Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Cats And Dogs Slimming Together | Main | Chris Matthews Joins The Birthers? »

December 28, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20147e114f5c2970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kaus On Immigration And Income Inequality:

Comments

What is just, de jure or de facto?

The mistake is 'All Men are Created Equal', which is patently false.
====================

Appalled

Kim:

OK -- so you're saying the first line in the Declaration of Independence is an error? Yikes! I think the shades of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are going to be haunting you for the rest of your life.

I'd rather have government take that approach -- that all persons are created equal -- than have it adapt itself to trying to figure out who was created more equal than someone else...

Porchlight

It's easy to make something look like a trifle if you measure it against the giant yardstick of GDP. Every hospital in the country could go broke treating illegals and it would still be just a tiny fraction. That wouldn't make it not a big deal.

Hey, the California budget deficit is just a fraction of a percent of GDP. Let's bail them out!

Cecil Turner

Y'know, if we all go broke, it gets rid of that nasty "income inequality" stuff. (Marxists everywhere have this process down to a science.)

Thomas Collins

I read the Declaration's statement of equality to refer to being on the same level of the Creator's creation (that is, the same level of God's creation or, under the Chris Hitchens line of thinking, the same level of organization in nature). Within that same level, there will be individual differences. But all will have unalienable rights. The protection of those rights is for governments. I doubt one of those rights is the right to come across the border and suck at the public teat. Most progs appear to disagree.

Extraneus

Why doesn't Krugman expound on the economic ramifications of other illegal activities? Drug dealing, for example.

By taking themselves out of the working population, do drug dealers increase the wages of other workers due to the lower competition for employment? On the other hand, by lowering the price of illegal drugs through competition between drug dealers, does drug dealing increase drug users' disposable income, thus stimulating the economy, or does the coincident lowering of drug dealer profits offset that benefit?

These are important points to consider when deciding which blind eye to turn toward drug dealing and other illegal activities such as illegal immigration.

Rob Crawford

Again, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find any set of assumptions under which Mexican immigrants are a net fiscal plus, but equally hard pressed to make the burden more than a fraction of a percent of G.D.P.

Ignoring, of course:

o Damage to the rule of law. Illegals are, well, illegal. Their presence in the country is a crime; they exacerbate their crime by supporting criminal enterprises such as document forgery, human trafficking, and other forms of smuggling. The leftists have further compounded this by implementing de facto immunity for illegals from regulations such as zoning, liability insurance requirements, health and safety, and by declaring "sanctuary cities" that openly pick and choose which laws to enforce.

o Importing third-world habits of government. When you populate an area with people used to a corrupt, abusive government, you get corruption and abuse. It's what they know, it's what they expect, and it's what they'll organize themselves to deal with.

o Devaluation of the meaning of "citizenship". Citizens have to pay taxes under their own name, and are responsible for filing accurate returns for a number of years. An illegal can switch identities with a new set of papers and a new job; they are not responsible for the year-to-year accuracy, and as the stolen identities are often those of real people, an illegal can ruin a citizen's life and never face any penalty.

Further, the creation of a class of "illegals", coupled with "bilingual" (actually Spanish-only) maleducation has created a near-permanent servant class. The concept of "jobs that Americans won't do" should be offensive; Americans should choke on those words.

o The quickly-passed-by closure of opportunities for less-skilled Americans. Hiring an actual citizen means you have to pay them minimum wage, pay all the administrative costs (unemployment insurance, OSHA compliance, etc.), and have to treat them as people. Hiring an illegal means you have underpay them, ignore safety requirements (who will they complain to?), and dump them without any consideration. Oh, sure, you may have to pay a bit more to find a supervisor who can speak two (or three) languages and you can trust, but that's still cheaper than hiring an equal number of US citizens.

Combined with a social "safety" net that has become comprehensive and has gone far beyond the basics, and the result is a system that punishes employers for hiring citizens and rewards low-skilled citizens for not even seeking employment.

Danube of Thought

I have always understood the Declaration's assertion to mean equal in the eyes of the law and of God.

Appalled

TC:

I agree with your interpretation of the Declaration -- it's at the root of the debate on whther the desired end state of society is "Equality of Opportunity" vs. "Equality of Result".

liberty60

Why is it that borders should be porous when regards to products, services and capital, but not labor?
For example-

I own a cabinet shop in Los Angeles; if I hire Mexican laborers because they are the cheapest labor, this is considered a bad thing;

But if I outsource the fabrication to a shop in Mexico, I am simply a savvy businessman.

Which scenario is preferable, and beneficial to America?

Or a better question- which scenario would the commenters here support, or attempt to outlaw?

boris

"hire Mexican laborers because they are the cheapest labor, this is considered a bad thing"

Imprecise construct. Rephrase "hire illegal alien laborers because they are the cheapest" and your question answers itself.

anduril

I'll post this here, for all to see:

Anduril, I think it's understood that when you cut & paste the writings of others you are supporting your views. While I fully expected the response of "I didn't say it, I only quoted others," I find it rather cowardly.

As for the "repeatedly" part, the fact that it only took me about two minutes to find this one leads me to suspect it's not unique.

