2007 June 24 Sunday
Steve Sailer On Why Our Elites Wrong On Immigration

Steve Sailer lists a dozen reasons why America's elites can not think rationally about immigration.

1. An aversion to working with numbers is common among intellectuals and media types. For instance, it’s of some relevance to crafting immigration policy to know that 5 billion people live in countries with lower average per capita GDPs than Mexico. About a fifth of the 135 million people in the world of Mexican descent now reside in America, and another 40 million Mexicans tell pollsters they’d like to immigrate here. That suggests that if the Wall Street Journal editorial board had its way, and there were a constitutional amendment declaring, “There shall be open borders,” at least a billion foreigners would try to move here. At a minimum, this quick estimate suggests that the WSJ’s immigration views are mad. Yet these numbers are not at all well-known because few in public life have bothered to do the simple calculations required.

2. Views on illegal immigration may be the surest status symbol. A blithe attitude toward illegal immigration conveys your self-confidence that you don’t have to worry about competition from Latin American peasants and that you can afford to insulate your children from their children. Moreover, your desire to keep down the wages of nannies, housekeepers, and pool boys by importing more cheap labor advertises that you are a member of the servant-employing upper-middle class.

3. While libertarians enjoy displaying their feelings of economic superiority— their Randian confidence that they can claw their way to the top of the heap no matter how overcrowded it gets—liberals feel that laxity on illegal immigration shows off their moral superiority. Celebrating diversity has been promoted for a generation now as the highest imaginable ethical value, so the ambitious compete to be seen espousing most fervently the reigning civic religion and damning most loudly any heretics who dare to speak up.

The desire for higher status is a huge motivator for human behavior. Some whites attempt to signal their higher status by acting insouciant about things that make life much more difficult for lower class whites.

Since the New York Times doesn't report on the large ethnic crime rate differences our elites do not see fit to make immigration policy based on ethnic and racial crime rate differences.

6. Among the privileged, if a tree falls in the forest but it’s not reported in the New York Times, it never happened. For example, the best estimate is that the Latino crime rate is roughly triple the Anglo white rate, which would not come as much of a surprise to anybody who doesn’t live in a cave. Yet because the major media won’t note differences in mean crime rates by ethnicity, this fact is considered outside the limits of acceptable discussion of immigration.

Yet the upper class liberals know that the crime rates differ by race and therefore spend big bucks to live in neighborhoods that contain few if any members of high crime racial groups. They also spend big bucks to shield their kids from the lower IQ and higher crime ethnic groups in schools. They use euphemisms such as "failed schools" rather the far more accurate "bad students" to describe their motivations for doing this.

Read Steve's full list of reasons why our public intellectuals and rulers take up positions on immigration that mostly range from useless to damaging.

As for the desire of the rulers to avert their gaze from the truth: do not let them. Contact your Senators and tell them that on immigration you want them to represent you and not their own class interests. Then contact your Representative in House and do the same.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 June 24 02:28 PM  Immigration Elites Versus Masses


Comments
John S Bolton said at June 24, 2007 4:44 PM:

There is a grave difficulty for power-greedy elites in speaking rationally
on the subject of the desirability of mass immigration of undesirables.
If they were to do so, they would forfeit the chance to smear and 'diagnose'
all opponents of their openness-valuing position.

Mark said at June 24, 2007 4:56 PM:

The rich aren’t as bothered by illegals as much as everyone else.

The rich live in gated communities in which almost no illegal can afford.

Because the illegals live far away, the rich do not suffer very much from the crime that illegals cause.

The rich children go to private schools that illegals cannot afford.

The only time the rich really encounter illegals is when they want someone to fix their house or baby-sit their kids cheaply.

If the rich own their own business, the illegals also make for cheap workers.

No wonder the rich like the illegals more than everyone else.

John S Bolton said at June 24, 2007 6:54 PM:

Insofar as the rich are net taxpayers, and low-quality immigration is
shunted quickly on to net public subsidy, a great many of the rich
must lose by an increase in such immigration.
One has to look at nihilistic malice and power-greed
to explain these attitudes for the most part.

Stephen said at June 24, 2007 11:23 PM:
...and there were a constitutional amendment declaring, “There shall be open borders,” at least a billion foreigners would try to move here.

This is self-evident nonsense - if it were true, then I'd expect to see continued global migrations of billions of people as they move from one country to another, over and over again, in a never ending climb up the GDP rankings. Of course, that does not actually happen, and to think otherwise indicates paranoia. Another proof - just ask yourself, could you conceivably move to a state with higher GDP than the one in which you are currently domiciled? Yes? And yet you're reading Randall's blog instead, and implicitly undermining the argument of Randall and Mr Sailer.

Duffer said at June 25, 2007 12:18 AM:


Insofar as the rich are net taxpayers, and low-quality immigration is
shunted quickly on to net public subsidy, a great many of the rich
must lose by an increase in such immigration.

