2007 June 07 Thursday
Immigrant Groups Vary Enormously In Skills
Steve Sailer points to the huge quality gap between different kinds of immigrants.
Mexican mediocrity -- A chart
in the NYT graphically illustrates the mediocrity of the human capital that recent Mexican immigrants (legal and whichever illegal ones the Census Bureau could find) bring. While over 40% of recent immigrants from India have an advanced degree, only about 1% of Mexican immigrants do. Over 60% of Mexican immigrants have less than a high school diploma. While about 20% of African immigrants work in "science, engineering, technology, or health," only about 1% of Mexicans do. Almost three times the proportion of Filipino immigrants claim to speak English "very well" as do Mexican immigrants.
We could and should stop all low quality immigration. We could demand that all immigrants have skills that make them highly productive and big contributors to the economic health of America. We could do this. But purveyors of lies do not want us to draw obvious distinctions between groups of people. We are supposed to believe the myth that we really are all created equal in ability and motivation and character.
Greater selectivity on who gets in would reduce the problems caused by immigrants.
I'm often denounced for drawing attention to the salience of race and ethnicity to immigration policy. Under an ideal immigration system -- limited numbers of legal immigrants chosen for their high human capital rather than for family connections -- race and ethnicity would be much less relevant a question. India, for example, is not high IQ region on the whole. If we imported millions of random Indians we would have trouble. But, because Indian immigrants tend to be selected for skills, assimilation into middle class America is less of a problem for them.
America is no longer a huge empty frontier. Even 50 years ago we had huge coastlines with few residents. But we have reached a population size where natives are moving away from the crowded costly coastal states and they are moving to get away from Third World immigrants. Immigration has ceased to be a net benefit. The frontier has closed. We should let in far fewer immigrants and do so far more selectively.
Throughout much of the world, US citizenship is viewed as the gold standard. Go to some third world dungheap country and ask the locals, if they could have free citizenship in any one country in the world, which one would they choose, and a surprisingly large number will say the US. Yes, many other countries, mostly European, offer better social welfare benefits to their citizens, but the US has a combination of a high per capita GDP, relatively low unemployment, lots of opportunities and a tradition of welcoming immigrants. Immigration should be limited to high IQ/high net worth individuals who are going to start businesses, create jobs or win Nobel prizes. Importing lots of grunt labor from Latin America is sheer stupidity.
"Immigration has ceased to be a net benefit. The frontier has closed. We should let in far fewer immigrants and do so far more selectively."
Consider that we just celebrated - oops, "commemorated" - the 400th anniversary of the settling of Jamestown.
What does that mean? Well for starters, it means that history covers a long, long stretch of time. Even that 400 years is barely a blip in historical terms; and yet our immigration policies are designed as if there is no tomorrow. "Why worry about bringing in 2 million more people a year? Hell, that's not even 1% of the population!"
True, but you're doing that each and every year, year after year after year. That 0.67% adds up, especially if the newcomers are breeding at faster rates (which, given the fact that their wives have fewer material expectations, they will ALWAYS do.) At current rates of immigration, our population will be over 600 million by the end of the century - more than double our current size. If this amnesty passes - I still think it will - the population by 2099 will be even greater: 700 million or more. (Consider that China, which is the same size as the US, instituted its one child policy when its population was right around 1,000 million.) For one thing, illegal immigration will certainly increase. The newly amnestied will move into better paying jobs that, for credentialing reasons (sometimes as simple as a driver's license), require legal status. New illegals WILL take their places. For another, it increases "family reunification" visas by 500,000 for 8 solid years. Given the way family reunification works - immigrants are allowed to sponsor adult siblings, and their spouses, and their spouse's siblings, ad infinitum - there is NEVER a point at which you can say "Every family has been reunified." And when was the last time Congress actually cut the numbers of immigrants allowed into this country - 1924? Right now immigrants and minority groups (Asians & Hispanics) that benefit by far the most from immigration make up only about 10% of the voting population, and politicians are scared of offending them. How much more scared will they be when that number is 15 or 20%, which it WILL be a decade hence? In ten years, there will not be fewer, but instead far many more people demanding their families be "reunified."
Not long ago, a DNA study was published that showed that, contrary to popular belief, most of the gene pool of Britain (ca. 70%) was contributed by the people who first settled the island after the end of the last ice age - 8,000 years ago. For a long time, the CW has been that Britains were mostly descendants of invaders like Celts, Vikings, Normans, Romans, and Germanic tribesmen. But over 2,000 years of such "invasions" barely managed to alter the gene pool by 20%. And yet, in the space of a mere generation or two, Britain has altered its gene pool, through "immigration," by over 10%. Common sense demands to know: Which group of people were the immigrants, and which were the invaders? Which group of people - the ancients, or us - has taken the more responsible, long-term view towards the interests of OUR descendants? And which people - the ancients or us - are in the grip of a dumb, dangerous, destructive, and superstitious dogma?
Further to Craig's post, I would like to add this comment.
There will, of course, come a time in the not too-distant future that the combined mass of mestizo and other 'recent' non-White immigrants from such places as India, Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc will form if not an actual majority of those of voting age but a very large and powerful voting bloc - united by one common interest and one common interest only - How to get starving 'auntie Maria' out of her hovel and into the USA.
Of course, this voting bloc will articulate this demand to the political powers then extant - it will be conditional for any politician seeking re-election to support the demand of allowing all co-ethnics of the distressed non-White classes the unequivocal right of fre entry as they demand it.
This is entirely consistent with the theory of 'Ethnic Genetic Interests' as proposed by Dr. F. Salter.
At that point 'immigration law' will be a non-existant concept.
The only limit to entry will be the extent to which the USA is pauperized due to wage competition.
What about the Native (red)Indians who were chased out of their lands mate? You ought to remember that each one of you American whites are invaders in that country. Certain sensible leaders chose to continue with immigration policy as they are well aware that America is what it is today because of significant contribution from its vast pool of immigrants. I frimly believe that the greater context of the problem lies in appropriately dealing with unskilled/illegal workforce and not controlling the "gene pool" of other races.
Your comments clearly indicate that you reek in ignorance! Learn to live and let live!