As a general rule, when I quote the views of others there is something in their views that I think is worth discussing, pro and/or con. Very often I agree with the major thrust of the quote, rather than a minor point. In this instance I quoted a 9 paragraph passage from Wikipedia re the Pollard damage assessment, and the portion that jimmyk cherry picked was half of one of those paragraphs. The 9 paragraph section covered quite a number of issues related to the Pollard damage assessment, most of which I believe to be accurate.

Clarice's claim was that I have repeatedly stated that Pollard's treachery led to Israeli actions that cost "American lives":

You have said repeatedly that Israel sold the info to the Russians and cost American lives.

The reason I pointed this inaccuracy out was because Clarice had shown herself to be disposed to rely on technicalities--her claim that she has never defended Pollard.

This claim re Pollard costing "American lives," is based on a claim advanced by Eric Margolis. It remains a possibility--I can't prove it, but neither can Clarice disprove it. Just as important, Clarice claimed that this was supposed to have been my repeated, and thus presumably major, point. It was not and has not been that. I have instead relied on Jeff Stein's articles about the damage assessments which stress the transfer of technical information about US intelligence capabilities--which all authors have stressed. Thus, Clarice--and by extension, jimmyk--are giving a false impression of my argument.

jimmyk, having failed to find a single instance--much less repeated instances--in which I have said that Pollard and/or his Israeli handlers cost the lives of Americans, now claims that he has somehow proved a point. He has not.

1. First of all, the distinction between Americans and American agents is an important one, and one that I would not have skimmed over or conflated.

2. Second, jimmyk, without a link, presents Margolis' statements without attribution, which would lead the trusting reader to assume that jimmyk was quoting my words. At best that's unacceptably sloppy--especially unacceptable given jimmyk's academic background--at worst it could well be deliberate dishonesty. It was this misattribution that I was responding to.

3. jimmyk's suggestion that I, in cowardly fashion, am now distancing myself from Margolis' claims is inaccurate. While I can't prove Margolis' claims, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or truthfulness. Margolis' article, Jonathan Pollard Was No Jewish Patriot, was written in 1999, well after Ames' treachery was revealed, including the fact that Ames had caused the death of American agents (the reference to dead East European agents is a transparent reference to Ames).

4. My overall claim that Pollard was a traitor who caused significant harm to US national security does not stand or fall on Margolis' claims. Rather, that conclusion is the result of an accumulation of data which I present both from Wikipedia as well as from Stein's several articles.

The bottom line remains: Clarice is loyal to the traitor Pollard and refuses to call him an "SOB," which term she reserves for application to patriotic Americans such as myself. Also for Paul Pillar, who had the nerve to criticize Clarice's favorite spy.

I again call on Clarice to apply her favored epithet both to Pollard as well as to his Israeli handlers. I presume that neither hit and run nor jimmyk will dare to refer to Pollard as an "SOB" without permission from Clarice. Nor will Cecil or the USN veteran DoT.

Appalled

liberty60:

I own a cabinet shop in Los Angeles; if I hire Mexican laborers because they are the cheapest labor, this is considered a bad thing;

But if I outsource the fabrication to a shop in Mexico, I am simply a savvy businessman.

The real answer is that a nation should maintain laws it is willing to enforce. If we want low-paid immigration from Mexico, then we should make it legal and not waste government time and money in enforcement efforts which -- given the size of the immigration wave -- are going to be random and arbitrary by definition.

If we do not want the immigration, like we say we do not, then we need to consider, at a minimum, putting up the wall between the US and Mexico, and putting enough personnel on the border to keep the immigrants out.

As for you, personally, do you at least pay minimum wage and Social Security to your Mexican laborers? Or are you trying to get a discount you can't get with US citizens?


anduril

An important point that no one wants to address is that of "cultural fit" of immigrant groups.

Neo

Chris Matthews: "Birther" ???

"Why has the president himself not demanded they put out the original documents?" Matthews wonders.

"If it exists, why not put it out?" Chris Matthews asks.

Sue

If it will shut your ass up, I'll call him a SOB. And you one too. Good, effin, grief.

Danube of Thought

The December 23 WSJ had a most interesting piece by Alan Reynolds on the distribution of income taxation among income groups in the industrialized world. The heart of the thing:

In The Journal of Economic Perspectives (Winter 2007), Messrs. Piketty and Saez estimated that "the upper 1% of the income distribution earned 19.6% of total income before tax [in 2004], and paid 41% of the individual federal income tax." No other major country is so dependent on so few taxpayers.

A 2008 study of 24 leading economies by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) concludes that, "Taxation is most progressively distributed in the United States, probably reflecting the greater role played there by refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. . . . Taxes tend to be least progressive in the Nordic countries (notably, Sweden), France and Switzerland."

The OECD study—titled "Growing Unequal?"—also found that the ratio of taxes paid to income received by the top 10% was by far the highest in the U.S., at 1.35, compared to 1.1 for France, 1.07 for Germany, 1.01 for Japan and 1.0 for Sweden (i.e., the top decile's share of Swedish taxes is the same as their share of income).

Appalled

andruil:

An important point that no one wants to address is that of "cultural fit" of immigrant groups.

