Well that’s another thing - if you increase the number of people academically underachieving you need to expand affirmative action efforts. Ultimately, it isn’t sustainable.
If immigrants happen to be smarter then great. I started this line of comments after brain gluttons point about what would happen if the illegal migrants were coming from Canada. My point was that he’s right the response would be different, but the impact of the migrants would be very different too & probably be more manageable.
Meh, as I considerer it, once they are not saddled with poverty (Really, the work ethnic of most of them is admirable) that will be less of an issue. But of course, immigration reform has to happen first.
Still not a good reason to oppose immigration reform.
sigh Let me restate the point: VDARE and the Minutemen would not exist if the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from some non-English-speaking country in Northwestern Europe, such as Germany or France or Sweden; they would exist, if it were coming from practically anywhere in the nonwhite world.
It’s not simply the fact that they don’t speak English, it’s that subsequent generations are not assimilating and are requiring affirmative action because they underachieve academically. If you had people from Germany or France you wouldn’t have the same problem with subsequent generations (they’d have same average iq - about 100, compared to about average 90 for Hispanic Americans).
(“Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis,” Roth et al 2001).
There you go again, you really need to stop that, as you are still not giving any option to the ones that are smarter. Frankly, it seems that you are assuming that the shoe you are trowing at them will fit all.
An once again, this is only by ignoring that poverty is the big cause of that disparity. (And even there I have to say that it remains a controversial point)
It won’t fit all as individuals differ, but the statistical trends are pretty clear. And why does any option have to be offered? Immigration isn’t there to benefit Mexico.
If poverty is a cause of the disparity you again have to ask why import poverty? It makes no sense. Socioeconomic status doesn’t cause academic performance either.
Please check the definition of Prejudice, I was willing to not go that way, but that is clearly what you are doing, you are prejudging what many immigrants will do if they are being giving the chance. And it will be only after they are being given the chance that then the ones that are smarter (A good chuck of them even based on your biased sources) will succeed academically, or if not, succeed doing honest work that does not require a college degree.
You are on purpose denying that there is controversy regarding IQ and using it to pigeonhole races and ethnicity when you say that “it makes no sense”.
Well, there is doubts on using IQ for that, and even more so when being used to prejudge people in an immigration reform discussion.
Right, but as noted in the Richwine article the more recent arrivals aren’t progressing at the same rate. So the “it’s worked out before with the Irish” argument doesn’t hold up. Also, the number in the recent waves is far higher so there’s less impetus to assimilate.
This is a key point that is completely swamped by the “Immigration: good or bad?” arguments. Some people think migration is an absolute human right and can never be restricted even if it means destroying the country, and some people think immigration should be stopped immediately, forever, by any means necessary. There’s no point in debating the issue with people in either of those groups.
It’s all about the numbers. For example, I think immigration can be a good thing done the right way. I would favor a limit of about 500,000 legal immigrants a year, with no more than 25% of that total coming from any one country, and illegal immigrants deported and counted against the total. The totals and the types of immigrants accepted should be tied in some way to the demand for their skills, and noncitizens should not be eligible for public benefits. I am sure there are many arguments for and against that particular proposal, but notice how different it is from saying “I think immigration is bad and should be reduced.”
Which brings me to another point: given the historically high level of immigration and the proportion of foreign-born people in the US, it seems to me that those seeking to increase it further are obligated to explain why this would be good; those seeking to restrict it to a more traditional level have less of an obligation.