Not an ONION article

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

Gray Davis seems to be green-lighting a bill that would give many illegal aliens valid identification. Meanwhile, the United States government is preventing the matriculation of a student who was accepted by Princeton from China. The reason?

University administrators said Wu’s visa applications were denied four times by U.S. consular officials in Beijing this summer because officials thought Wu, 20, who comes from a working-class family, would illegally stay in the U.S. after completing her education at Princeton.

There are problems with the current student visa system, but are we really terrified if the first female winner of the Singapore Math Olympiad decides to stay in the United States? Pencil pushers & politicians will be the death of the United States yet….
(via zizka)

45 Comments

  1. Equally bizarre was the decision of the State Dept. to deny visas to Neeraj Kayal and Nitin Saxena , the co-discoverers of the algorithm that proved that primality could be tested for in polynomial time. Incidentally, all of them were from IIT.

    From the Claymath article :

    “When the Scientific Advisory Board of CMI decided to recommend that Agrawal receive the Research Award, I invited his students (now in the first few months of their graduate study, but already world-famous) to accompany Agrawal to this meeting. Unfortunately, about three weeks ago, the US State Department denied their visa application, stating that “they gave insufficient proof that after their one-week visit to the United States, they would return to India!” It is not clear that this is really the outcome best for the US!”

  2. This is a totally crazy decision! This is precisely the sort of person one would want to stay in the U.S – if one had any sense, that is.

    I suspect that the boys over at VDare and Amren won’t be crying into their teacups about Wu’s plight though – after all, she isn’t white, so she has to be a threat to western “civilization,” notwithstanding that she’s much more likely to contribute something significant to civilization than all of Brimelow’s writing staff put together.

  3. As I remember, the evidence against her was her declaration that she would probably go for a PhD once she graduated.

  4. Since when has wanting a PhD been some sort of crime? This reads to me like some anti-intellectual type was resentful of her talent and the scope of her ambition, and wanted to see her put in her place for entertaining ideas above her station. I can just see it now – “PhD, huh? She thinks she’s better than me? I’ll show her!”

  5. well, let’s not paint VDARE with a broad brush….

  6. Yeah, the VDARE folks are a pretty disparate bunch, tied together only by advocacy of fundamental immigration reform. Some (like Jared Taylor) are out-and-out white seperatists, while others (like Steve Sailor) are more concerned about unskilled vs. skilled immigration…

  7. well-i just want to be careful about guilt-by-association, after all, there isn’t a “party line” on this blog and people try to lump us together all the time. it’s usually a pretty low tactic. i agree that VDARE can make me whince now & then-but there are three classes of VDARE writers from where i stand:

    1) ones i generally agree with more than not (steve, guzzardi, etc.).
    2) ones i disagree with on some fundamentals-but they are honest disagreemants. for instance, i get the general impression that peter brimelow is in favor of reintroducing a “national origins system.” in general i’m kind of suspicious of this for obvious reasons (i ain’t from a favored nation)-but i don’t think a priori that a national origins system should be thrown out the window as beyond the pale of discourse-after all, our “family reunification system” is also based partly on blood and has become a de facto national origins system.
    3) ones i think are a little off the deep end (this is mostly francis). but they’re easy enough to ignore. i frankly don’t see fancis as much different than al sharpton in his tone-and i don’t pay attention to sharpton either. as long as they’re marginal, i don’t care.

  8. GC, You are not rational as far as the VDare folks are concerned. They are, as a group, much more correct on average than what passes for elite accepted wisdom on immigration or on HBD. If their views prevailed the country would be much better off overall and the downsides for their policy preferences would be fairly small.

    GC, you say basically that what the VDare folks say makes it harder to argue for immigration reform. But, come on, we aren’t going to get immigration reform on the scale that is needed as long as the truth stays inadmissible in the liberal media and in the academy.

    As for the smart Chinese student accepted to Princeton: as long as the left-liberal elites continue to maintain the taboo against admitting to innate intelligence differences due to genetic causes we aren’t going to have an immigration policy that places any weight on the genetic endowment of would-be immigrants.

    Hanno, being a Ph.D. ought to be a crime in some cases. If the Ph.D. is in, for intance, education then basically it is for training in how to operate a fraudulent criminal enterprise. What the academics in education departments dream up and inflict on elementary and high schools is the worst sort of intellectual fraud. If private enterprise tried to sell such harmful wares they’d be liable for civil suits and criminal prosecution.

  9. genetic endowment of would-be immigrants

    randall, that’s not relevant to this case-the potentional immigrant (this isn’t even for sure!) has a proven track record of mathematical accomplishments many STDs above the mean. certainly canada isn’t open to race realism-but their immigration system is far more weighted toward educational qualifications-so the two issues aren’t necessarily absolutely connected. you could be a total environmentalist and still screen based on educational & professional qualifications because you presume those who have such qualifications have cultivated an appropriate work ethic that is good for the nation to have.

  10. i get the general impression that peter brimelow is in favor of reintroducing a “national origins system.

    This is something I’m completely against. If China or India produce 9/10 of the talented immigrants America can make use of, why should I care? What is there to a “national origins” policy other than another type of affirmative action, only of a no-doubt racist – yes, I mean that literally, rather than as an insult – variety? Talent is talent, and if we’re going to do immigration reform, we should pick those who get to come in based on the talents they’ve displayed, rather than on where their parents copulated, or the color of their skin.

    All that talk about “culture” is just bunkum, in my opinion; there are tons of East Asians helping to keep classical music alive in the United States, while we have people like V.S. Naipaul and Salman Rushdie who are most certainly part of “Western Civilization”, however defined. Hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants are currently doing more than Peter Brimelow and company have ever done to advance civilization, but if he had his way, they’d never have made it in to begin with. This simply reeks of prejudice and hypocrisy, given that Brimelow himself is an immigrant, whose only real talent seems to be in agitating on the “death” of “white America.”

    If the Ph.D. is in, for intance, education then basically it is for training in how to operate a fraudulent criminal enterprise. What the academics in education departments dream up and inflict on elementary and high schools is the worst sort of intellectual fraud. If private enterprise tried to sell such harmful wares they’d be liable for civil suits and criminal prosecution.

    Agreed, 100 percent. I’d also add in most PoMo humanities PhD types into that category, though. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s hearing people go on about “differance”, “jouissance”, “deconstruction” and “intertextuality.” Most of these guys probably can’t even understand their own writing, much less each other, but they get to poison the minds of impressionable students with their Marxist crap.

  11. oleg-i think i know what your position is brother ;) but i have a question, are you up for artificial hypotheticals? if you had two options:

    1) high IQ immigration + low IQ immigration (the current bimodal system, somewhat tilted toward the latter)
    2) low IQ immigration only (ie; all the immigrants come based on family reunification, not professional allowances via H1B, sponsorships and the like)

    what would you select and why? i ask because i wonder if you see the high IQ immigrants as in any way balancing the low IQ immigrants, or view it as all qualitatively the same since they are mostly non-white. i understand that ideally there would be NO immigrants-but i am posing an artificial question of course….

  12. Well gosh, maybe she can immigrate to Japan or Israel instead. Oh wait, she can’t, but that’s okay because those aren’t white countries and hence it’s morally acceptable for them to exclude immigrants who aren’t of their racial group.