OK, I am a melting pot kind of guy, so I simply tend to disregard cultural fit arguments. America, over the years, has had large ethnic communities that gradually fade into the fabric of the nation and enrich it. I think this process is going on with the Mexican immigrants I see in the Southeast, but may not be happening in the Southwest.

As for your other point -- that "nobody" is addrssing your issue -- you need to read Rob Crawford's well thought out post, which hits on that issue in a number of ways.

anduril

I probably should have put more stress on this aspect of jimmyk's argumentation:

when you cut & paste the writings of others you are supporting your views.

but I didn't want to appear to be endorsing the woeful weakness of his overall style of argumentation.

Nevertheless, the fact is that jimmyk's point is exactly the point that I bring against Clarice--only my point is much stronger because of the facts.

Clarice linked to an Edward Jay Epstein article that was a transparent advocacy piece on behalf of Pollard, arguing that Pollard had been unfairly treated and deserves release. This advocacy nature of Epstein's piece explains why it appeared at Clarice's home away from home, jonathanpollard.org, and this also explains why I was correct in assuming that Clarice does in fact defend and support Pollard.

OTOH, the piece that I quoted, and which jimmyk cherry picked from, was a type of survey piece from Wikipedia, not an advocacy piece. The point was to present a factual survey of the best views regarding the damage that the traitor Pollard had caused, not to argue for his guilt (which he admitted) nor to advocate for his release.

Thus, I quoted Wikipedia in support of the consensus view that Pollard had got what he deserved--there's really nothing else to be drawn from my use of that article. But Clarice's use of Epstein points unmistakably toward a far more controversial view.

The real question is: in view of the fact that Pollard admitted his treachery, why will Clarice not vilify this traitor as she is so willing to do to patriotic Americans? And the same goes for her acolytes, like jimmyk and Cecil.

Threadkiller

Nice and convenient. Matthews decides to bring up the topic of “birthers”, on Monday, and uses a poll from April. April!!

">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002539-503544.html"> Poll: "Birther" Myth Persists Among Tea Partiers, All Americans

So once again we see who controls the “bither” narrative. They bring it up every time. They make it a current event using an outdated poll! Why? So you don’t listen to me.

Obama is a dual citizen.

anduril

All legit points, Appalled. I assumed that one and all here would understand that in my brief comment I was referring to Muslim immigrants rather than Mexicans. I agree with you and other writers who argue that Mexicans are probably assimilating at a similar pace to that of previous waves of immigrants, although I would argue that we need to control our borders.

I'll also grant that Rob's points are related to mine. However, his concerns about immigrants who are used to abusive and corrupt government does not, IMO, go deep enough. My view is that often times cultural factors are behind those forms of government. Thus, we might argue that Europeans who came to America to escape tyranny were nevertheless--because of shared cultural values--prospectively suitable "fits" for the American way of life. The same could be argued of Mexicans. I would submit, however, that with regard to Muslims the stronger argument is that which would maintain that they are NOT suitable fits--precisely because their cultural values are so explicitly opposed to those which we take for granted.

Rob Crawford

Why is it that borders should be porous when regards to products, services and capital, but not labor?

Things do not organize to create nations; people do. Things do not require laws; people do. Things do not commit crime; people do. Things to not (generally) create more instances of themselves; people do. Things which do not interface well with the existing infrastructure do not get imported; people who do not speak the local language none-the-less continue to arrive in the tens of thousands.

Things are not people, people are not things. It reflects poorly on you "liberty60", that you cannot comprehend that basic issue.

Frau  Ungeduld

I voted.
:::::
"And the same goes for her acolytes, like jimmyk and Cecil."

"-only my point is much stronger because of the facts."
Himmel, Arsch und Zwirn! I don't care. Go out and enjoy the day.

Rob Crawford

Oh, and BTW -- I have no doubt that the people of Mexico could create a nation as wealthy, free, safe, and pleasant as the United States in Mexico itself. But they vastly prefer to tolerate its corruption and violence and export a bit of it to the US, as well.

Janet

This is kinda sad. John McCain Action Figure.

Originally $14.95...marked down to $2.98.

boris

Mary's link: Victor Davis Hanson Two Californias

Danube of Thought

Or a better question- which scenario would the commenters here support, or attempt to outlaw?

I would support the free flow of labor, with non-citizen laborers carrying ID cards, and with no necessary connection between working here and becoming a citizen here. And guest laborers' permits would be subject to revocation as conditions warranted.

The idea of a "cultural fit" requirement is simply cuckoo, and if invoked in the past would have excluded the forbears of many of our most productive citizens. But it would be a great way to keep out all Mahometans and Jews, wouldn't it?

Appalled

Rob C:

In fairness, the folks coming from Mexico are not usually the upper classes. Given the structure of Mexico, I really doubt the folk coming to the US have much chance of changing the society there.

In fact, the most disturbing aspect of the Mexican disapora is the way that it is encouraged by the Mexican government itself as a way, one expects, of maintaining itself against malcontents.

Melinda Romanoff

Have some Krugman perspective, as countered by the eminent Dr. Mark Perry, Economist.

Has to do with the leftist, Luddite approach to their current global control agenda.

Rob Crawford

In fairness, the folks coming from Mexico are not usually the upper classes. Given the structure of Mexico, I really doubt the folk coming to the US have much chance of changing the society there.

