Search Box

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

A hypothetical question about immigration

Yesterday's NY Times had an editorial titled Deported From the Middle of Nowhere, about the plight of the young illegal immigrants at our southern border. A few excerpts:

When the influx of young Central American migrants to the border erupted as a crisis this summer, President Obama correctly called it a humanitarian crisis….But the treatment of hundreds of these migrants in a makeshift detention center in Artesia, N.M., is appalling evidence that this promise was empty, according t a lawsuit filed Friday in federal District Court by a coalition of civil rights organizations…..

For weeks after the center was opened, there were no protocols that even allowed lawyers inside, raising fears that people may have been deported without representation at all…..The solutions are obvious: Mr. Obama needs to suspend all deportations until he can create a system that meets the basic standard of giving a fair hearing to every detainee who expresses a fear of persecution. He should allow the 300 women and children who have already been deported to return and have their cases re-examined. 

Now, let's conduct a little thought experiment.

Imagine for a moment that these young immigrants were not of Hispano-Indian stock, but of European stock. Let's say, for argument's sake, that they were of German and Polish and Irish descent. And let's say that there was zero chance they'd join the Mexican Mafia or Nuestra Familia or MS-13, and that their loyalty would not be to La Raza. But, let's say that a few of their illegal brethren who had slipped over the border in the past had eventually joined the Aryan Brotherhood, Christian Identity, and the Ku Klux Klan. And let's say that when they did get their citizenship, instead of becoming automatic Democrats, they would almost certainly vote Republican.

Would the New York Times continue to see this invasion as a "humanitarian crisis?" Would they continue to agitate for the legal rights of these teenagers who weren't getting adequate legal representation? Would they demand not only an immediate suspension of all deportations, but also the return of those who have already been deported so that they could have their cases reexamined?

And what, for that matter, would President Obama's attitude be? Would he still be considering a blanket executive amnesty on humanitarian grounds?

Something to ponder.


Steven said...

Probably not but then it wouldn't be a humanitarian crisis if they came from Europe because their homeland is as developed as America.

Also, I know its a thought experiment but would they really vote republican? I think it would be split but I would guess there would be more democrat supporters. Europeans can be a pretty liberal and socialistic bunch.

The religious right element of the republicans would probably alienate a lot of them. England, for example, just isn't as religious as America. Its almost like I don't live in a Christian society anymore. I don't think anybody in my family goes to church and that's not particularly unusual. I think all three of the local churches of my childhood have been knocked down or turned into something else.

On something like healthcare, the centre of Europe is on the left of the sense that there is a consensus here that healthcare should be freely available to everybody at point of need while Obama's reforms do not go that far. I would want to bring the American healthcare system in line with Europe's or at least make sure nobody in need of medical care is turned away.

If you found out that Mexicans were equal to Europeans in IQ, would you change your mind about Mexican immigration?

Also, here's a thought experiment: if a large number of whtie Americans moved to China and were a minority there, would they exhibit loyalty to la raza then?

Anonymous said...

It's a no-brainer. Illegal immigrants do not belong here. They are citizens of other countries. We should not spend money on them. If they want to live in this country, then they can go through the legal route (in their own country) to reside here. I have no sympathy for them. Deport them.


John Craig said...

Steven --
You're taking this too literally. I was talking about people of European heritage streaming in over the southern border. I didn't mean to turn it into a discussion of European politics. And the point is, what would the NY Times' attitude be towards more potential white Republicans, those they regard as their traditional enemy, streaming in.

I actually would be more receptive to Mexican immigration if the average Mexican IQ were 100. (I would still want it to be legal, however, and would still want the borders to be protected.) But if that were the case, they'd have a more economically vibrant country themselves, would probably have a less corrupt government, one that would be able to put the cartels down, and wouldn't be trying to stream over the border in the same numbers.

Whites have shown very little inclination toward racial solidarity. If there were a sizable minority of whites in China, I suspect they would have their own enclaves, and prefer to associate with each other, but I doubt they would exhibit the same in-you-face tribal loyalties other races do. And I doubt they would protest things like job or college entrance "discrimination," particularly if those things were the result of quantifiable test results.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Amen. There is no other country in the world which has been so accepting of immigrants as us, and no other Western country which has such porous borders.