    This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin! OK, let’s take the easy stuff first – do you really think Japan’s policies are the way to go? Do you know anything about the state of Japan’s economy? Do you realize that Japan has been stagnating for the last 12 years? No, America seems to be doing just fine with its’ friendly approach to immigration, thank you.

    As for Israel, surely you realize that Jews don’t constitute a “race?” What race was Sammy Davis? If you wanted, Oleg, you could become a Jew tomorrow and emigrate to Israel; just look for your local reform synagogue and go through the ropes. Something tells me you won’t be eager to take up the opportunity, though.

    Countries like Japan haven’t contributed shit to civilization and they’re no worse off technologically or economically than we are.

    What an inane and ignorant statement. Japan hasn’t contributed “shit” to civilization? What do you know about Japan, anyway? Ever been there? Know the first thing about it’s history or culture? Sure you don’t, but why let a yawning chasm of ignorance stop you from putting the Japanese down?

    Frankly, if it were up to me, I’d have fellow “whites” like you deported to rural China in exchange for brilliant individuals like Ms. Wu, in a heartbeat. There are too many ignorant loudmouths in the world who think life owes them something just because of their racial origin. It’s been my experience that those who fixate the most on their “racial heritage” are invariably those who have no worthwhile accomplishments of their own to speak of.

  13. Razib,

    On classifying the various folks who publish on VDare and more generally folks who have opinions in favor of some form of immigration restrictions: I think one first ought to start with a few main categories:

    1) Genetics and Brain Hardware.
    The physical brain and the underlying genetics as they influence intelligence, personality, behavioral tendencies.

    2) Brain Software.
    What we get taught. What we believe. Obviously number 1 can and does influence number 2.

    3) Non-Brain Hardware.
    Skin color, height, etc.

    4) Physical space, the environment.
    The desire to not see the air become more polluted or the rural areas suburbanized.

    To classify someone’s views on immigration ask which of these broad categories are part of that person’s views on immigration and in what way. Number 2 is especially complicated. One could oppose someone for, say, being a communist, a Muslim, a Chinese nationalist, a Raelian or countless other matters of belief and allegiance and therefore not want the person to come here. But there is an interaction between number 2 and number 3. For instance, you wouldn’t expect a Jamaican immigrant to have Chinese nationalist loyalties.

  14. GC,

    I think you are unfairly smearing Taylor on that point and misrepresenting the meaning of his Hitler reference.

    I agree with some of the criticisms of VDH on Mexifornia. VDH is so politically correct that people can read him and decide what we need is more affirmative action and more efforts to integrate in some politically correct fashion. VDH pulls his punches. We aren’t going to stop the current high level of immigration if we let VDH’s arguments go uncriticised by even more vigorous proponents of reduced immigration.

    Cheap shots at Hispanics: I think Allan Wall (who lives in Mexico, teaches Mexicans, and is married to a Mexican) is quite fair in his criticisms of the Mexican political elite and Mexican media. His shots seem well-informed and well-aimed for the most part. Though I don’t read every single one of his columns because there are only so many hours in the day for reading.

    Sam Francis is attacking capitalism by arguing that a flag referendum shouldn’t be avoided just because it might hurt business? I must have missed how that amounts to an attack on capitalism. I’m reminded of the people who think we shouldn’t criticise China because it could be bad for business or that we shouldn’t defend Taiwan because that is bad for business. Ie sat next to a company CEO on a trans-Pacific flight who made that argument to me as we flew along sipping drinks in business class. I’ve also read many business lobbyists take that position. Personally I’m appalled by such arguments and consider them to represent a moral degeneracy on the part of those who make them.

    James Taranto: he spews enough nonsense that I can’t be bothered to examine whether every single criticism of him is unfair. Generally, when I see some criticism made by someone on the right against the WSJ without examining it closely I guess in my mind that there is a better than even chance that the criticism has some merit. Such is my opinion of the WSJ and its foolish commentators.

    I think skin color is an approximate proxy for cultural and political beliefs. Surely, if, say, 100 million Chinese were to immigrate to the US the way they’d vote in elections would be a lot different than if, says, 100 million Northern Europeans of same average IQ also immigrated. I think that is Brimelow’s point (though I haven’t read his book and don’t know all his arguments). People in different parts of the world have substantial average differences in beliefs along with their racial differences. That is obvious. So people who are selecting on the basis of race are effectively also selecting for group average differences in belief.

  15. I’m always showing up at these discussion AFTER someone has been banned. I don’t object to the principle but I kinda wish you’d leave their last posts around so we could see what gets you banned around here.

  16. people who are selecting on the basis of race are effectively also selecting for group average differences in belief.

    If what you want to do is select for belief, why not do so directly? Why use inaccurate proxies like skin color or national origin? This argument of yours looks to me like after the fact rationalizion of views arrived at for very different reasons.

  17. Hanno:
    This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin! OK, let’s take the easy stuff first – do you really think Japan’s policies are the way to go? Do you know anything about the state of Japan’s economy? Do you realize that Japan has been stagnating for the last 12 years? No, America seems to be doing just fine with its’ friendly approach to immigration, thank you.

    Straw man. Are you seriously arguing that letting in several million uneducated farmers in the last decade would have magically fixed the banking and corporate governance problems in Japan?

    Japan also heavily restricted immigration during the 3 decades of postwar economic boom — in fact, restricted it more heavily than today, e.g. foreigners not married to Japanese waited 20 years just to get eijuuken (Japanese “green card”). By the same token you’re using, you could argue that immigration caused Japan’s collapse. Of course no one really believes it, but it is interesting to note that the bubble burst right around the time that they were loosening immigration policy — in the 80s, they started looking the other way on illegal immigrants just a bit cuz they filled shortages in “3K” (dirty, dangerous, exhausting) jobs like construction, reduced residency requirements for eijuuken and for Japanese-Koreans to claim citizenship, and then in the early 90s eliminated fingerprinting requirement for foreigners.

  18. Hanno writes:
    “All that talk about “culture” is just bunkum, in my opinion; there are tons of East Asians helping to keep classical music alive in the United States, while we have people like V.S. Naipaul and Salman Rushdie who are most certainly part of “Western Civilization”, however defined. Hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants are currently doing more than Peter Brimelow and company have ever done to advance civilization, but if he had his way, they’d never have made it in to begin with.”

    Hanno, Western culture means many things to many people. To me it is remembering cold mornings when my grandfather and I would drive his truck through the countryside to retrieve sap from dozens of maple trees. To me it this wonderment of getting lost in the vastness of America. To me it is never having to be defeated because there is always another opportunity. To me it is the eternal kindness of so many. To me it is the astonishing talent that was raised in one small Pennsylvania town. Classic music is weak by comparison.

    So, Hanno, what then has Rushdie done to further the cause of what I consider the essence of America?

    Godless writes:
    “I doubt they would have said something similar about Russia had Brimelow’s critic been of Russian extraction, and (of course) they fail to mention that a number of Asian states are prosperous democracies.”

    Godless, I think it fair to say that the notion of democracy is a cup half-full proposition for the obvious reason that democracy is no guarantor of liberty.

    How many Asian states are true in liberty? That is the relevant question. To focus on democracy is to miss the true analytic. It takes many things to make a free society and these are not things that society chooses to realizes overnight.