They have no chance of changing it by leaving.

And, frankly, I don't buy the "they're poor; they can't change anything" line. Mexico has elections, right? Undoubtedly more corrupt than, say, Chicago's, but still, they're elections. They can be contested and won.

And, yes, the Mexican government encourages emigration to the US as a safety valve against getting their own asses slung from lamp posts. That's one reason we should close the border -- to encourage the Mexicans to clean up their own house rather than just letting the ones upset come here.

Rob Crawford

Has to do with the leftist, Luddite approach to their current global control agenda.

A recent National Geographic was almost entirely focused on the "7 billion world" -- and the bits I read from that story were quoting Malthus and Ehrlich. There was a little lip-service given to the Green Revolution, but they still seemed to take both of those Chicken Littles seriously. They quoted Ehrlich's little spastic rant about the people of Calcutta (I think) without reflection on the misanthropy and racism inherent in it.

Most of the magazine was focused on population, which is to say on the Green hobby horse of over population, and short shrift was given to stories about a monstrously large cave complex in Vietnam and the largest Mississippian settlement. What a pity they couldn't have turned those proportions around; the story about the Mississippians opened with a lament about how few people knew about them -- a state that NatGeo is doing little to change.

anduril

1. The idea of a "cultural fit" requirement is simply cuckoo, and if invoked in the past would have excluded the forbears of many of our most productive citizens.

2. But it would be a great way to keep out all Mahometans and Jews, wouldn't it?

"Simply cuckoo?" That's invective, not rational argumentation--but you knew that, right?

"if invoked in the past would have excluded the forbears of many of our most productive citizens."

Now that argument IS cuckoo! The fact is, Americans have--despite occasional outbursts of Know Nothingism and longer outbursts of anti-Chinese sentiment--been remarkably tolerant toward immigration. IOW, Americans have generally shown a healthy "show me" attitude with regard to group specific restrictions on immigration. Therefore, it's up to people like me to prove the case that such restrictions are called for. I've made the case that it's legally permissible and have also presented rational argumentation for the desirability of such legislation. If DoT would like to argue rationally that excluding Muslim from immigrating to the US would deprive the US even potentially of "our most productive citizens," I'd love to see his reasoning. History strongly suggests we'd only be depriving ourselves of serious future headaches.

"But it would be a great way to keep out all Mahometans and Jews, wouldn't it?"

I've long believed that this is what's behind Clarice and DoT's unhinged, name-calling reaction to my proposals, but DoT finally brings it out into the open. Anyone who thinks that DoT or Clarice are truly concerned to keep the borders open to bring more Muslims into 21st century America are as cuckoo as DoT's "argumentation." No, their unhinged reaction is a result of sheer paranoia--they think that American's will grab their pitchforks and head for the borders, to keep Jews out. It's of a piece with Clarice's paranoid notion that tiny Israel can somehow serve as a refuge of last resort for Jews when Gentile Americans turn on them.

Dave Schuler

Mexican workers in the United States send at least $20 billion per year in remittances back to Mexico. That has many implications but one of them is that Mexican workers in the United States produce less economic activity in the United States per dollar or income (by at least $20 billion) than workers that don't similarly send remittances home.

The effect of taxes is to slow economic activity; the effect of the deadweight loss of government is to slow economic activity. There is some point beyond which you can't further slow economic activity and expect growth to continue.

Rick Ballard

TC,

I doubt that Kim will provide explication of her statement but I find Jefferson's sophistry in the utilization of a patently false "self evident truth" of "created equal", designed to overcome the then commonly accepted "divine right" in furtherance of what was, legally, treason to be rhetorically weak. Roughly two thirds of the British subjects in America did not find the statement compelling at the time and the success of the American indoctrination process in elevating it to gospel status is not, IMO, an unmixed blessing. It has led to the silliness of "equality of opportunity" (again, based solely upon economic consideration) and the expenditure of rather enormous sums in an effort to obscure the fact that those with an IQ of 65 will not achieve the same economic success as those with an IQ of 100 and that the class composed of those with IQs averaging 100 will not do as well (monetarily) as the class averaging IQs of 115+.

The progs recognize basic inherent inequality regarding economic outcomes and have spent the past 100 years doing their very best to rectify the situation through eugenics ('family planning') and infanticide on a scale that would make Mao beam with delight. They got a little ahead of themselves and managed to kill off so many that their dream of electoral dominance went down the drains in abortion mills and they've chosen the importation of a new peasantry in order to rectify the situation.

glasater
Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.

Stuff Milton Friedman said.

squaredance

Actually, don't you mean to say that this is "their current leftist, Luddite approach to their global control agenda"?

Rob Crawford

It has led to the silliness of "equality of opportunity"...

Huh?

Surely you mean "the silliness of 'equality of outcome'".

squaredance

What a specious bit of logic it is to claim that because they are not "upper class" that they will not "change society".

If you actually believe that than you are wholly missing the point (and you absolutely do not understand the "upper class" whatsoever).

This point is not just invalid, it is irrational.

And, of course, they have radically changed our society over the last 40 years.

liberty60

My point was that things like meatpacking, agriculture, and cabinets will always be made by Mexican, not American, hands.

