An open invitation: Since I've devoted so much time on this blog providing evidence that massive Hispanic immigration is not good for the country, I've wanted to take the other side, acknowledging that most social change has benefits as well as costs. The problem is that I keep coming up with pretty lame ideas. The only two important findings I've posted that are positive are that Hispanics work about as hard as the average American, and, while their mean IQ is significantly lower than whites, averages have been rising for Mexican Americans over the past couple decades.
Beyond that, my thoughts are kind of lame. For example, I've thought that more bodies means more economic and military power for America. Hispanics work and are willing to fight, so doesn't America benefit from increased size? But then I think that since these folks are not especially productive, more of them means more poverty and thus less economic might. Yes, they can fight, but aren't we too adventurous militarily already? I'm sure that more Hispanics mean more ethnic politics, which means more corruption and less government effectiveness. And more people means more traffic and pollution, and I hate all that urban stuff.
Then I think compared to Americans, Hispanic immigrants are slightly more Christian, so they will work against the trend away from Christianity. Now a Catholic church on every corner might benefit me when I'm traveling and looking for a place to attend mass, but are more Christians of Hispanic ethnicity going to improve the country? I don't see it. Plus, Christianity as practiced by minority folks seems to be very compatible with modern liberalism. Jesus just gets used to push for bigger government, anti-racism, and open borders.
Then I return to everyone else's lame arguments. I like Mexican food, and Hispanics will give you a glass of orange juice when you visit, while white folks will give you nothing.
Can anyone out there offer better arguments? And we know all the moralistic arguments like America is an immigrant nation and all that. I'm asking how America benefits. If no one can give me a good answer, then why the hell are we doing it?
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
Because sooner or later all government programs will be replaced by a monthly check paid equally to all resident citizens and we want to make sure there are as many citizens as possible before that transformation of government effectively locks out any more naturalized citizens.
ReplyDelete1) I think one important point often overlooked by the anti-immigration crowd is the immense good it does for the immigrants. Shouldn't we all be happy when so many people's lives are improved?
ReplyDelete2) I believe immigrants (and their descendants) make up a majority of population growth in the U.S. You mention economics, but imply that Latino immigrants are a net negative for our economy. That simply does not appear to be true according to any data I've ever seen or the overwhelming majority of economists I've read. Anti-immigrationists focus on the benefits given to immigrants but not on their productivity as compared to their wages.
I was asked by my employer to update my racial/ethnic profile for the government. They classified Hispanics as an ethnic group and not a race. Why not classify Germans, Italians, Poles, etc. also? This is bullshit! Hispanics have successfully enjoyed special status unlike the aforementioned groups when they immigrated. Consequently, groups representing Hispanics will continue to emphasize their exclusivity. It's good business. There are no arguments to challenge your argument.
ReplyDeleteMore hot women.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, Mexican women are, on average, more feminine and more comely than American women.
It's possible that Latin immigrants will intermarry with whites to such an extent that they'll be partially subsumed within the white population. Remember, the One Drop Rule does not apply with respect to Hispanics.
ReplyDeletePeter
"More hot women."
ReplyDeleteGet that man some glasses. In my classes of evenly divided women, there are two good-looking white women for every attractive Latina. Unless you define good-looking as short, moon-faced, and barrel-shaped.
If you were right (and you're not) I would have to count that as a serious argument!
They might displace more unsuitable populations for us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if they really do provide much greater manpower for the military. Even in war, its the smart people who are the most important, and that's true even of front line troops. I would say you really need an IQ of 100-110+ to be of great use in the army.
ReplyDeleteLook at Israel, the reason they are so powerful in their region is that the Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ ~2 s.d. above their neighbors.
"Get that man some glasses. In my classes of evenly divided women, there are two good-looking white women for every attractive Latina. Unless you define good-looking as short, moon-faced, and barrel-shaped"
ReplyDeleteRon, apparently the only Hispanic group you deal with is mestizo Mexicans. Not all people south of the border have the "barrel-shaped, moon-faced" look. It shows you only deal with Mexicans Which is why it's important not to treat Hispanics as one big group. Didn't you say in an earlier post not to treat Hispanics monolithically???
"Look at Israel, the reason they are so powerful in their region is that the Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ ~2 s.d. above their neighbors."
Orthodox Jews (of which most are Ashkenazim) are not required to serve in the Israeli Army.