    To Razib re: your four point classification system. You seemed to miss cultural imbibement as a relevant qualification for entry into the USA.

    To suggest Indians, as an example, don’t bring a ton of baggage is nonsense, moreso especially when their relatives move over. A woman walking behind her husband has no place in the USA – wouldn’t you agree? Such practices present a danger to everyone because they undermine centuries of development and they cannot be criticized for fear of retribunal attack.

    Also, would it be fair to say that an Indian who joins an advocacy and seeks to promote Indian culture might be undermining the very Anglo-Saxon roots of this nation in some slow insidious way? Would that be a good thing?

    Everyone is focused on Indians and Chinese as the cure. I look at Switzerland and say, they don’t make shit, but hell what a nice place to live. Maybe that is what the USA should strive for. Being a nice place to live. Let the Indians and Chinese stay home. If they kill us at technology so be it, let them drool at our lifestyle while they lie in overpopulated cities.

    Scott

  19. Straw man. Are you seriously arguing that letting in several million uneducated farmers in the last decade would have magically fixed the banking and corporate governance problems in Japan?

    A large part of Japan’s difficulties does indeed lie in the aging nature of it’s workforce. Perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with the substantial economic literature on this subject before accusing anybody of putting up a “straw man.” For a start, perhaps you should try looking up Solow’s “endogenous growth” model.

    Japan also heavily restricted immigration during the 3 decades of postwar economic boom

    It didn’t matter so much then, as the population was a lot younger than it is today. Demographic patterns do matter in explaining growth, as any half-competent macroeconomist will attest.

    Hanno, Western culture means many things to many people.

    It evidently doesn’t mean the same thing to you and I. Nothing you’ve written about seems to be in the slightest bit affected by the ethnic origins of the immigrants America lets in. The western “civilization” I care about is all the richer for Rushdie’s contributions, whether you appreciate them or not, and fortunately, both of us have only one vote each.

    Frankly, Rushdie’s done more to contribute to that civilization than anything you are likely to be able to claim on your own behalf, so why should I value the likes of him less than the likes of you, simply because we share the same skin color? If you love Switzerland so much, why don’t you move there? I like America, with its’ dazzling spectrum of racial and ethnic types, its’ zest for building, its’ high creativity, just fine, thank you very much, and I’m not willing to see this great nation’s vitality sacrificed on the altar of racial fetishism that those who think like you would love to raise on its’ carcass. You contribute nothing to America’s greatness, and yet you’re always to put down those who do; why should I give your ravings any credibility?

  20. “So, Hanno, what then has Rushdie done to further the cause of what I consider the essence of America? “

    Perhaps he should have planted a few saplings to make you happy, Nature Boy. Incidentally it’s ‘classical’ music, not ‘classic’ music

  21. Hanno re: western culture writes:

    “It evidently doesn’t mean the same thing to you and I. Nothing you’ve written about seems to be in the slightest bit affected by the ethnic origins of the immigrants America lets in. The western “civilization” I care about is all the richer for Rushdie’s contributions, whether you appreciate them or not, and fortunately, both of us have only one vote each.”

    Hanno, are you seriously telling me that a city dweller from New Delhi will be able to contribute to what I term the “true America” in the same capacity as a Scottish farmer?

    Even move from the countryside to the suburbs. Who is most likely to gently slide into the cultural customs of the USA: apple pie and pride in Washington and Jefferson?

    Jason writes re: Rushdie:
    “Perhaps he should have planted a few saplings to make you happy, Nature Boy. Incidentally it’s ‘classical’ music, not ‘classic’ music”

    Why the attack, Jason? Are you not familiar with the greater part of America? The part that has produced the true salt of the earth? I suspect you are not. So many view America as nothing more than suburbs. I suppose that is becoming the true reality, but not without cost.

    As for your personal attack on me and my typo, does it miss your purveiw that you failed to properly punctuate your barb?

    What does that say about you?

    I hope one day that you learn to appreciate that the true beauty of life, lies not soley in mastery of the sciences, but also in the relationships we forge. Such lack of appreciation, like yours, is common amongst foreign scientists. Now that is something.

    Scott

  22. Scott, I think the best contribution you could make to American civilization would be to emigrate to the Switzerland you so admire.

    By the way, it’s “purview”. And “solely”.

    Sincerely,
    An _American_ scientist

  23. Surely, if, say, 100 million Chinese were to immigrate to the US the way they’d vote in elections would be a lot different than if, says, 100 million Northern Europeans of same average IQ also immigrated.

    i’m a little late into this “debate”-but i have to say a lot of the problems seems to be that people are imagining different immigration scenarios. i don’t assume randall thinks that “100 million” is a number that’s realistic, he just brought up that number because it gives a general idea of “big.”

    but, what if we imagine hordes of non-americans coming to america? assume 10 million newcomers/year, about 10 X the current rate. i think at that point we can start making comparisons between all things being equal groups of indians, europeans, chinese, etc-and even then, all things are not equal (education, IQ, etc.).

    now, let us imagine that we allow 100,000 immigrants to come to the united states per year-about 1/10 of the current numbers. all things being equal the “asiatic hordes will destroy america” sounds a lot less convincing.

    reduce that number to 10,000, and the “asiatic hordes destroy america” is laughable.

    as a reductio ad absurdum-if you have 10,000 new immigrants, i think it is reasonable to assert that unless all 10,000 are rabid muslim fundamentalist (or red bridge activists, or pick your poison), they will have little effect on america’s cultural mix. but, the educational qualifications of this group might have an effect if you assume that they creme de le creme of other nations-top engineers & scientists can effect great change even if their numbers are small….

    the other scenario, 10 million newcomers, the downsides from incompatible cultural interactions are probably far more salient. if you assume that “fat tail” of the scientific/creativity bell curve is included within that 10 million, you still get that bonus….

    so i guess what i’m saying is-sure, the national origins system makes sense, if you have hordes of newcomers. it might even make sense with the current numbers. but most people who imagine a skills/education based system don’t imagine that the number of newcomers will be high enough to cause great cultural changes. the emulsifying effect of the native substrate is proportional to the number of (base native population)/(newcomers). if the ratio is high enough, the emulsifying effect high enough, i think we can neglect the cultural downside in the cost vs. benefit equation.

    i’ll let you geniuses go back to your discussion….

  24. I have no objection to a points based system that emphasizes educational and other attainments. It’s the only politically feasible policy. (I favor privatizing immigration but no one’s going to buy that.)
    It’s unfortunate that this debate got so sidetracked onto issues of cultural or racial homogeneity and who is more valuable to America that there was no discussion of how difficult it might be just to get a points based system brought in. It’s elitist and that’s almost as bad as racism in some people’s minds.
    The other issue involved here is getting a handle on who benefits from the current immigration process. Those who benefit from low wages for manual labor and those who believe that low-skill immigrants will vote Democratic (pretty plausible) are going to resist any reform.
    So how do we out-manouvre them?

  25. I don’t know that you even need to see this as tailoring your message to your audience – I mean, it seems pretty obvious that one should want the most talented people, regardless of ethnicity, and I doubt that this would be a hard sell to any but those on the extreme left or the racialist right.