American WILL do these things, but not at the labor rates that the marketplace is paying.
Unless we artifically intervene in the marketplace- such as sealing the border, combined with outlawing outsourcing- then things that CAN be done by cheap labor WILL be done by cheap labor.

For a long time, America benefited from the massive imbalance between our purchasing power, and the global supply of cheap labor;
But as it became easier and easier to outsource jobs, our purchasing power has declined. We are close to the day when nearly any job- even executive white collar jobs- can be done more efficiently by someone in India or Malaysia.

Is this massive imbalance between the supply of labor and the demand for it, a good thing? Do we as a nation benefit from the downward trend of wages?

Soylent Red

You know what? Fuggit...let's invade Mexico. I doubt the average Mexican would mind much, and think of the oil and endless supply of vanilla extract and papier mache fruit.

Mexicans, as a culture, are very religious and conservative. It's only when they can shriek about inequality that they become tools for the Left, and handouts and payoffs are the only way the Left can mitigate the cultural animosity Mexicans have against most of the attitudes of the Left.

So let's make Mexico states 51-58 (or 58-65, depending on who you ask), and then pull their act together for them. Think how much easier it would be to defend the border with Guatemala.

Jim Ryan

All men are created equal under the moral law. That means that nobody is judged under the moral law on the basis of anything other than morally relevant features of his character and conduct. In other words, there must be a morally relevant reason if a person is to be judged to be good, righteous, wicked or unrighteous. His skin color, the fact that he lives in the colonies, the fact that he's poor, or the fact that he's rich are all irrelevant; you need a genuine (morally relevant) reason to judge him. This is self-evident. Once you understand it, you see that it is true.

But it's not the case that all men are created equal in abilities, merit, character or desert. This is self-evident to anyone with common sense and a few decades of experience living in our society.

MayBee

Unless we artifically intervene in the marketplace

Illegal immigrants are an artifical intervention in the labor marketplace.

Rob Crawford

My point was that things like meatpacking, agriculture, and cabinets will always be made by Mexican, not American, hands.

BS.

Americans have done all those jobs.

American WILL do these things, but not at the labor rates that the marketplace is paying.

Americans are not allowed to compete with illegal labor. Drop the minimum wage, rationalize labor regulations, reign-in unions, and implement loser-pays and I bet you'll see the market for illegal labor and off-shoring dry up.

Charlie (Colorado)

Appalled, the Declaration makes it clear what "created equal" means: "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Not "completely the same."

Your point about the government deciding who deserves more or less is a good one, however: you have now converted yourself to the hard libertarian viewpoint, that the government shouldn't be intruding in the market except to enforce rules of contract and prevent coercion.

As soon as you assert the government should do anything redistributive, you're having the government decide that one person has more than they deserve and should be forced to give it to someone who has less.

Rob, you might want to look up the word "fiscal". It doesn't mean what you think it means. Whatever Krugman's faults (and they are many) he said something precise there and you're not responding to it.

Rick, your point here:

Jefferson's sophistry in the utilization of a patently false "self evident truth" of "created equal",

is making two significant errors. The first is historical: Jefferson's assertion of "self-evident truths" is an assertion of axioms, phrased very closely to match common books of Euclidean geometry of the time. As such, it's logically rigorous. You may disagree, but claiming it a sophistry is specious. The second is the same one Rob made: Jefferson follows "all men are created equal" with a refining clause stating more precisely what it meant.

Frankly, there is exactly zero evidence that Jefferson meant anything like what people have made of it since.

Danube of Thought

"That's invective, not rational argumentation--but you knew that, right?"

Knew it and intended it.

Threadkiller

--"Unless we artifically intervene in the marketplace

Illegal immigrants are an artifical intervention in the labor marketplace.

As is minimum wage.

Charlie (Colorado)

Illegal immigrants are an artifical intervention in the labor marketplace.

Oh cripes. MayBee, take a second look at that sentence.

anduril

The always invaluable Steve Sailer offers these stats:

The French, being the ultimate "Proposition Nation" with a deep-rooted ideological contempt for multiculturalism, have made it illegal to collect statistics by ethnicity. But we can roughly estimate the IQ of France's Muslims from the studies assembled in the landmark 2002 book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

It lists six studies of national average IQ in Caucasian Muslim countries and four of Muslim immigrants in Europe.

The average IQs by country range from 78 in Qatar to 90 in Turkey, 83 in Egypt, 84 in Iran. Two studies both show 87 in Iraq.

Perhaps most relevant for assessing the French immigrants' IQs: two studies in the Netherlands of Moroccan immigrants—many immigrants in France come from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. They averaged 84 and 85. Likewise, Turks in the Netherlands scored 88 and 85.

Would excluding Muslims really potentially deprive us of "our most productive citizens?" Anybody want to run a social experiment and bet on the outcome? Exclude Muslims and see how long it'll take for them to come remotely close to our level of productivity?

But then, Clarice and DoT are motivated by paranoia, not any rational view on the issue.

NB: many Turks are actually descendants of people who were Greek, or maybe even Hittites, rather than Central Asian Turks.