We should follow Mexico's lead, and deport all illegals, and if they're caught here a second time, subject them to a jail sentence. And when it comes to legal immigration, we, like Mexico, should ask, what skills can they contribute to our country?

Anonymous said...

Here's a real-life answer to your question.

I believe the immigrant dumping is being done, primarily, to [further] disrupt the demographics and social cohesion of Americans. That the new turds will vote Dem (if they bother to register), is just the cherry on the hot shit sundae.

John Craig said...

Anon --
How typical that the Obama administration would want to deport that family when they don't cost the taxpayers a dime and would probably raise the average IQ of this country.

I remember when Bill Clinton said he was happy that whites were becoming a minority in this country. Has there ever been another people anywhere in the history of the world who has celebrated their own displacement this way?

Steven said...

Okay sorry I was taking it too literally.

I do believe there is already an America town in shanghai, though it does sound a little tongue in cheek.

Whites of course have shown a great inclination to racial solidarity in the past. It's just where we are in our history at the moment.

I think a lot of people assume economic disparities are due to discrimination absent belief in (or if you prefer, knowledge of) natural IQ differences. Plus there really has been a hell of a lot of discrimination in the past, recently enough for older living people to have lived through and remember. Give it some or two generations is not long in history. The iq issue will be clarified eventually too.

In a sense, the discrimination paradigm so popular with the left and under-performing minorities is a consequence of real discrimination whites inflicted in the past. That's why those beliefs are with us. It seems unfair to us now but it follows from the time when we ourselves acted very unfairly. Kind of collective group level karma. Don't take that to mean I like it or think its's just the way it is for now. Like I said, I think things will be clarified in the future.

As for Mexico, some of the blame for Mexico's terrible problems, particularly the growth of the cartels, also lies with the huge cocaine market to the north. This really has brought so much misery and destruction and it has been to service the drug habits of Americans. Now some of that negativity, in the form of gangs, comes pouring over the border with the rest of them. It's an interconnected world. If America doesn't legalise cocaine, the rest of ravaged Latin America can't...not that I'm necessarily in favour of that.

If you look at the Iqs and homicide rates of Mexican Americans, I think they should be well capable of a decent society on their own. Their homicide rates, for example, are closer to whites.

Steven said...

Just taking this thought further now. White people have quite recently come out of 500 years of feeling seriously superior to everybody else, colonising half the world, killing millions of active Americans and practicing race based slavery. That's just fact. It might have something to do with the present collective consciousness characterised by a guilt and uneasiness about strong group racial solidarity.

A more positive slant would be that our experience means we have progressed beyond that and are at the forefront of something.

I'm not naive or self loathing. Other races have done shit too...but they have mostly done it within their continents I think ...and this where we are, regardless of what others have done.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Okay, in order:

White people have actually rarely shown solidarity as white people. What they've shown solidarity as is as Vikings, or Teutons, or Romans, or Gauls, etc. Hitler was basically the first who wanted pan-white solidarity, although he had a fairly exclusive definition of whiteness (which I don't think included Slavs or some Mediterranean types)

Nobody denies the discrimination of the past. But the IQ issue has already been determined. (There are quicker ways of determining it than waiting a couple generations to find out how a population does.)

Bear in mind, Japanese and Chinese were brought over to the US as coolies and farm labor, and were also discriminated against (though not enslaved). The Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were put into concentration camps in WWII and had to sell their property at ten cents on the dollar before they reported to places like Tule Lake. Yet both groups consistently outperform whites on the SATs and in school.

Mexicans average 93-ish on the IQ tests, roughly halfway between whites and blacks.

Also keep in mind, the reason we enslaved blacks and not the other way around is not because they are morally superior. They had nothing against slavery, and enslaved each other on a regular basis back in the old days. The reason they didn't come up to Europe to enslave whites is because they couldn't build a boat which would go out more than 100 yards into the ocean.

If you want to compare the races, one good way to do it is to compare the level of civilization that each achieved before they had contact with the other races.

jova said...