    Speak with conviction about what you believe, and others will follow your lead. Don’t look at yourself as being an advertising executive, but a preacher of the venerable American gospel of talent and opportunity. The racialists and the open-borders types won’t like what you have to say, but let’s face it, these people don’t matter anyway, numerically speaking.

    Isn’t it true that unskilled immigration drags down wages for the American lower classes? Isn’t it true that talented immigrants make an outsize contribution to American life? All you’re doing is pointing out the truth, so speak like you believe what you’re saying. In selling an idea, it doesn’t help to view it as “pitching” to different market segments. The cynicism in that mindset can’t help leaking through and hampering your effectiveness.

  26. The racialists and the open-borders types won’t like what you have to say, but let’s face it, these people don’t matter anyway, numerically speaking.

    hanno-if they didn’t matter, they wouldn’t be legislatively ascendent for 30 years. fact is-these two groups lobby hard (by racialists, i mean ethnic identity activists who want to increase the number of non-whites in this country)-and our democratic system is currently very amenable to coherent & focused interest groups.

  27. Hanno:
    A large part of Japan’s difficulties does indeed lie in the aging nature of it’s workforce. … the population was a lot younger than it is today. Demographic patterns do matter in explaining growth, as any half-competent macroeconomist will attest.
    Thanks for the review, I’m familiar with these things. But fixing the demographic imbalance by letting in tons of immigrants, especially uneducated laborers, would be a short term solution at best. (Maybe not even a short term solution: are the immigrants going to produce enough in tax revenues to assist the support of all those elderly, or are the taxes they pay going to be exceeded by the services they require, like hospital interpreters and spaces in prisons? Likely the latter, especially since immigrants to Japan from every country but China tend to stay functionally illiterate for years and even decades, and so have a hard time moving up the career ladder.) The immigrants would get old. And, likely being poorer than Japanese especially right after they enter the country in those critical child-bearing years, they’d find the same thing which Japanese people already know: it’s too crowded and expensive to have lots of kids, especially in the cities. Native professionals have a hard enough time supporting a kid let alone 2.1 kids in Japan, can you imagine doing it on a factory worker’s or old lady’s live-in nurse’s salary in an unfamiliar country?

    Maybe a better method is to try to get the people who already live in Japan to have more kids. One obvious idea is to stop protecting inefficient farmers so that they get driven out of business. Their land could be put to more productive uses, like allowing people to build bigger houses on it (Japan has the largest portion of land used for farming in the G8 combined with the smallest portion of land suitable for human activities, the rest being mountains). More space for 3 bedroom apartments so you can have kids at the replacement rate without tripping over them all the time. Also, without tariffs, food and dry goods get cheaper, so you can feed and clothe all those kids on a lot smaller proportion of your salary. (Again, in all the G8, Japanese spend the highest proportion of their salaries on foodstuffs). Two birds with one stone.

    Of course, many people will argue that ending agricultural protectionism is not a good idea. Well if it really turns out to be that bad next year, or ten or even fifty years down the road, though I doubt it would, you can put the barriers back up and try something else. Policy changes are easy to reverse, at least compared to trying to reverse several decades of mass immigration. People don’t disappear as easily as imported rice.

    Japan has lots of problems. It would be nice if the international community would conduct a deeper analysis of these problems than “the population is aging. Replace them with young foreigners! Labor is too expensive. Replace them with cheap foreigners! People don’t have enough kids. Replace them with rabbits!” or “We have immigrants and we love them (or are restricted by law and sentiment from saying we don’t love them), Japan should too!”

  28. GC:
    unlike Britain/Japan/etc. we do not have a population density problem.
    Well, California’s already getting there, 213/sq. mile compared to Europe’s ~300. Of course no where near UK’s density of like 3x that of the continent.

  29. Godless, all policy rules are attempts to simplify to make a policy that will partially achieve some desired result. You think you can make a better policy rule that is not as simplistic. I’m telling you that you are dreaming. I’m reminded of Arnold Kling’s recent column Real World 101.

    One big thing you miss: different motives for different groups to immigrate. If Europeans leave Europe for the US they leave a place that is already close to the US in living standards. The ones that come are going to tend to have more shared values with Americans than the ones that say behind. They are coming to be capitalists and to escape Euro-socialism. Otherwise, why come?

    I had a British roommate here who came to this country and had his girlfriend break up with him in a letter. She was motivated to write it (as she warned him in advance his mother told me) because he was determined to make it here and she wanted nothing to do with the crass materialistic and capitalistic place she imagined the US to be.

    If Muslims from Pakistan or Egypt come to the US they are going to be so heavily incentivized by the greatly higher living standards that, on average, they will be far less motivated to come for reasons of shared common belief and in fact far more likely to have beliefs that Americans do not share. A NY Times headline today is that 8 Iraqi attackers rounded up in operations against the current terrorist attacks and being held by US forces in Iraq claim to be either US or UK citizens. Well, how the hell did that happen?

    You can’t say that national origins don’t matter if we test to achieve same average IQ from all originating countries because that obviously is not the case.

    Razib, my point with the 100 million is that if a large dose os something causes a huge problem then smaller doses must cause smaller problems and a stream of smaller doses might add up to cause the same sized problem.

    But, look, 100 million is ballpark. Immigrants are going to change the politics of the US just as they did in the past. Why shouldn’t someone resist this? There are already 33 million foreign born in the US and the rate of immigration has been increasing in the 1990s and into the 2100′s.

    Testing for beliefs of immigrants: really, how? Testing for beliefs will not work because people will learn rather quickly what lies to tell. IQ tests are more feasible because they test ability, not belief.

    GC, as for your mathematician example: If the Thernstroms own example with SAT tests are to be taken at face value then for “regression to the mean” reasons alone you are wrong.

  30. Maybe a better method is to try to get the people who already live in Japan to have more kids.
    The government’s been trying this for donkey years, and it hasn’t worked. The Japanese labor market strongly discourages women from working by shunting even those with university degrees into “OL” (“Office Lady”) jobs, and yet Japanese women still refuse to settle down and have children. Given how much debt the Japanese government is already carrying (something like 170 percent, the worst debt load in the developed world), I doubt that there’s much more that can be done to incentive their womenfolk to make more babies.

    Iraqi attackers rounded up in operations against the current terrorist attacks and being held by US forces in Iraq claim to be either US or UK citizens.
    How does “Taliban Johnny” Lindh, or that white Australian guy who was caught fighting for the Taliban, fit into your scheme, then? Neither of these guys should have been rooting for the enemy, if ethnicity were that reliable a guide to one’s beliefs. For all we know, all of these US and UK citizens captured may turn out to be of solid Anglo-Scottish or Dutch-German stock.

    Razib, my point with the 100 million is that if a large dose os something causes a huge problem then smaller doses must cause smaller problems and a stream of smaller doses might add up to cause the same sized problem.
    Uhh, dude, no, it does not follow that if Dose X causes problems, Dose X/10 must cause 1/10th as much trouble. It well might cause no trouble at all, or even be beneficial. The only real way to tell in this case is by looking at the empirical evidence. Do you have any to support your fears?

