"the British empire gave favorable treatment to groups like the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia"

Yeah, but the Brits weren't all that nice to China. For example, the Brits started "opium wars" to force China to allow the sale of British opium...that certainly didn't help the Chinese. British opium both took resources away from China and reduced China's productivity by making millions of its people addicted to opium.

Also, how would the UK helping the Chinese in Malaysia or Indonesia help lead to the success of Chinese immigrants in the USA or elsewhere?

"Think of the fun his opponents would have with television images of long-time US residents being separated from their families and dragged from their homes for deportation...

Arnold isn't that stupid. No governor is going to touch that particular live rail"

You are creating a false dichotomy here...the choice is not between giving illegals citizenship and going door to door in immigrant neighborhoods and "dragg[ing illegal aliens] from their homes for deportation."

There are many options in between. The U.S. can avoid active deportation but simply not give illegal aliens citizenship as it does now, which is not very effective, but at least is better than amnesty, which will only encourage even more illegal immigration than we already have.

The U.S. could discourage illegal immigration with strictly enforced employer sanctions, which would make it difficult for illegal immigrants to receive employment. We could also reduce illegal immigration by ensuring that illegal immigrants do not receive welfare benefits.

Another solution could be to check the citizenship of anyone who is arrested. If an arrestee were found to be illegally here, they would be deported.

There is also the obvious issue of stopping further illegal immigration, which could be accomplished simply through vastly improved border and visa enforcement. For example, we could build a high security wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Even at $10,000,000 per mile, the wall would only cost $20 billion, or 0.8% of the federal budget for one year. Before and during the construction of the wall, we could have the military on the border to stop illegal immigration.

All of the solutions above could greatly reduce illegal immigration, and none involve dragging any person from his home. Amnesty is a stupid idea that will only make the illegal immigration problem worse. Worse yet, amnesty is not very politically popular, even amongst Hispanics.

Second of all, the "blonde universality" theory doesn't take an important piece of contrary evidence into account: the disproportionate presence of East Asian females as European male mates and sex objects.

GC:I don't think this necessarily goes against Sailer's thesis. It's very possible that blondness gives an advantage for women but that the various features of East Asian women give them an advantage that far outweighs any disadvantage of being darker.

Now personally, I *don't* prefer blondes, and I do (significantly) prefer East Asian women, but I wouldn't make too much out of my personal preferences (I mean, I'm 19 years old and reading right-wing and h-bd websites...generalizing from that certainly wouldn't give very reliable information on 19-year old guys!)

Was I the only person surprised to see Steve Sailer, normally a big supporter of interracial marriage as a (partial) solution to the race problem in America, point out what a total failure it has been in Brazil? Perhaps Sailer's usual support for interracial marriage is merely "politically correct squid ink" similar to Cavalli-Sforza's insistence that race does not exist.

I think Sailer has often pointed out that interracial marriage has not helped the situation that much in most Latin American countries. His belief in the positive effects of interracial marriage on race relations seems pretty mild. He also acknowleges the relative rarity of interracial marriage in the U.S.

If you are saying that interracial marriage is no panacea to our race problems, I agree with you perfectly. Its rarity alone (do you even see all those leftist "race does not exist" people marrying interracially?) makes it an unrealistic solution to anything.

That being said, I have no problem with interracial marriage, and I don't see any conflict between interracial marriage and a belief in race realism.* I see no reason to believe that Sailer's pro-interracial marriage views are contrived.

*I'll admit I'm a bit biased on this issue, since I generally prefer East Asian women over white women.

I do think that Brimelow and especially Francis lean too close to racialism and white nationalism, but I also think there are valid concerns about even skilled immigration. Certainly Brimelow's comments about an INS office being full of people who are "almost entirely colored" are questionable. Francis' connections with the CofCC are definately questionable, but I think both Brimelow and Francis often do make good points about our screwball immigration policy.

There are definately valid, non-racist reasons to be concerned about skilled non-white immigration. For example, Asians (who tend to be skilled) did vote for Al Gore by a substantial margin (55-41 VNS and ~62-35 LA Times). Asians also voted for Gray Davis in 2002 by a substantial margin, while whites actually voted against Davis in 2002. Hispanics who have high incomes (and are presumably skilled) also tend to remain Democratic, if somewhat less so than their poor, unskilled counterparts. I also am not a big fan of the H1B visas, which force foreign workers to work for artificially low salaries (since HIB holders are bound to the company that hires them).

That being said, I do favor skilled immigration (perhaps ~300K per year, depending on where the economy is) and I don't by any means support discriminating in favor of Europeans. While voting patterns are a concern, I don't think they are a valid reason for discrimination. I also don't think European immigrants, who have been steeped in socialism and low morals, would vote much more sensibly than skilled non-whites immigrants.