They are young and they work. If it is a choice between a 25 yr. old hispanic with a 90 IQ, and a 25 yr. old white with a 100 IQ--simple we want the whites. But white people are not reproducing in this county and we have an aging population that is dropping out of the work force. Hispanic immigration brings young workers and that is one of several reasons that elites love it. Without immigration would America becom more like Japan? A recent article about "Herbivorous" young men in Japan who are uninterested in dating suggests that a lack of affordible family formation is affecting their monoracial culture as well. So... we can have immigration and slowly become a banana republic with an elite and a bunch of serfs while still having an economy, or we can try to remain monoracial and face very limited economic growth because of the lack of young workers.
ReplyDeleteJA,
ReplyDelete1) Yes, immigration is good for immigrants. That is why they come.
2) ALL of the growth in US population is from immigration. No native born group has total fertility over 2.0. The record keeping obscures this fact with the way they count natives.
"I think one important point often overlooked by the anti-immigration crowd is the immense good it does for the immigrants. Shouldn't we all be happy when so many people's lives are improved?"
ReplyDeleteI am sure that I could improve the lives of several poor, dysfunctional, illiterate individuals by opening up my upper middle class suburban Orange County home to them, but that would not be good for my family.
Same idea here. Our immigration policy needs to be based on what's good for the greatest number of our fellow citizens, not what's good for poor, dysfunctional, illiterate outsiders.
And I agree with Ron. Here in southern California, "Hispanic" means Mexican, and to a lesser extent Central American. Another good reason to get that fence built: it will cut down on eye pollution.
"More hot women."
ReplyDeleteGet that man some glasses. In my classes of evenly divided women, there are two good-looking white women for every attractive Latina.
Here in NE Florida, few of the Hispanics are Mexican. Most are Puerto Rican (owing to the navy bases) or Cuban or from mainland Americas but further south. The "Mexican" restaurant down the street is run by Salvadorans. All the women in there, staff and Hispanic-looking customers are thin and attractive, including the milf co-proprietor in her 40s and even the gilf I see occasionally in her 60s. Ok, the latter isn't quite as thin, but still. Meanwhile, the waitresses all make Cote de Pablo look like crap in comparison. (I may be exaggerating a tad)
This is just a hole-in-the-wall eatery in a strip mall, with good, quick service and, as you might imagine, much business even in a recession.
Anecdotes aren't data, though, and my impressions are only impressions.
You can't deny that whites love them some cheap Hispanic labor. Do you ever eat out or need a roof repaired? In most regions now it's nearly certain that the labor for jobs like those is done by Hispanics. You say they're not that productive, but they're productive enough that people find it worthwhile to hire them.
ReplyDeleteI think that's part of why the anti-immigration movement hasn't really caught on. Too many whites would prefer a few decades of cheap labor to leaving a future for our children.
A new study from the libertarian CATO Institute concludes that legalizing the more than eight million undocumented workers in the United States would have significant economic benefits for the country, while simply enhancing border enforcement and applying restrictive immigration laws would actually hurt the U.S. economically.
ReplyDeleteThe new report, written by Professor Peter B. Dixon and Research Fellow Maureen T. Rimmer at the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia, relies on an economic model used by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, as well as International Trade Commission.
Weighing public spending and revenues, U.S. employment rates in various occupations, and price levels for imports and exports, among other things, the authors conclude that “increased enforcement and reduced low-skilled immigration have a significant negative impact on the income of U.S. households.” The minimal savings in public spending on immigrants now “would be more than offset by losses in economic output and job opportunities for more skilled American workers.” A policy that reduces low-skilled immigration to about a third less than projected levels, then, over ten years, “would reduce U.S. household welfare by about 0.5 percent, or $80 billion.”
In contrast, “legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers would yield significant income gains for American workers and households,” the study found. Legalization would eliminate the costs of smuggling illegal immigrants, would allow immigrants to be more productive and openly participate in the economy, and it would “create more openings for Americans in higher skilled occupations.”
The overall positive impact for U.S. households of legalizing these workers over ten years would be “1.27 percent of GDP or $180 billion.”
The findings are consistent with previous studies that show economic benefits from the legalization of illegal workers.
http://washingtonindependent.com/55152/cato-institute-finds-180-billion-benefit-to-legalizing-illegal-immigrants