    But, look, 100 million is ballpark. Immigrants are going to change the politics of the US just as they did in the past. Why shouldn’t someone resist this? There are already 33 million foreign born in the US and the rate of immigration has been increasing in the 1990s and into the 2100′s.
    And yet the United States seems to have been moving rightward throughout for the last 20 years; right at this moment, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who thinks giving illegals driving licences wrong, and who supported both US English and Proposition 187, is tied with Bustamante for the Hispanic vote. One would have thought the opposite should have occurred, seeing as Hispanics are all thought to be hankering after welfare benefits. Perhaps things aren’t as simple as you’re making them out to be?

    It’s been my experience that the average European is a lot more socialistic in outlook than most people from non-western countries. Working as an American in Europe opens one’s eyes to the big gap in work ethic between Americans and Euros, and this is actually clearly reflected in ILO statistics for number of hours worked per year. According to the latest edition of the ILO’s Key Indicators of the Labour Market, six Asian countries come first, followed by America, Australia and Japan, with major European sources of past immigration like France, Germany and Italy bringing up the rear.

    Now, last I heard, America was still part of western civilization, and the population is still 80% white. Please explain why European and American attitudes to work, the state, religion, and taxation should differ so greatly, if ethnicity and racial background are such powerful determinants of people’s value systems.

  31. Razib, my point with the 100 million is that if a large dose os something causes a huge problem then smaller doses must cause smaller problems and a stream of smaller doses might add up to cause the same sized problem.

    if by a “stream of smaller doses” you mean for instance 1 million egyptians in 1 year vs. 1 million egyptians over 100 years, other variables equalized (same size american population, etc.), i think there’s a big difference. there is less of a difference of 1 million over 10 years and 1 million over 20 years obviously-but i don’t think one should neglect the emulsifying affects of a native substrate. for instance, many white europeans that are non-catholic seem to have become WASPs. but in the beginning, some close genetically and culturally like germans were seen as somewhat strange and alien. the emulsifying affect of native substrate was crucial here. because of the greater genetic distance between say chinese and europeans-you might need a higher ratio of white substrate:immigrant population, but the principle can probably still apply.

    second point-can you point an article of your’s at PARA where you elaborate your ideal immigration system? no point in probing your views if they are on public record so i know if we are disagreeing in the first place.

    third point-if someone wants to push toward a immigration system that values race as an end then a lot of these debates are pointless. i read alien nation and it seems clear that peter does believe race is destiny (a phrase that pops u in the book). he is by no means a thoroughgoing racialist-and he speaks of the “fuzzy edges” of the white % of the population (usually meaning half-white people that are assimilated over a generation or so into the white identity). but it is clear that race is important to him-which is fine, it is a value people can have, and i don’t deny it-but when principle axioms are at variance, debate centered on utilitarian issues is kind of pointless….

    Thernstroms own example with SAT tests are to be taken at face value then for “regression to the mean” reasons alone you are wrong.

    well-sterilize high IQ individuals from low IQ countries if that matters so much. though seriously, i’ll let godless handle this ;)

  32. Razib, The emulsifying effects of a native substrate have not turned the vast bulk of Jews into Republicans. I’m betting that will continue to be the case. Also, I note that you added the “non-catholic” qualifier. Of course Catholics have different positions on politics because they have different ethical beliefs. Differences in ethical beliefs matter.

    The past emulsifying effects of American culture have been undermined by our own Left and the US is far less able to assimilate than it used to be. We also have welfare policies and other policies that effectively work against assimilation even though some of those policies were created for other purposes.

    I don’t have a single post that expresses all my views on immigration but I do have a category archive Immigration and Border Control that collects a lot of it together. I don’t think I can write a single post that sums it all up. My views are a consequence of a great many beliefs I have about human nature. I’ve made various points about some of those beliefs in debates here. Some of those points seem to get ignored because GC et al don’t really want to bring certain factors into their modelling of the problem or haven’t yet gotten to thinking about them. That is okay. Immigration is such a more complex issue than it appears to be because it touches on all facets of human nature. It takes a while to get one’s mind around them all.

    Hanno, I don’t see the US going rightward. The Left has demographic forces trending in their favor. Arnie has positions on a broad number of policies that are at odds with what the bulk of Republicans believe. This is reflected in the surge in McClintock’s support against Arnie in the polls in California.

    As for why Europe is further left: one really big reason is that Europe was far more into intellectuals and intellectual ideas in most of the 20th century. The far less intellectual American population was less affected by those leftward blowing fads of the 20th century (Ayn Rand had some great insights on this in one of her non-fiction essays but I can’t point you to which one). Another reason is probably the degree of urbanization. City dwellers have tended more to support bigger government. It is the rural American states that are most conservative. Urban centers such as Boston and NYC are leftie strongholds.

    Also, the vast bulk of British citizens found fighting in Afghanistan were Muslims. I doubt that Iraq will be any different. Lindh was an outlier. In a few hundred million people there are bound to be a few. As more native Americans get converted to Islam by immigrants more such outliers will pop up. But that is just an argument against keeping out the would-be immigrant Muslims.

    Another argument for why racial background matters is that people who live here who are not white frequently take positions based on their perceived racial interests. Am I not supposed to anticipate this and try to head off the problem in advance? Some groups support affirmative action for their racial and ethnic groups. Some support greater immigration of their group so that their group is not such a small minority because they want to be around more people like themselves. Some get irrationally defensive about their group and in the process undermine law enforcement efforts whenever those efforts target a member of their group. So, for instance, it becomes easier to seriously investigate a white guy who works at Los Alamos who is suspected of being a spy than it is to investigate an ethnically Chinese guy (the Clinton Administration just totally blew one such investigation by blocking wiretaps in part to avoid offending an ethnic group). I’m opposed to people coming here who are going to proclaim aggrieved whiner status.

    Hanno, on the Hispanic vote specifically: Hispanics have two and a half times the rate of medical uninsurance than whites in the United States. So they are really supportive of poor folks medical spending. Hispanics have twice the rate of illegitimate children than whites. So they are more likely to be raising children alone and without enough money. This poverty makes them natural voters for Democrats even if they will vote differently in a single election based on attraction to a celebrity. Arnie is not typical of Repun candidates and Hispanics in the US tend to vote for Republicans at about 32-37% rates (its been in this range for decades). Jews vote for Republicans at an even lower rate and blacks at an even lower rate still. These rates hold fairly stable for decades.

    Immigrants are political actors as well as economic actors. Different groups act differently on average politically. This can’t be explained away simply with group average differences in IQ as GC would hope. The Jews so obviously demonstrate otherwise.

  33. people who live here who are not white frequently take positions based on their perceived racial interests
    So do those who are white. In particular, you do.

    they want to be around more people like themselves. Some get irrationally defensive about their group
    This seems to describe you to a T.

    I’m opposed to people coming here who are going to proclaim aggrieved whiner status.
    Et tu, Randall?

    This poverty makes them natural voters for Democrats
    Which explains why they supported both George W. Bush and his brother Jeb, right?

    Jews vote for Republicans at an even lower rate and blacks at an even lower rate still. These rates hold fairly stable for decades.
    Gee, do ya think the presence on the right of so many people advocating views like yours might have something to do with that? Nah, of course not … Of course, you also are either unaware, or have simply chosen to ignore, the fact that Eisenhower got something like 45% of the black vote in 1956, and Nixon did similarly well in 1960. It wasn’t until Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act that black support for the GOP began to collapse. Nixon’s appeal to George Wallace’s supporters sealed that parting of ways.

