Illegal immigration is the fire at the door: Recently, there was an interesting discussion over at OneSTDV concerning policies that HBD-ers should advocate.
Let me add that of all our concerns, nothing currently touches illegal immigration in importance. (In Europe, it's Islamification). Everyone's political efforts should be focused on this issue.
HBD priorities should be set in terms of an issue's: 1) practicality, and 2) immediacy. Blocking amnesty is practical. Many Americans are already fired up about it, the country is currently in no position to be handing out its precious jobs to foreigners, and health care reform is going to make it harder to get some kind of amnesty legislation passed because illegals will become legal residents eligible for whatever health care benefits are available to the rest of us.
The villains here are employers. We need to join forces with those on the left who are concerned with worker exploitation, and we should direct our anti-amnesty ire against the companies that are driving the problem. Those who hire illegals should get prison sentences in my opinion. When the jobs dry up, folks will pack their own suitcases and head home.
Not only can we make real gains here, but the problem is immediate and must be dealt with now. If the millions of illegals end up here, the country gets them and their descendants from now until the sun burns out. And they will make every effort to get their relatives over here, and the cycle will continue forever.
Much of the HBD discussion is connected in one way or another to differential reproduction. While all of that is very important, it's important on a scale of centuries. We're talking about evolutionary processes here, and they are slow by definition. As John Derbyshire writes in his new book We are Doomed (everyone buy a copy--it rocks) we might not make it to 2022, forget about the population composition in 2200. Thinking about feminism, the family, eugenics, and all that is needed, but illegal immigration is the fire at the door.
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 ...
I'm sorry, but isn't this racist? I mean don't we owe Mexicans reparations for slavery to the tune of, oh, let's say, half the territory of the continental United States?
ReplyDeleteThere is no solving the immigration problem without solving its underlying macroeconomic driver:
Economic rent-seeking.
Basically, all the incentives for policy makers are to keep warm bodies flowing in over the borders:
1) The Federal Reserve will fund no economic studies of the impact of immigration on per capita GDP because they only have monetary authority with respect to gross GDP. The economics think tanks are therefore against you.
2) Warm bodies are votes for the Democrats.
3) Warm bodies are slaves for the Republicans.
4) The final backstop -- the "free" press -- is driven by the moral vanity of Church Ladies of Holocaustianity who see any national territoriality as the equivalent of hobnail boots stomping on the bellies of pregnant Jewesses.
The problem is in the near term. In the long term, the people living within the borders of the United States will be subject to the same evolutionary pressures, regardless of their national origin. That is, the natural and cultural environment will create a new race from whatever is here. Currently, that is dysgenic, but this will change over time.
ReplyDeleteIt's certain, however, that the people who live here in 2,000 years will be different in some ways from those who are here now.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteEnding mass Third World immigration is the challenge, burden if you will, given to our generation.
We shouldn't argue against it with anyone. We know we're right. We should only work to achieve this goal. Everything else is unimportant.
PS Jim Bowery,
"2) Warm bodies are votes for the Democrats.
3) Warm bodies are slaves for the Republicans."
That's pretty well put.
Had this same discussion at secular right. Creation litmus test.
ReplyDeleteAmnesty should be the real litmus test.
The guy with the strongest stand against illegals gets my vote.
Deport now. Prosecute the employers.
Recently an employer helped a criminal illegal reenter. The illegal then killed a police officer.
http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0910/091005houston.htm
What thread are you referring to exactly?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't mind a link on the front page, either :) (how gay are smilies?).
Thanks.
There--fixed it.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteAmnesty is not necessary for the illegals to receive benefits from a federally implemented and administered health plan.
I already knew this was true, but just the other day it was verified by legal scholars I heard discussing the issue. As they explained, the Supreme Court has already ruled that people who are non-citizens yet in this country must still be accorded "any social benefits" that are extended to citizens. That is why, for instance, that school officials MUST allow the enrollment of kids who are illegals and whose parents are illegals. That is why, for example, a kid in high school who is not a citizen nor the child of citizens has the right to apply for and to receive scholarships as well as grant monies toward college.
When Obama stood before the joint session of Congress and said *his* health care bill would not allow benefits to illegals, he knew he could legitimately make that claim; that is, he knew that he and Congress could write and pass into law a bill that had language that specified only citizens would be eligible for health care benefits. He realizes that this would be the only way the American people would find his legislation palatable. However, all the while he and the rest of Congress knows that after the legislation is passed and after it takes effect in 2013, the legal challenge will be inevitable and the courts, facing any case brought before them, will use the Supreme Court ruling to extend the "social benefit" to illegals.
Voila. The Dems and Obama can claim it's not their fault--it's the fault of the Court.
The Constitutional lawyers discussing this (sorry, I forget their names) pointed out that as a Constitional lawyer himself, Obama knows this. When Wilson called him "Liar" this is what he meant.
Furthermore, it's obvious that the Republicans have not worked to explain this to the people since they are in bed with those who want illegals here as much as the Dems are.
Some representation.
Re: Derbyshire's new book, I went to Barnes & Noble and the only edition they had in stock was "Somos Condenados." Probably not a good sign.
ReplyDeletethe country is currently in no position to be handing out its precious jobs to foreigners
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter how many times you repeat this lie, it's still a lie. The number of jobs is not set in stone. More people = bigger economy = more jobs. Study after study shows that immigration, legal AND illegal, is a net plus for the economy.
"More people = bigger economy = more jobs. "
ReplyDeleteIf there's such an endless supply of jobs, then the unemployment rate would be essentially zero.
JA,
ReplyDeleteHow is the Californian economy doing?
Jewish Atheist is the poster child for my #1 listed incentive for why policy makers are keeping warm bodies flowing in over the borders.
ReplyDeleteJewish Atheist - Study after study shows that immigration, legal AND illegal, is a net plus for the economy.
ReplyDeleteDoes illegal immigration improve the economic circumstances of current citizens? If not, who cares if illegal immigration increases GDP?
Since "educational progress of Mexican Americans does not improve over [four] generations," your enthusiasm for illegal immigration amounts to a policy of importing a permanent underclass.
It's not just illegal immigration Ron. The issue is the quality of the immigrants, and in our case, we're talking about poor, mostly illiterate, superstitious peasants. Even when they're legal, letting in people as described above is problematic.
ReplyDeleteJust once, I'd like to hear some politician, any politician, get asked a question that goes something like "don't we already have enough poor people? Why do we need to import more?" If they're a Democrat, we'll probably get the usual BS that boils down to "we have an obligation" whereas the Repubican will blather on about "jobs Americans will not do" and both will gush about the benefits of multiculturalism and diversity.
I also thought Derb's book was a great read. We are so fucked, in so many ways that he could not even scratch the surface in 260 pages. Will there still be a USA in 2040? I suppose the chances are pretty good that there will still be a nation-state and political entity known by that name, but it will not be an English-speaking representative republic with a capitalistic system and a constitution based on negative rights, i.e. a contract that spells out what the government may NOT do to its citizens. Much more likely we will have slid into some kind of populistic fascism with a patchwork of "official" languages and lots of ethnic and social friction just for grins.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSgt Joe Friday writes: a constitution based on negative rights, i.e. a contract that spells out what the government may NOT do to its citizens
ReplyDeleteNo, it spells out the legitimate powers of government, with all other powers being reserved to the states and the people.
It is the bill of rights that basically says, "OK, we know there are going to be weasels that try to take over the government. They always do. Its their speciality. The way they do it is to interpret their granted powers in an overly broad manner. Then all Hell breaks loose. So when that happens, the people will need to act to defend themselves against the government. The only way they can do that is if they have a few last-ditch rights that the weasels will have a hard time claiming for themselves. Here is a list of those last-ditch rights."