2011 November 23 Wednesday
Chinese Get Rich And Leave China

The demand for rule of law, high quality medical care, and a few attributes of modern British-founded countries makes them very attractive to wealthy Chinese.

What began as a trickle a decade ago when Li moved his family to Canada has become a flood as China’s new rich seek foreign passports or residency permits (commonly known as green cards in the U.S.) largely from the U.S., Canada, Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand. More than 500,000 Chinese have investable assets of over 10 million yuan ($1.57 million), according to a joint survey released in April by China Merchants Bank and Bain & Co. The study says almost 60 percent are considering emigrating, have begun the process, or have emigrated.

This is quite the opposite of the Ellis Island mythology of "give us your poor". That's so 19th century. Now its "give us your rich". Someone tell Newt Gingrich. If we only let in the rich and the very smart we'd be much better off.

Update: On the other hand, with more imported rich people we'd then have even more wealthy people bidding for influence over national government. They'd have even more allegiances to something other than the commonwealth. Would that make government even more an enemy of the people than it has already become?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2011 November 23 07:24 PM  China People


Comments
Kudzu Bob said at November 23, 2011 8:45 PM:

If we only let in the rich and the very smart we'd be much better off.

Let us not get carried away here. While the stupidity of admitting low-IQ Third Worlders is obvious, letting in the smart ones might not prove such a great idea either.

Countries run into trouble when the interests of the masses and the elites diverge too much, as we are now finding out.

If we admit a bunch of super-smart, rich Asians into America, where they or their children will presumably become part of the ruling stratum, how much sympathy will they have for ordinary white people? Based on how the Chinese elites treat their own kind, I am less than optimistic that the outcome would be a good one.

Taylor said at November 24, 2011 12:58 AM:

"If we admit a bunch of super-smart, rich Asians into America, where they or their children will presumably become part of the ruling stratum, how much sympathy will they have for ordinary white people?"

You're assuming Randall gives a shit. He's a transhumanist libertarian. He'd sell any of us out to have a shot at being a brain in a vat someday.

Mondragon said at November 24, 2011 1:21 AM:

When immigrant entrepreneurs from the Indian subcontinent, China and the rest of East Asia are no longer recipients of tens of Billions in 'Affirmative Action' contracts and business financing annually that are excluded to native, semi-indigenous, European Americans (Second Nations, aka non-hispanic white Americans), then I will be a little less concerned. When any of these immigrant entrepreneurs and their organizations speak out against such discrimination instead of wildly supporting and promoting it as they do now, let me know. Until then I don't want to admit any immigrants that the government has decided to discriminate in favor of, over me and my children.

Business is competition. The competition happens over and over again, year in, year out. If ethnically favored groups of businessmen are given financial advantages by multiple layers of government and corporations, year in and year out, for over 30 years with no end in sight, advantages not available to other (non-hispanic white) businessmen, on top of the business advantages the favored group has as a cooperating, tightly-knit ethnic caste (Old Boy Networks on steroids), then the favored (by aff. act.) groups will come to completely exclude the non-favored groups. This happens with the assistance of the semi-taboo in talking about it, so there is little notice or discussion of what is happening. The dominance of the Motel / Hotels business was only the initial model. Other industries have gone the same way, and more are going that way. How could it be otherwise. As long as this is happening, there is definitely no reason to support any immigration.

Mondragon said at November 24, 2011 1:27 AM:

If the rich and very smart are less likely to be a burden in some areas (some types of welfare, and violent or petty crime), they may be more likely to be a burden in others - other types of welfare (grandma on SSI,etc), white collar or government scams, government and corporate affirmative action, competition for schooling and for high paying jobs, and support for tribal/anti-white political organizations. And, as Andy Grove has pointed out, in the current regulatory and political context, even if they are innovators, the economic benefits of their innovations will most likely go back to their home countries. The rich and smart can also afford to support the chain migration of many of the not so rich and not so smart.

Why do our kids have to compete with the entire elite classes of multiple foreign countries - mostly China and India - for entry into the schools that our parents and grandparents built?

mrm27 said at November 24, 2011 8:24 AM:

This is not a sign of a rising superpower.

map said at November 24, 2011 4:42 PM:

I want to second what Mondragon is saying. These "model minorities" of Chinese and Indians are benefiting from all sorts of affirmative action, mainly minority disadvantaged business loans and set-asides for government contracts. These loans and contracts are unavailable for white people.

Throw them all out, I say. They can go sell their "high IQ's" in their own countries.

Blake said at November 24, 2011 7:06 PM:

"These "model minorities" of Chinese and Indians are benefiting from all sorts of affirmative action, mainly minority disadvantaged business loans and set-asides for government contracts."