    This can’t be explained away simply with group average differences in IQ as GC would hope. The Jews so obviously demonstrate otherwise.
    What do they “demonstrate”? That an ethical-religious system like Judaism will tend, like any other such system, including Catholicism and Bible-Belt Protestantism, to influence the political preferences of its’ believers? Why is that a bad thing with Jews, but a good thing when it comes to Christians?

    I find your arguments thoroughly unconvincing, ungrounded in fact, unappreciative of historical realities, and unreflective in so far as they make accusations of others that are just as deservedly laid upon your own head. I’m not buying your claim that you’ve got some rational reason for your stance – I suspect, though I can’t prove, that you harbor a visceral aesthetic dislike of people of other races, and are looking for ways to justify keeping them out of America, whatever their talents or beliefs.

  34. Hanno,

    GC provides an arugment for my position when he says in another thread to me:

    Randall:

    I have conflicting feelings on antidiscrimination laws. I do *not* believe that open, explicit discrimination can work in a multiracial republic such as ours, because of the negative effects on societal cohesion. Tacit discrimination is ok, so long as the government isn’t suing everyone in sight (through, say, the EEOC). We’re going to review the book that Instapundit cited re: “Antidiscrimination” Laws and their threat to freedom.

    He’s arguing against a right of free association that will be further curtailed the more multi-racial the nation becomes. Here, in a nutshell is my problem with immigration. He expects to curtail freedom of existing citizens to create a different kind of America.

    Hispanics did not support GWB. Do bother to read up on Hispanic voting patterns rather than propagate misinformation. The only racial group with known voting preferences that voted majority for Dubya was white folks. Dubya lost among Jews, blacks, and Hispanics. Anyone have data on Chinese or South Asians in the 2000 election? My guess is he lost among them but with much narrower margins.

    You say:

    What do they “demonstrate”? That an ethical-religious system like Judaism will tend, like any other such system, including Catholicism and Bible-Belt Protestantism, to influence the political preferences of its’ believers? Why is that a bad thing with Jews, but a good thing when it comes to Christians?

    You are essentially arguing that Jews can pursue explicitly Jewish interests without being racist but white Protestants can’t. You are the one arguing for the double standard, not me. I am arguing that lots more people are pursuing racial, religious, and other group interests than is commonly acknowledged and that there is a selectivity in terms of who gets accused of doing so.

    My argument is based on reality: different racial and ethnic groups in the United States on average want different things from government and vote differently as a consequence. Whe comes here and who is kept out will therefore affect what kind of government we will have. Do you dispute this?

    Do you think it is morally illegitimate to try to keep out would-be immigrants based on their expected group-average political behaviors? If so, why?

  35. Steve writes:
    “Scott, I think the best contribution you could make to American civilization would be to emigrate to the Switzerland you so admire.

    By the way, it’s “purview”. And “solely”.

    Sincerely,
    An _American_ scientist”

    Steve, quick question: what gives you the notion that I admire Switzerland? Also, why would my moving there do more for America than if I were to move to England? I look forward to your scientific response – which I am sure will be nicely penned.

    Hanno writes re: Randall:
    “I’m not buying your claim that you’ve got some rational reason for your stance – I suspect, though I can’t prove, that you harbor a visceral aesthetic dislike of people of other races, and are looking for ways to justify keeping them out of America, whatever their talents or beliefs.”

    Hanno, it is quite something to tacitly accuse someone of disliking people of other races for no other reason than they favor a drop in numbers of immigrants.

    One could easily just as easily point to you and suggest that you don’t like white people. Maybe you are white, maybe you aren’t, but one can certainly feel your hostility towards traditional American life. I suspect, though I cannot prove, that you harbor a visceral dislike of white America because its pop culture, chock full of sex and glamour, is distant from your world. I think that might be why you focus so intently on math/science talent as the criteria for entry in the USA, becuase it is perhaps the one thing you have got going for yourself.

    Scott

  36. Do you think it is morally illegitimate to try to keep out would-be immigrants based on their expected group-average political behaviors? If so, why?

    i think this is fine-but the analogy with the A&F is stretched-i agreed with you there because that was a private organization. on the other hand, what the government does tends to come under a different level of scrutiny. if you agree that governments are just utility maximizing machines i think you have a strong case-on the other hand, if you think there are principles (equality before the law, etc.) that are important, i think it can be argued that differential treatment of people as they enter can corrosive to the nature of the state.

    basically, if you are going to employ group-based differences, you will probably have to exclusionary (which is what you suggested with muslims), not have a higher bar. anyone let it under the higher bar will be resentful and probably have nothing but mercenary motives.

    and of course, once you set the precedent of selecting for X, all groups will start to do this nakedly. the democrats are already pushing immmigration to bolster their numbers, if republicans are explicit then there will be little check on them.

    for instance, both increasing the educational qualifications needed or decreasing the numbers of total immigrants would have the same effect as using national origins, insofar as the former tends to encourage more european immigration (as in canada) or decreases the immigrant population where you might be able to discard it in the equation. both these methods achieve utilitarian ends by ostensibly principled means.

  37. Godless, I quite agree that real populations have substructures. For example, I’m sure that if you take couples from one Indian caste and couples from a different Indian caste based on IQ of each couple so that they have identical IQ that if you knew the caste average IQ of each caste you could predict that one group of couples from one caste would have kids of different average IQs than the kids of the couples from the other caste. Those castes have enough genetic separation and a low enough gene flow between them that just because they individually have the same IQ that doesn’t mean their kids have equal likelihood of having the same IQ.

    The question you need to ask about each country is just how much gene flow has there been and how much are there really distinct subpops with different distributions of genetic variants. If some dominant allele boosts IQ and one group has it at higher frequency then the members of that group are more likely to have two copies and therefore more likely to pass that allele on to offspring than is the case for some other group where the allele occurs less frequently.

    If we tested the mathematician’s immediate relatives we could come up with a better estimate of the likely IQ that the mathematician’s kids would regress to. You think the immediate relatives of 130 IQ Tamils and the immediate relatives of 130 IQ of some low Indian caste have the same average IQ? (I’d give better caste name examples but I don’t know them)

    Razib, Shifting toward a qualifications-based method of choosing immigrants would definitely improve the quality of our immigrants. I’m all for it.

    But as for what is “corrosive to the nature of the state”: Corrosive by what standards? You are accepting a mid-late 20th century conception of human rights, not an 18th century Enlightenment conception. That they were able to promote the idea of a rights-based society in spite of the fact that they did not hold people equal in ability and in spite of the overall condition of the world at the time and of all previous known human history suggests that we don’t need to maintain the modern fiction that we are all equal in ability or civility in order to defend the value of a rights-based society. Think about that.

    Seriously, you and GC need to think thru not just what political tactics you think work best but really what people ought to believe about themselves and their fellow humans. They aren’t going to support a greatly different immigration policies if those policies are presented as utilitarian arguments made within their existing mental framework. In my view the framework must change (and, to a large extent, revert back to a previous framework, albeit with more scientific evidence supporting it) in order to support a big change in current policy.