Unfotunately, the rich are nuch more likely to enjoy the fruits of illegal immigration than middle or lower class earners. Having low-cost workers subsidizes their higher-end lifestyles, in the form of lower costs for gardeners, pool cleaners, babysitters, restaurant staff, maintenance workers, etc. The few wealthy people who cut their own lawn, clean their own pools, and don't eat out a lot, would lose out, but there are precious few of them around.

John S Bolton said at June 25, 2007 12:31 AM:

Re: "continued global migrations of billions of people as they move from one country to another, over and over again, in a never ending climb up the GDP rankings. Of course, that does not actually happen, and to think otherwise indicates paranoia. Another proof - just ask yourself, could you conceivably move to a state with higher GDP than the one in which you are currently domiciled? Yes? And yet you're reading Randall's blog instead, and implicitly undermining the argument of Randall and Mr Sailer."
If rational arguments were available for zero immigration control,
it would not be necessary to try to 'diagnose' opponents as having paranoia.
People move and then stop, average age of populations makes a difference,
as to propensity to emigrate, there is no nonsense in projecting
very large migrations towards the rich countries, if permitted,
and even more so, if colonization be subsidized.
One may long for the simplicity of having one concept
to cover everyone, regardless of how hostile they may be, but the nation cannot mean less than that
we owe loyalty to the citizen, when foreigners increase aggression here by
moving inside our borders.

Stephen said at June 25, 2007 1:41 AM:

John, it might surprise you, but I'm actually in favour of zero economic migration from poor to rich countries. I think that such migration tends to skim-off the best & brightest from poor countries, and in the long run that drain of smart people makes poor countries less governable, ultimately leading to failed states.

I have had some small involvement in capacity building in 3rd world countries, and one of the biggest problems is that a poor country proportionally spends a huge amount of scarce resource educating their best people, only to watch them head to the west the day after graduation.

Kenelm Digby said at June 25, 2007 5:13 AM:

Stephen,
You've obviously never walked through the streets of London, England (gosh I'm beginning to echo Ralph McTell!), which are the most obvious and conculsive proof possible that the entire population of the third world *WOULD* move in on you if given half the chance.

John S Bolton said at June 25, 2007 7:17 PM:

What is known about this, is that with no restriction,
significant percentages, close to half, would move and stay,
even becoming stranded in spite of themselves,
where the public subsidies are best.
The largest counterexample is Brazil,
where the rich south remains largely uninfiltrated
by the poor masses of the tropical north, who migrate
hardly ever beyond the cities of the center, such as Rio and SP.
That may have changed by now though, and we will have another unspeakably horrific example of the destruction
of civilization by migration.

Randall Parker said at June 25, 2007 7:44 PM:

Stephen,

You are not thinking clearly. We do not currently have legal open borders. If we did, yes, hundreds of millions more would move here.

It is far easier for a Mexican to enter the US illegally than for a Chinese or Burmese or Korean or Nigerian. So we have far more illegal Mexicans than illegal Chinese, Burmese, Koreans, and Nigerians.

Do you think if the Caribbean dried up and we had a land border with Brazil that our illegal influx from Brazil wouldn't explode? Lower the legal barriers and then the physical barriers would become far less an obstacle.

The Wall Street Journal has lunatics writing their editorials.

Matt@occidentalism said at June 25, 2007 9:40 PM:

I wonder if the elite REALLY think they can internationalize themselves so they can move their capital and power to any place on earth they wish.

John S Bolton said at June 25, 2007 10:23 PM:

There are rich people, even quite right-wing ones, who
like to project the attitude that the future of America
is of no great concern to them, and they tell you that they
can move on, to someplace like Switzerland.
Maybe they can, and maybe they can't, but you know they don't like it
if someone tells them that multiyear rentals in Hong Kong
are not to be offered to whites for any amount of money.
A status competition in nihilism, is a very self-contradictory affair.
If the deluge is coming in ten years, so that continuity
doesn't matter, why should one care about careers and such now?
Other means of status competition could signal even higher status:
if my social position is so assured that I can say what would
get others discharged and ineligible for club memberships,
that would seem to trump the kind described above.
If you do, however encounter those resembling the
status-signallers mentioned by Sailer, and they offend you, call them
Dhimmi.
The dhimmi is second-class to the moslem,
and well-describes the PC types.

Kurt9 said at June 27, 2007 4:40 PM:

I was pouring through the immigration bill (S 1639) as well as current code (8 USC 1151, etc.). I found something called the "diversity immigration visa". In this, 55,000 immigrant visas are issued on the basis of a lottery (i.e. luck).

Can someone here tell me what moron came up with this idiocy back in 1990?

Mark said at June 27, 2007 9:17 PM:

I'll buy this argument from redstate:

http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/rumors_in_the_congress

The Democrats don't want a guest worker program. They really don't want that. They don't want skills based immigration either.

They do want to massively bloody the Republicans. They are more than willing to assist Bush in destroying the Republicans.

I don't think they want a deal right now when there is so likely a chance that they will strengthen their hold on the legislative branch and possibly have the executive branch in about 19-18 months.


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 ©