Charlie (Colorado)

Americans are not allowed to compete with illegal labor. Drop the minimum wage, rationalize labor regulations, reign-in unions, and implement loser-pays and I bet you'll see the market for illegal labor and off-shoring dry up.

Don't forget fixing the tax structure: I've seen pretty decent arguments that offshoring is almost entirely the result of differential tax rates versus places that want jobs.

squaredance

No adruil, it is not "cuckoo" for prior immigration waves were forced to integrate and were not dumped in the middle of a immense welfare state, and they full well knew that when they came here. They aslo came legally. It is ludicrous to compare, say, Chinese immigration in the late 19th century with what is going on today.

Beyond that, immigration wave did in fact radically change the culture. You may argue that we "handled it"--which is debatable given the shredding of the Constitution by the Democrats once they figured out how to manipulate these waves--but you cannot say that it did not wildly alter the culture. This is rather the point. We can track the growth of the welfare state along side of the the growing size of central European immigrants well exposed to the Bismarkian welfare state and Socialist movements of the 19th and early 20th century.

Using "glittering generalities" and "appeals to sentimentality" to obscure matters, you intentionally dodge the issue. It is also intellectually dishonest of you to use historical precedent for immigration while at the same time omitting historical precedents for limiting immigration.

Imagine my surprise.

Charlie (Colorado)

Knew it and intended it.

Oh good. So we can just have bitter arguments and don't have to make sense?

THAT should be a fun game.

anduril

DoT, has Clarice given you permission to call Pollard an SOB? As a USN veteran you should be particularly incensed by his treachery, right?

MayBee

Oh cripes. MayBee, take a second look at that sentence.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But given the current market for labor requires a minimum wage, payroll taxes, and (soon to be) health care subsidies, etc, then illegal immigrants are paid an artificially lower rate.

anduril

Oh good. So we can just have bitter arguments and don't have to make sense?

It's what I face on a daily basis. The acid test will be, can Charlie restrain himself from making a nonsensical comeback to me, therefore setting an example of civility for DoT?

Danube of Thought

"The fact is, Americans have--despite occasional outbursts of Know Nothingism and longer outbursts of anti-Chinese sentiment--been remarkably tolerant toward immigration."

Precisely my point. Had we not been so tolerant--I.e., had we applied a "cultural fit" test--we would have deprived ourselves of a good percentage of the recent valedictorians in Orange County high schools. But a cultural fit test would in any event not exclude Mahometans: there are many areas in the US where they can and do fit very nicely. There are untold millions of them.

Has anduril ever once pondered the question of why there is not a single member of the national legislature who supports his idea of a religious test to bar Mahometans from entry?

glasater

Exclude Muslims and see how long it'll take for them to come remotely close to our level of productivity?

So why is it that many countries that are predominantly Catholic poor?

Mexico, Spain, Phillippines etc.

anduril

prior immigration waves were forced to integrate

Really? Examples of the force that was used?

immigration wave did in fact radically change the culture. You may argue that we "handled it"--which is debatable given the shredding of the Constitution by the Democrats once they figured out how to manipulate these waves--but you cannot say that it did not wildly alter the culture.

I can agree with this to some extent, however I don't think that our culture was "radically" or "wildly" changed. Certainly not as "radically" or "wildly" as it would change if we allow significant numbers of Muslims in.

Cecil Turner

If it will shut your ass up, I'll call him a SOB.

Hey, that works for me, too.

(Though personally, I rather like the "I can't prove it but you can't disprove it" form of self-refutation so brilliantly epitomized above.)

Rob Crawford

Rob, you might want to look up the word "fiscal". It doesn't mean what you think it means. Whatever Krugman's faults (and they are many) he said something precise there and you're not responding to it.

Or I was using his comment as a springboard to a different discussion.

What's the cost of the erosion of the rule of law? What's the cost of increased corruption? Of law-abiding, hard-working citizens being subject to laws and regulations illegals are excused from? Of increased identity theft? Of seeing low-skilled, law-abiding citizens cut out of the labor market by law-breakers?

Krugman may be correct in terms of money flows. On this subject, that's a marginal argument for me.

Danube of Thought

"Anybody want to run a social experiment and bet on the outcome? Exclude Muslims and see how long it'll take for them to come remotely close to our level of productivity?"

Great idea, anduril. Go run your social experiment, and report back to us when the results are in.

Rick Ballard

No, Rob, there can be no "equality of opportunity" in economic outcome when nature has placed one group at the starting line with IQs of 85 next to another group sporting IQs of 115. There may be a few individuals capable of overcoming the handicap and finishing with the 115s but promotion of the fiction that all are "equal" at the starting line leads rather ineluctably to surmise concerning "discrimination" as the causative factor regarding disparate results at the economic finish line.

It may be (and I would consider it to be) immoral to place any bar at the starting line but failure to recognize inherent limitations to economic advancement does not change nature or reality. The superficial scientism of progs depends upon the artifice of equality for existence. I see no reason to support irreality in furtherance of ends which require donning a serf's collar in order to achieve a more perfect idiocy.

Rob Crawford

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But given the current market for labor requires a minimum wage, payroll taxes, and (soon to be) health care subsidies, etc, then illegal immigrants are paid an artificially lower rate.