  38. Godless writes:
    “2) Re: Switzerland – Scott, you *did* favorably compare Switzerland to the US and say that “we should be more like them”. See your comment above.”

    Godless, vigilence is what seperates the winners from the losers in some aspects of life. I have no doubt that you are superior to me in mathematics and the sciences, but your vigilence may not equal mine. Time will tell.

    What I wrote about Switzerland: “I look at Switzerland and say, they don’t make shit, but hell what a nice place to live. Maybe that is what the USA should strive for. Being a nice place to live.”

    What Steve wrote: “Scott, I think the best contribution you could make to American civilization would be to emigrate to the Switzerland you so admire.”

    I never once said that I admire Switzerland as a place to live (nor is it implicit in my writing – you must choose assume it). The explicit meaning of my words were that the USA should strive to be a nice place to live. In the greater context of the debate I was arguing that the notion of utilitarian immigration was to often miss the point that there is more to life than high IQ engineers. For instance, there is also livability to consider.

    Godless, you assert that I favorably compared Switzerland to the USA. I say that is a possible interpretation but for certain I never said we should be more like them. I merely declared Switzerland a nice place to live. I also declared that the USA should strive to be a nice place to live. I never said that the “nice” of Switzerland was the only nice or the nice that the USA should strive for. Moreover, I never said the USA wasn’t nice. I see no confusion here. There are lots of distinct possibilities at play. It has been my experience that people often choose closure when they wish a hastby win over accuracy of debate.

    This is all quite ridiculous. My challenge to Steve was merely to demonstrate the weakness of his temperment. People need to stop the personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. Kill my words if you can, but leave behind the personal. Your other posters Jason and Hanno are similarly reckless and cannot answer the challenges to their smugness. In sum, for Steve to choose an attack based on the insignificant is absurd. For him to choose a battlefield that is poorly defined is demonstrative of his talent.

    Mistakes of the attacking kind are unforgivable when they go wrong. I am sure, as a worldclass scientist who dabbles in a high-stakes debate, you would agree.

    Scott

  39. If some dominant allele boosts IQ and one group has it at higher frequency then the members of that group are more likely to have two copies and therefore more likely to pass that allele on to offspring than is the case for some other group where the allele occurs less frequently.

    re: regression to the mean-it seems quite clear to me that intelligence is a polygenic continuous quantitative trait-so yes, on the reductive level this might make sense at one of the many locii. but, seeing as how Quantitative Trait Locii studies are having a difficult time at pinning down g genes it seems plausible that any given effect on a locus where standard dominant-recessive effects occur will contribute only a small portion of the total phenotype (since quantitative traits seem occur additively). if we assume that such a process occurs on one locus, it is also possible that hybrid vigor (heterozygous advantage) would occur at another locus, resulting in a wash overall in terms of phenotype.

    it is posssible that the process you describe occurs in some populations-in other words, these populations have genetics that are wildly out of wack with the standard quantitative genetic model of multiple locii contributing to the overall phenotype-for instance, let’s see what the cochran & harpending study postulates, it seems that jews, a small, genetically isolated population who might have experienced atypical selection pressures might have made their genetics of IQ inheritance less continuous and more discrete. well-we could test for that though, there are plenty of jewish-non-jewish marriages today. do the IQs of the children violate our standard predictions? ie; are they far lower than they should be all things being equal because the Jewish spouse’s IQ was high because of homozygosity at one locii that had a strong effect on the phenotype?

    the only mention i have on this topic is the possibility of hybrid vigor among eurasian children in hawaii referenced in the g factor. so the short of it is that though your thesis is possible, and might occur in jews, i think the null hypothesis should be that g is a standard continuous trait influenced by multiple locii….

    But as for what is “corrosive to the nature of the state”: Corrosive by what standards? You are accepting a mid-late 20th century conception of human rights, not an 18th century Enlightenment conception. That they were able to promote the idea of a rights-based society in spite of the fact that they did not hold people equal in ability and in spite of the overall condition of the world at the time and of all previous known human history suggests that we don’t need to maintain the modern fiction that we are all equal in ability or civility in order to defend the value of a rights-based society. Think about that.

    1) i don’t really know what you’re getting at, i personally have little inclination toward “positive rights”

    2) the idea encapsulated in the 18th century is that we are all equal before the law and not equal in ability. what exactly have i said contradicts this? certainly this might not apply to non-citizens, but i think this can be a contentious point, because if you use acturial policies to determine citizenship (in other words, before citizenship you judge them differently from their individual traits), after someone becomes a citizen, it’s not like they don’t have an emotional rememberance of the time when they weren’t treated equally.

    3) before the mid-20th century, as peter brimelow might say, non-whites were not part of the political nation (peter responded in such a fashion about blacks when asked about their presence in the early republic in a white nation-after all, many states simply made it illegal for blacks to vote or immigrate into them). until the 1950s many asian immigrants could not legally naturalize. so you might be a bit surprised that i’m cautious about appealing too much to the idea of liberalism as it was formulated then. think on that.

    is a-racialism good or bad as a government policy? well, it’s good for me, since i like living in mostly white areas and enjoy the united states. is it good for whites? i don’t know, i like to think it is, but perhaps it’s not. AM REN & jared taylor make the case that it isn’t. the problem with racialism is that in this day & age it always starts to devolve into factionalism (if this is a white country, perhaps a white protestant country, a white northwest european protestant country, well, the scandinavians are socialistic, even in minnesota, so perhaps a white anglo-saxon protestant country)

  40. understood godless-but in any case, i’m going to withdraw from any personal attacks on peter ;) he’s nice enough in emails and though i might disagree with him-i respect that he is pretty honest about his position.

  41. Razib, On the whole “regression to the mean” business I don’t understand your reply. Many of the genes that contribute to levels of intelligence must do so in some sort of dominance/recessive fashion. Whether there are 10 or 100 or 1000 genes that have variations that contribute to intelligence intelligence diffences does not change that. So I don’t understand how your statement “g is a standard continuous trait influenced by multiple locii” really is evidence for your idea that homozygosity would not always influence whether there is regression toward the mean (at least that is what I think you are trying to say).

    Why would Jewish/non-Jewish marriages result in lower IQ than expected? If the mutations that boost IQ are dominant and if smart Jews are more homozygous for those mutations than their similar IQ non-Jewish spouses then you’d expect the kids to not regress as far toward the mean of the spouse’s group as would be expected if mating with a heterozygous person of like IQ. If the Jewish member of the couple was homozygous for some IQ-hoosting variant then it would not matter whether their non-Jewish mate was heterozygous for the same IQ-boosting variant.

    Now, if there are IQ boosting variants that are recessive and the IQ lowering variants are dominant you’d expect that mating dumb with smart would tend to create offspring that are closer to the dummies.

    Razib, you say:

    because if you use acturial policies to determine citizenship (in other words, before citizenship you judge them differently from their individual traits), after someone becomes a citizen, it’s not like they don’t have an emotional rememberance of the time when they weren’t treated equally.

    But then isn’t this an argument for keeping out some group altogether? If once some of them become members of the polity of the US they are going to say, as you suggest, that they were unfairly treated because they had to pass thru an actuarial judgement process that didn’t judge them as individuals then why have them come here at all? If they are going to feel that aggrieved then they are going to be more likely to seek preferences for their group. That is exactly what I don’t want. This country does not exist to be therapeutic nation for the benefit of their self esteem.