The immigration debate over the decades has shifted...I remember the 80s when the democrats , and labor unions , were more against amnesty than the Republicans...while today it seems like the democrats are more pro-amnesty , as they see that hispanics are more likely to be democrats.

It is frustrating to see the Mexican government , Mexican politicians and Mexican businessmen actively advocating amnesty in the USA for Mexicans, while the Mexican government does not allow Americans to work in Mexico. the Mexican Government even prohibits Americans from buying land within 100 miles of their coasts. They actively discriminate against Americans, yet expect us to welcome their illiterate peasants...

John Craig said...

Jova --
Yes, it's evolved from a labor issue to a voting bloc issue.

And yes, the hypocrisy of the Mexican government is overwhelming.

Steven said...

"White people have actually rarely shown solidarity as white people. What they've shown solidarity as is as Vikings, or Teutons, or Romans, or Gauls, etc."

You could say the same thing about NE Asians or Africans. Something else is going on in America but I don't think there's any global pattern where other races have more solidarity.

American blacks are descendants of slaves which had their tribal/ethnic identities taken away from them and a singular racial identity (nigger) imposed upon them.

"Nobody denies the discrimination of the past. But the IQ issue has already been determined."

While I agree that the evidence is in favour of a genetic explanation for IQ differences, I don't think it has been definitively proved. I don't think even the leading heredetarians are claiming that. Even if it is all worked out as you say, the fact is most people either don't know that. I think the people around me assume that whites and blacks are of equal intellectual potential and given this situation that prevails in the conventional wisdom, the discrimination paradigm is perpetuated. I do believe this will be resolved by geneticists and one position or the other will eventually gain widespread acceptance.

"Bear in mind, Japanese and Chinese..."

You don't need to convince me.

"Mexicans average 93-ish"

Doesn't seem so bad. I think they can do a lot better and the cartels are a big problem that is holding them back.

Take a look at this:

A developed Hispanic country should be a decent place to live.

"Also keep in mind, the reason we enslaved blacks and not the other way around is not because they are morally superior".

Yes, I know.

"If you want to compare the races, one good way to do it is to compare the level of civilization that each achieved before they had contact with the other races."

hmm I'm not really sure about this. The various continents got agriculture at different times, so some continents had developmental head starts of thousands of years. Some of the continents were geographically more isolated or distant from where it first developed (I believe in the middle east). Even in a world where all races had equal intelligence, it would have to develop somewhere first, after tens of thousands of years of all humans being hunter gatherers. So you might expect developmental differences even in an equal IQ world.

I also think climatic conditions are significant. People in cold areas would surely have far more impetus and motivation to develop sophisticated, sturdy and warm shelters. This is a pre-colonial building in Zimbabwe: But did buildings like this really need to spread where it is hot all year?

On the other hand, its also plausible that you are right about that and the developmental differences (before contact) were due to intelligence differences. There was always less separation of Europe and east Asia though and innovations could pass between them more easily than across the Sahara. If you look across Europe- the middle east- Iran and Afghanistan- Northern India- Burma and SE Asia- China...its pretty much a continuous zone. The Sahara is a bigger barrier.

At the least I think there are mitigating factors for SSA.

Steven said...

afterthought: its interesting that civilization developed on the biggest and most populous landmass...and that other areas of the world were relatively less part of it.

Steven said...

On the other hand, it looks from these like they are mid way between whites and blacks in crime too.

Also, i've been thinking about it and i'm not so sure about the climate thing. I always just thought cold countries would be forced to modernize their housing faster. You can live in shacks in Africa and survive the climate.

John Craig said...

Steven --
A lot of people have made the argument about how you don't need more than a shack to survive in the tropics as a reason for why those who lived further away from the tropics were forced to evolve higher IQ's. I've never been completely convinced of this. (Although I do agree that there is a correlation.) There were other peoples who lived in hot, tropical climates away from sub-Saharan Africa who built amazing edifices. The Mayans built elaborate pyramids. The Incans bolt Macchu Pichu. The Cambodians built Angkor Wat. The Indians built the Taj Mahal. And even in Africa, north of the Sahara, the Egyptians built the Pyramids. All the people who live in those areas now have lower average IQ's than whites or northeast Asians, but once upon a time they did built some amazing stuff.