Absolutely; the demand for illegals is the result of over-regulation of the native labor market.

squaredance

Oh for heaven's sake, anduil, you perfectly well know what I meant by "forced to integrate".

I am not going to honor that with a clarification. Even you are not that stupid.

More of your moronic sophistry.

Also, you mischarcterization of my usage of "forced" is not only a transparent and truly sophomoric attempt to put words in my mouth, it is beyond civilized discourse. Again you dodge the point, again you engage in dishonest rhetoric rather than honest and fruitful debate.

Shameful.

anduril

So why is it that many countries that are predominantly Catholic poor?

Mexico, Spain, Phillippines etc.

I'm not aware that Spain is poor, although their handling of their economy is no recommendation for their IQ. But then maybe we shouldn't be talking about that...

Mexico has an average IQ of 87, Philippines 85. Take a look around the world and compare their wealth/poverty to countries with similar IQ levels. Coincidence? There are also many underlying historical/cultural differences between Mexico/Philippines and the US.

As for Catholicism and economic progress, double entry book keeping was invented, I believe, in medieval Venice. Arguably one of the most important economic inventions of all time. Modern historical studies have traced the progress of Europe to medieval (Catholic) times. As before, I highly recommend Rodney Stark's "The Victory of Reason," which other posters here have also highly recommended.

Rob Crawford

No, Rob, there can be no "equality of opportunity" in economic outcome when nature has placed one group at the starting line with IQs of 85 next to another group sporting IQs of 115.

Who the hell cares about groups? I don't. Groups are artificial combinations of individuals; at their worst they're politically constructed mobs intended to extort money from the rest of us.

It may be (and I would consider it to be) immoral to place any bar at the starting line...

And that's what equality of opportunity means. No bar to anyone to succeed to the limit of their abilities and drive; no favoritism to anyone based on their real or perceived membership in some "group".

anduril

Hey, that works for me, too.

Sorry, Cecil, no deals on this. I'm not going to shut up. So, you won't be calling Pollard an SOB, as I predicted? Well, that was an easy call.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Hey guys, I posted a 2011 death pool over at You Too. Post your predictions in the comments and I will repost them in the post.

Rob Crawford

I see no reason to support irreality in furtherance of ends which require donning a serf's collar in order to achieve a more perfect idiocy.

Seriously, dude -- you need to lay off the word-of-the-day calendar and focus on trying to be clear. That bit I quoted is gibberish, and likely hurts what ever argument you're trying to advance.

anduril

squaredance, you need to distinguish between the "force" that was exerted in the past and--what I assume you intend--the lack of force exerted now. I think you'll find that rather more difficult to do than you appear to think.

And interesting study is that of German-Americans, the largest ethnic group in the US. They refused to integrate until after WWI, when they decided that after all they were Americans, not Germans. Their integration was not forced.

glasater

As for Catholicism and economic progress, double entry book keeping was invented, I believe, in medieval Venice.

So how's that working out in today's Italy...

boris

"And that's what equality of opportunity means"

That is just one interpretation. Another is analogous to the Americans with Disability Act interpretation. Everybody should have equal opportunity to become a Space Astronaut regardless of innate ability.

Thus the "equality of result" advocates can claim that "equality of opportunity" is unworkable in practice, impossible by circumstance, and their version is the only achievable one.

Danube of Thought

I have no idea how the subject has arisen, but I've been calling Pollard an SOB and much worse for a few decades now. Make of that what you will.

Rob Crawford

That is just one interpretation.

That's the one meant in the context of the United States. It follows from the axioms stated by Jefferson in the Declaration.

And I don't care what the advocates of tyranny claim.

anduril

So how's that working out in today's Italy...

Northern Italy, where Venice is located? Just fine.

Rob Crawford

That wasn't your argument, androool.

anduril

I've been calling Pollard an SOB and much worse for a few decades now. Make of that what you will.

Good for you--all kidding aside. See how easy it is to confound my expectations? Now let's see how Clarice and Cecil react.

narciso

I think he meant, no man should be the unwilling servant of another, now that might seem hypocritical, in light of some of his own practices,hence the 14th Amendment ban against slavery, indentured servitude, et al

anduril

Italy has been a unity only since 1870, and has experienced enormous difficulties integrating the backward South into the North--due in large part to cultural factors. Indeed, a common Italian saying is that "Africa starts just south of Rome." That's not intended as a compliment.

Danube of Thought

I understood Squaredance to mean that those prior waves were forced to assimilate by attending public schools ( in which the teaching was done in English), by having to read English to cast a ballot or get a driver's license, and in general by the absence of a misguided multiculturalism that makes so much easier not to assimilate.

Appalled

Charlie:

Appalled, the Declaration makes it clear what "created equal" means: "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Not "completely the same."

The snarky part of me wants to say "duh, Dude." The term "equality of opportunity" is shorthand for "I got the same right to pursue happiness, and life and liberty as anyone else."

Your point about the government deciding who deserves more or less is a good one, however: you have now converted yourself to the hard libertarian viewpoint, that the government shouldn't be intruding in the market except to enforce rules of contract and prevent coercion.

As soon as you assert the government should do anything redistributive, you're having the government decide that one person has more than they deserve and should be forced to give it to someone who has less.

