners just as whites can never be Chinese or Japanese. Mass importation of low IQs or high IQs means the end of the West - which means of course plunging the world into a new dark age.
Jorge, have you read Steve Sailors essay on citizenism? Here are a few choice quotes:
[Yet the only scenario likely to make white nationalism effective as an electoral force within, say, three decades would be the utter failure of our current attempts to limit immigration.
Moreover, making immigration restriction into a white nationalist crusade would wreck the chances of immigration reform passing.
As Talleyrand might have said, "White Nationalism is worse than a crime, it's a mistake."]
By the way, I am not calling you a white nationalist.