The people described in the article have already made their money and have a large amount of investable assets.

You should oppose them for their race, not necessarily for loans and gov't contracting, since they might not be involved in them because they already have money.

solaris said at November 24, 2011 9:02 PM:

>"You should oppose them for their race, not necessarily for loans and gov't contracting, since they might not be involved in them because they already have money"


It is precisely people who already have money who are the recipients of the government contracts in question. You contact with a businessman, not with some shmuck with $5,000 in the bank.

solaris said at November 24, 2011 9:04 PM:

Contract, not contact.

Blake said at November 24, 2011 10:22 PM:

"It is precisely people who already have money who are the recipients of the government contracts in question. You contact with a businessman, not with some shmuck with $5,000 in the bank."

The point is that since they already have money, they have a lot of options. They could just as well just put the money in the stock market, or real estate, just have it sit in the bank, start a business, restaurant, etc.

So you should oppose them for their race, not for loans or gov't contracts since they might not even be involved with them.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 25, 2011 3:19 PM:

"Why do our kids have to compete with the entire elite classes of multiple foreign countries - mostly China and India - for entry into the schools that our parents and grandparents built?"

Because the return on IQ is highly non-linear and you'd want to have a *small* number of highly smart people let in ? (+3 to +4 SD).

"On the other hand, with more imported rich people we'd then have even more wealthy people bidding for influence over national government. They'd have even more allegiances to something other than the commonwealth."

Everyone isn't like the Ashkenazim. Point me to an American born politician of Indian extraction who seems even a fraction as India obsessed as the Ashkenazim politicians? The East Asians aren't even political. They're an awesome high-IQ worker class that produces value.

Kudzu Bob said at November 25, 2011 7:09 PM:

Because the return on IQ is highly non-linear and you'd want to have a *small* number of highly smart people let in ? (+3 to +4 SD).

Your weirdly non-responsive "response" completely ducked Mondragon's point, namely, that we shouldn't subordinate the needs of our smart kids to yours? America is not a corporation with three hundred million employees who can be fired at will. America is a nation, and should be run on behalf of the people who live here, not for the benefit of foreigners--foreigners who, as I said before, treat their own kind like dogs and would likely do the same or worse to us, if given the chance.

The East Asians aren't even political.

Translation: They don't give a shit about this country. They simply view it as a place where they can make money.

Blake said at November 25, 2011 9:04 PM:

There may be some that are political or do care about the country. So you should oppose them for their race rather than basing it on whether or not they're political or care about the country.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 25, 2011 9:06 PM:

"Your weirdly non-responsive "response" completely ducked Mondragon's point, namely, that we shouldn't subordinate the needs of our smart kids to yours?"

Where is the subordination? I'm all for merit. The point was very clear - sorry if it didn't align with the WN agenda.\

"America is a nation, and should be run on behalf of the people who live here, not for the benefit of foreigners--foreigners who, as I said before, treat their own kind like dogs and would likely do the same or worse to us, if given the chance."

To repeat what I said, everyone is not like the Ashkenazim.

Kudzu Bob said at November 25, 2011 9:23 PM:

Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for everybody.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 25, 2011 9:44 PM:

"Translation: They don't give a shit about this country. They simply view it as a place where they can make money."

Because they're famously political in their own countries?

Blake said at November 25, 2011 10:32 PM:

Some may be political and some may not be. That's why you shouldn't base it on whether or not they're political or care about the country. You should oppose them for their race.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 26, 2011 7:39 AM:

"You should oppose them for their race."

Good luck with that! Political naivete at its best.

"Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White countries for everybody."

Irrespective of where I was, I'd gladly welcome non-Ashkenazim +3 or +4 SD people into my country.

Kudzu Bob said at November 26, 2011 9:11 PM:

Irrespective of where I was, I'd gladly welcome non-Ashkenazim +3 or +4 SD people into my country.

France under Louis XIV had a law against sleeping under bridges. A very fair law, it applied to nobles and commoners alike.

Of course, the only reason anybody would sleep under a bridge in the first place was if he didn't have any money. What you want is no different from that, and you know it.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 26, 2011 9:41 PM:

"What you want is no different from that, and you know it."

Amusing rejoinder. What I suggested, in my view, only maximizes the per capita utility of any nation that would implement it.

Kudzu Bob said at November 26, 2011 10:44 PM:

What you suggested was a way for Asians to take that which belongs to Whites. You are anti-White.

Rama Kandra from Matrix said at November 26, 2011 11:40 PM:

"You are anti-White."

Of course - must be true if Kudzu Bob says so.

Kudzu Bob said at November 27, 2011 3:24 PM:

You advocate that Whites should had over what they built to Asians, just as Blacks and Hispanics do. That is anti-White.


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 ©