    BTW, If you don’t know what I meant in response to your comment about “corrosive to the nature of the state” then I don’t know what your point was in the first place. What corrosive effect are you worried about?

    Yes, I understand why you and GC say let in those who have really high IQ regardless of race or ethnicity or culture or religion. I get their economic value to the nation as a whole. But if they are going to still feel aggrieved, well, why should I have to deal with that? I want to keep out the whiners and the special pleaders. We have enough of them as it is.

    In any case, individual IQ is an important characteristic of immigrants but it is not the only one. Likely offspring IQ is just as important or more so. Religious beliefs are also very important and I’ve already stated we should keep out all Muslims. But we ought to look at other characteristics and, yes, use actuarial knowledge of how each group does once they get here since we can’t measure each individual characteristic that will make a difference for each person. The acceptance of the need to do this is an acknowledgement of the limits of our understanding of humans. It is also an acceptance of the limit of the competence of governments. Think about the alternative: you want to set the employees of a government agency to the task of judging immigrants as individuals? Bad idea.

    GC, How did the 3/5 compromise make blacks part of the political nation? They increased the voting power of the Southern whites. They had no political power. Their presence enhanced the political power of the people who owned them. When you decide you don’t like someone you become quite unfair in the way you judge every statement they make. You might have some legitimate beefs with VDare but you aren’t gong to convince me by attacking them in ways that are obviously unjustified.

  42. “Northern Europeans are socialists. Americans are capitalists. If 100 million Northern Europeans came to the United States and preserved their current political attitudes, we’d have a welfare state and a dismantling of the constitution. “

    So, in other words, there wouldn’t really be any changes :)

    “How many Asian states are true in liberty? That is the relevant question. To focus on democracy is to miss the true analytic. It takes many things to make a free society and these are not things that society chooses to realizes overnight.”

    How were European states true in liberty during the 19th Century? The 18th Century?

    The question is how true in liberty are the people who leave those society going to be. People who want to leave their home societies are pretty much guaranteed to be dissatisfied with their home societies in some important way, and are less likely than those who stay behind to support perpetuating the policies of their former home here in the US. Since the people who stay behind can’t vote, and the people who leave can, then the influence of their home society is not as great as some here make it out to be.

    “Obvious to you and I, perhaps, but others will (rightly) point out that those who came from Europe in the 1800s were often illiterate factory workers who eventually became middle class. Today is not exactly parallel to yesterday for a number of reasons (e.g. no official assimilation policy, no immigration pause as in 1924-1965 [yet], *much* easier world travel, etc.) , but the problem is that the *only* difference that most people see is the racial characteristics of today’s immigrants vs. yesterday’s.”

    By far the biggest difference between today and yesterday is that yesterday’s immigrants could not look forward to any sort of welfare benefits. It was sink or swim; the ones that didn’t like those terms didn’t bother to come, the ones who came and couldn’t hack it went back to Europe (at least 1/4 of all immigrants in the 19th Century moved back), and the ones who stayed made full use of the talent that their home societies utterly wasted through stupid laws and policies and prospered.

    Our current welfare system ruins this filter. Getting rid of it is the only long-term solution.

    Other proposed solutions:

    1) Limit immigration. One big secret to our success is the way we siphon off the best that humanity has to offer. Stop doing that, and I don’t think we’ll continue to be as successful long term.

    2) Limit immigration, let in people with credentials. Credentials are imperfect at best, and we miss out on those whose home societies actively prevented them from getting the credentials or rising in society, but whose talents would allow them to rise in a freer society such as ours.

    3) Unlimited immigration, let immigrants have our welfare benefits. The drawbacks to this should be obvious.

  43. Razib, On the whole “regression to the mean” business I don’t understand your reply. Many of the genes that contribute to levels of intelligence must do so in some sort of dominance/recessive fashion. Whether there are 10 or 100 or 1000 genes that have variations that contribute to intelligence intelligence diffences does not change that. So I don’t understand how your statement “g is a standard continuous trait influenced by multiple locii” really is evidence for your idea that homozygosity would not always influence whether there is regression toward the mean (at least that is what I think you are trying to say).

    what you are saying is that many populations might develop dominant-recessive alleles…but again, the only study that might seem to investigage this through racial admixture that i know of shows heterosis, hybrid vigor, so it seems that at this point your thesis is a thought experiment.

    Yes, I understand why you and GC say let in those who have really high IQ regardless of race or ethnicity or culture or religion.

    no, you misunderstand me, i do not think that on principle we should not take into account race, culture, etc,, i am saying that in practical terms in the modern situation of where the united states is there will be serious problems if you attempt to do this nakedly. additionally, using education as a filter and reducing the total amount of immigrants basically achieves the same effect as you are aiming for!

  44. Razib, I’m not arguing that there is no hybrid vigor. I’d expect there would be. But you are missing my point: homozygosity vs heterozygosity is probably what causes a lot of regression to the mean in offspring IQ. Regression to the mean is real. Therefore not everyone with, say, a 130 IQ is equally likely to have offspring which are also 130 average IQ. This matters.

    Look, if a couple are both 130 IQ and their parents and siblings are all less than that why is that? One reason could be noise in embryonic and post-embryonic development stages. Another reason is that the couple happened to get lucky in getting at least one copy of each IQ boosting variant that either one or the other parent had. But if they are each heterozygous for the same genes then when they have kids some will be homozygous for some genes that boost IQ and if those are dominant variants then those extra copies will not make their kids any smarter. At the same time other genes in their offspring will be homozygous for IQ lowering variants of other genes.

    Granted, just putting on training and credential qualifications on prospective immigrants will help a lot. But given that different countries have different standards for, example, medical school admissions and graduation it is clear credentials alone don’t cut it. If you add IQ tests then that would make the selection system better. Still, it would not be ideal for genetic quality. You’d really have to add additional measures (sibling IQs would be ideal but national average IQs or other measures would be helpful) to try to get at what mean would be regressed to in offspring to be truly ideal. Genetic tests using really cheap nanopore or microfluidic sequencers would be even better but beyond current tech.

    Of course, we are so far away from an ideal immigration policy that this discussion amounts to splitting hairs of an angel that is dancing on the head of a pin. Just building a wall on the border with Mexico would make a huge difference and ought to be the first priority IMO.

  45. Here’s a different perspective on the consequences of selecting in favor of successful high IQ immigrants.

    It is difficult to remember at this point that, prior to World War II, America had a thriving compositional community with its own distinctly non-European aesthetic, spearheaded by Henry Cowell, John Becker, Carl Ruggles, George Antheil. As soon as the Nazis came to power in 1933, composers like Schoenberg, Bartok, Hindemith, Stravinsky, Krenek, and Weill made a bee-line to America, along with hundreds of lesser-known musical emigres. The burgeoning American scene was forced underground by the avalanche of famous Europeans, and the post-war era from 1946 to 1960 was a period of intense absorption of continental aesthetics. Composers like Milton Babbitt and Roger Sessions became more European than the Europeans, and insisted that great American music could only be a continuation of the European tradition – primarily, the 12-tone tradition.

    So there are a few legitimate concerns about even quality immigration.

a