Moreover, our #1 problem is not how Asians or skilled Hispanics vote (both are small groups), but how the masses of current and future unskilled immigrants, who are likely to stay poor, dependent, and resentful (esp. with masses of new unskilled immigrants to keep wages at rock bottom levels), will affect the long-term political and economic stability of the U.S.

"And truth be told, Ethnic Studies majors and English majors are virtually indistinguishable nowadays in terms of content in the modern university. Virtually every humanities course includes a discussion of "race, gender, and class" from a hopelessly PC perspective."

(Warning--kind of long--this is about my experience in a leftist PC humanities course)

I'm 19 and I can say firsthand that my (required)humanities core course at UC Irvine was full of PC multicultural garbage. The first quarter, we had to read such works as "China Men" by Maxine Hong Kingston (horrbile things the U.S. did to Asians), about the "Plessy v. Ferguson" Supreme Court case that established "seperate but equal" in 1896 (horrible things the U.S. did to blacks), and "The Cockroach People" by radical Chicano writer Oscar Zeta Acosta. That garbage took up 60% of the first quarter. To top it off, my discussion leader talked about conspiracy theories of how the U.S. government was responsible for Martin Luther King's assassination. She also said that the government was in place to protect the rich from the poor.

The second quarter wasn't much better. Topics included the French Revolution, the Communist Manifesto, and Nazism. In the Nazism unit, the professors teaching the course emphasized the relation of American anti-miscegenation laws to Nazi ones. The professors also tied the eugenics movement in the U.S. to Nazism and the sterilizations in Nazi Germany. Another major point was the U.S.'s refusal to allow Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany to the U.S.-- I would agree that that was not a good thing, but the implication that the U.S. needs a more open immigration policy in general is ridiculous.

In the third quarter, the anti-Communist movement was bashed. Additionally, at the end of the quarter, we learned about protestors attempted use of the "necessity defense" (originally to protect those who committed illegal acts to avoid more dire situations) to avoid penalties for illegal activities while protesting. Additionally, my discussion leader for the third quarter admitted to being "a deconstructionist, a kind of postmodernist." She also commented on my essay that I should not refer to some cultures as "primitive."

To top the whole thing off, this humanities course is required of all CHP (Campuswide Honors Program) students, the most elite students at UC Irvine. Just what we need...a bunch of propoganda directed at very bright but generally politically ignorant students.

I think this is particularly dangerous for the Asian students, who (I would think) tend to be even more politically ignorant than the white students. Being a "minority" group, Asians probably are also more likely to identify with past victims of discrimination against minorities (and view discrimination as lingering today) than whites. Perhaps courses such as the Humanities Core Course are in part responsible for the leftist tendencies of As
More....

i also think that asian (at least east asian) campus drift toward evangelical christianity is also part of the general non-technical credulity that is endemic to this group-they can't make heads or tails of social & cultural issues so they take the easiest and most predigested solution out there.

I don't see any problem with East Asians' adoption of Christianity. Yes, many Chirstians, including "conservative" ones, push PC crap like "race does not exist," but I don't see PC crap like that as so much a problem endemic to Christianity as it is so endemic to our society that PC crap has penetrated into every sector of society, including Christianity. The guilt component of Christianity can play into leftist/Marxist crap, but many feel plenty guilty about America and/or their success without ever cracking open a Bible or stepping foot in a church. Yes some Christians believe in a hard literal interpretation of the Bible that is anti-scientific and especially anti-Darwinian, but not all Christians believe this way. Moreover, Darwinism as it applies to race and racial differences is just as vociferously and anti-scienfically pushed by the left, center, and Limbaugh/Hannity/Bush quasi-right as it is by many hard-line Christians (for those who haven't already, see Steve Sailer's Darwin's Enemies on the Left and Right).

Johnny:

I think what Matt is lamenting is the lack of balance. These are not classes in which the fundamental good of capitalism + democracy + American science is factually justified and established. These are intentionally selective portrayals of American history to make the US look like a land of evil racists.

The lack of balance is exactly the problem. Almost my whole Humanities course did everything it could to point out what was *wrong* with America, and race relations was almost always an issue when the course dealt with anything America-related.

The problem is that harping too much on race relations while ignoring say, the achievements of the Founding Fathers, does not do justice to America. Yes, race relations are not an area in which America has a whole lot to be proud of historically. However, I can't think of any country in the world that has a good record historically on race relations. Certainly, the implicit message of guilt to push leftist ideas on race (that we need affirmative action to correct racism, we need more social programs to correct racism, that race does not exist and is nothing more than a social construct used to oppress minorities, etc) is not justified.