Steven said...

Yeah that's why I started thinking twice about it. Even if the Africans had less incentive to build stone houses, they still might have built things like castles, town halls, religious buildings and other infrastructure. And it's true that other hot and tropical regions did better.

I think it's plausible though that the need to provide proper housing to slum dwellers in Africa is less pressing than in It would be in say Russia, so maybe it doesn't get done as rapidly as it could.

In any case, I do agree that racial iq differences are significantly at play in development differences (and that the evidence for those differences being genetic is very strong). I just think there are environmental factors at play too.

To take a more obvious case, you'd be hard pressed to argue that native inhabitants of Australia, cut off from the rest of mankind, had an equal shot at development as Europeans who could and did vastly benefit from the innovations of non-Europeans across the Eurasian landmass. Every race didn't have an equal environmental situation.

Possibly the genetic distance between ss Africans and Eurasians says something about the degree of isolation.

John Craig said...

Steven --
My understanding is, among people who've studied these things, Australian aborigines are the one people on earth who are considered to be more primitive than sub-Saharan Africans.

It's coincidental that they look somewhat alike, that's convergent evolution. genetically they are as distant from each other as any two races.

Steven said...

The Filipino Negrito people are very distant from Africans but its amazing how similar they look. I guess these are tropical climate features.

Funny how the kid from the side looks a little like Pacqiao.

Obviously , I don't really know whether this is a really good point or an excuse but I found this little excerpt which sums up what I was trying to say:

"For most of history, contact between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia was sharply limited by the Sahara Desert. One major consequence of this isolation was lack of access to the innovations of Southwest Asia, where many of humanity's fundamental technologies (including agriculture, writing, smelting, and the wheel) were first achieved. While these technologies diffused over vast distances both westward (across North Africa and Europe) and eastward (across Asia), their southward journey was frustrated by the mighty Sahara.

Consequently, these fundamental technologies were greatly delayed from permeating the Sub-Saharan region (or had to be developed locally instead). This dramatically impacted the course of Sub-Saharan history, especially in the case of agriculture (see The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages). Since agriculture was the key prerequisite to urbanization, most of Sub-Saharan Africa did not experience the rise of cities until the medieval or modern periods."

Steven said...

"Genetically, Negritos are the most distant human population from Africans at most loci studied thus far (except for MC1R, which codes for dark skin)."


John Craig said...

Steven --
Those pictures are interesting, thanks.

I actually wrote about that phenomenon a couple times, most recently here:

If you click on the link embedded in the post, it leads you to another post on the same subject, which includes a detailed map of genetic distances.

Steven said...

thanks, I'll read them. Those genetic distance maps are really interesting.

If true, this is really remarkable:

"In spite of their Negroid appearance, all scholars reject the theory that their ancestors came from Africa. Rather, the accepted theory today is that Philippine Negritos are descendants of groups of Homo sapiens who migrated into the Philippines during the Upper Pleistocene from mainland Southeast Asia, and subsequently developed their phenotypic traits in situ, through processes of microevolution, some 25,000 years ago."

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, they have ways of telling, through DNA analysis, how closely related different groups are. I agree, it's a fascinating topic.

It's also interesting to look at the globe and see how the appearances gradually change with geography. For instance, the Filipino Negritos look halfway between Melanesians and regular Filipinos. And Melanesians look halfway between Polynesians and Australian aborigines. And this is what you'd expect given their locations (in between the other two groups).

Steven said...

I've always thought some Tibetans looked native American and I just saw that they are halfway between Koreans and native Americans.

On the other hand, there are some SE Asians that look almost identical to SS Africans and they are the most distant. I guess that's why you have to group people on genetics rather than looks...though like you say, you can read similarity from looks a lot of the time.

Steven said...

...actually most of the time.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, the original Amerindians were thought to have migrated from Mongolia, and the Mongolians (and Tibetans) do look like the Plains Indians. (The Mayans and Aztecs had their own distinctive looks, more of a departure from the central Asians.)

On the other hand, genetically the Eskimos are more closely related to the northeast Asians, and in fact they do look more like Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, so that makes sense. They must have represented another, later (or earlier?) migration across the Bering Strait.