If I were a dictator (or like China) for a day, I suspect things at the end of the day would look more like Ron Paul's ideal then you might think. I really do think that, in a perfect information environment, marketplaces are the most efficeint and effective tools for determining how a society goes forward, if for no other reason that a marketplace is the one place where a person is required to assign a value to the choices he or she makes.

But the problem is that we are not in a position in this country where there is a perfect information environment, and that society has determined through the years, that someone living here will receive a certain minimum standard of living, everyone has the right to a decent education and that stakeholders who do not hold certain property nonetheless have a certain say on how it is used.

boris

"no man should be the unwilling servant of another"

Actually more like "no man is higher born".

As in the founders claiming sovereignty over their own affairs on that principle.

Cecil Turner

Their presence in the country is a crime; they exacerbate their crime by supporting criminal enterprises such as document forgery, human trafficking, and other forms of smuggling.

I think that's actually the minimal part of the impact. The major one is providing a large illegal underclass that is both the target of criminal activity (because of their reluctance to cooperate with law enforcement) and a personnel pool for more criminals (because crime pays so much better than illegal day labor).

anduril

I understood Squaredance to mean that those prior waves were forced to assimilate by attending public schools ( in which the teaching was done in English),

I'm on the run...

Before World War I, more than 6% of American schoolchildren received their primary education only in German.

Famous SCOTUS case occasioned by widespread use of German in schools:

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[1], was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rick Ballard

"no favoritism to anyone based on their real or perceived membership in some "group""

Nice description of reality today, Rob. Keep shoveling the horse shit, I'm sure your individual pony will be found before you hit the bottom of the pile.

squaredance

Andruil, reread my last post.

YOu are completely dodging the issue.

jimmyk

so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.

No, it's not. By that logic wages should have been falling over at all skill levels just from population growth. In fact, more population attracts more capital and wages don't have to fall.

Danube of Thought

"...a common Italian saying is that 'Africa starts just south of Rome.'"

And a common British one is "Wogs begin at Calais.". And of course Texans have their Aggie jokes. Snobbery and bigotry are pretty easy to find just about anywhere.

boris

"society has determined through the years, that someone living here will receive [unearned stuff] ... and stakeholders who do not hold certain property nonetheless have a certain say on how it is used"

Which has led inexorably to the current unsustainable mess. Such policies, if undertaken at all, should be much more carefully vetted, at least as well as the FDA conducts product testing.

Rob Crawford

Good points, Cecil.

Rob Crawford

Nice description of reality today, Rob. Keep shoveling the horse shit, I'm sure your individual pony will be found before you hit the bottom of the pile.

I was describing the ideal, which is what I thought we were discussing.

Whatever. It's as fruitful to discuss things with you as with androol.

boris

"I was describing the ideal ..."

You seemed to assert as the way to interpret the founder's words. Pointing out a shortcomming there is not the same as stomping on your ideals.

Appalled

boris:

Beleive it or not, I tend to agree with you. I imagine there will be a lot of such discussions, because I think the political theme for the next generation will be how to dismantle our "big unsustainable mess" without a revolution.

jimmyk

wages should have been falling over at all skill levels

Danube of Thought

"Before World War I" omits the huge waves of immigrants in the 20's and 30's. In any event, the inescapable fact is that the huge preponderance of 20th century immigrants were educated in English, which is a very important factor in assimilation into American

"if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."

--Benjamin Franklin

Rick Ballard

jimmyk,

Shouldn't the avoided societal cost of education and feeding the nonproductive child be part of the equation?

Danube of Thought

It should be noted that the Nebraska law invalidated in the Meyer case was a criminal statute making it a criminal offense even to teach the German language at all.

Danube of Thought

...in assimilation into American *culture*

squaredance

Well, if America wishes to return to the level of employment, wealth and broad prosperity she until very recently took for granted, she will have to return somehow to being primarily an industrial nation. The notion of a "creative" economy or a "service" just replacing an industrial one is wishful thinking--it almost borders on magical thinking.

This "return" may well mean getting control of the borders and limiting immigrations, as well as limiting outsourcing either directly or in directly. It may mean getting those jobs back from the BRICs in one foem or another. It does not necessarily mean a return to the sort of "industrial policy", if it can be called that, or arrangements we has before the globalist chimera clouded up our eyes. It could be a combination of new technologies (automation, new materials, processes and energy sources), alternatives to unions, and new ways or organizing production (e.g., big firms as system integrators of the output thousands of smaller manufacturers). The point is that it will not work, for example, for the USA to be the providers of "idea" whilst the Chinese are the providers of steel.

It is a rethinking of Globalism, and the push to make America into a "creative" export led economy in a new "rationalized global economy".

Our elites, of course, abjure anyone or any thought that comes close to touching on this, but in due time it will become a major issue.

It must for our current course is unsustainable and in fact suicidal.

Rick Ballard

Boris,

One might note that the Founders omitted close attention to the "self evident truths" in the crafting of the organizational document implementing structure to the purported ideals. It's almost as if the reality which they faced affected their judgment to the point where ".6 = 1" was felt to be close enough for government work.

I suppose fiercely independent conformity might preclude examining the possibility though.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame