Banishing Racism From Racism
In the last few months I have gotten accused of racism a few times at this blog. I don’t think I am misrepresenting my accusers by stating that their claim is based primarily because of my views on a) immigration and b) the differences between the economic performance of different countries. The two issues actually collapse into one. I have stated repeatedly that I believe that culture is a key factor affecting the difference in economic outcomes (and many social outcomes) between countries. Furthermore, I have stated that people carry culture with them when they move, so a wise immigration policy would select immigrants whose culture is both compatible and likely to generate positive economic results and limited friction.
I claim no credit for these ideas, mind you. Outside of some quarters, the idea that culture is a driver economic growth is widespread, long standing, well established and supported by data. I find it stunning that anyone would question the importance of culture in driving growth and the assimilation of immigrants.
But it is important to always be willing to question one’s beliefs, so I am going to do that here and now. So… how would we show that culture is not a determinant in how well a country does? I can think of a few possible tests but I want to avoid data at this time and just talk it through.
If we do that, we could start by defining “countries that do well.” In general, these would be countries that are stable, pleasant to live in, and relatively wealthy. Over the past few decades, if someone were to make a list of such countries, it would probably look more or like this (in no particular order): the US, Canada, Northwest Europe, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and, until China began applying a heavier thumb, Hong Kong. Those also happen to be the countries that would attract the most foreigners interested in being citizens, so this quick and dirty list should pass a basic smell test. (If some of these nations don’t have much of an immigrant population and don’t rank on high on the destination of potential immigrants, it is because they are very selective about the who they let in as opposed to being shunned by would be immigrants.)
So what do these places have in common? It isn’t natural resources. Just ask the Japanese. (Plus, in countries outside of the list above, being blessed by nature somehow correlates with suffering from the “Resource Curse.”) It isn’t Democracy as we know it. That’s a relatively new thing for South Korea, Hong Kong was ruled by foreigners for most of the last century, and then, of course, there’s Singapore. It isn’t coming into the post-WW2 period wealthy; quite a few countries on the list were in miserable shape in 1945. It isn’t a matter of exploiting other countries (which Americans of a certain bent are always fond of claiming is the US’ secret) – South Koreans will proudly tell you that the country has never invaded anyone in well over 2,000 years. Switzerland, too, is proudly neutral. The Scandinavians have also been pretty pacifist for well over a century as well. Small government? As much as libertarians like to claim Singapore for their own, ignoring the massive government participation in the economy (think Temasek, Singapore Airlines, Mediacorp, Singtel, Singapore Power, etc.). Nor did Japan, Inc. qualify. Something about about geography and environmental factors that these countries have in common? Nope and nope.
To be blunt, there doesn’t seem to be a factor or group of factors that can be applied to these countries but not to countries that are “developing.” I also hesitate to go with supernatural explanations, particularly since, as I learned about four decads ago (long before the stupid movie was made), Deus é Brasileiro. Besides, there is no such thing as empirical theology. For completeness, I should also say the Guns, Germs and Steel explanation got a few things right about the past. However, unless I missed something, Papua New Guinea is not is not putting out the performance you’d expect from the world’s smartest people in the Internet Age, which should go some way toward invalidating Diamond’s hypothesis.
On the other hand, I can describe a few cultural factors that distinguish these countries from others. For instance, these countries have (or had) reputations of being the home of people who were, on average, diligent, frugal, studious, and punctual among other traits. I presume those traits are largely learned, I might add.
And just like that, I slipped back into my sinning ways. So let us assume that like Winston Smith, I really would prefer to believe something that presently I don’t. Perhaps my reasons are not as noble as Smith’s. Maybe I am only concerned because I know that cultures change, and I wonder about the direction in which ours is currently headed. But regardless of my motives, how do I convince myself?
Tell me, please, what are the factors that explain economic and social performance so well that we can dispense with culture entirely as an explanation?
One trait that is often attributed to the successful countries that I left out of the post is that they are generally viewed as law abiding. I spent a decade and a half in South America during the military dictatorship years when not following rules could get you disappeared and yet the degree to which people followed the law was astoundingly low when viewed from an American’s eyes. I also remember being told many times in several countries in Latin America that “Americans are too serious” and don’t relax enough. I have been told the same thing by Italians and Iberians. But never by Germans, British or Japanese people.
It’s not the question of whether culture has influences that is at issue. The question is whether there is value in a multicultural society and gradual (generational) integration, and whether “culture” is a result of “racial phenotypes.” It is where those “observations” historically lead: institutional segregation, ghettos and other long term structural cultural isolation (the “Iron Curtain,” the enforced cultural isolation for guest workers in many parts of the Middle East) that prevents next generation assimilation/integration and cultural exchange that moderates culture, bombings of religious facilities, pogroms and seizure of assets, export of minorities to work camps, genocide.
When you engage these “questions” you are engaging with white supremacists, the so called “Third Reich,” those who say “we fought for this, it is ours, as Russia does in the areas they call “Novorussiya” and the caucuses. These are groups that are marginalized for a reason.
The mythologized cultural attributes of the Unites States (as opposed to the “white west”) whether they are true or not or results of framers’ intentions or beliefs, assert that cultural assimilation is not just possible, but that diversity of cultural viewpoints and experiences are a source of common strength (like genetic diversity in the natural world). Sociologically speaking, a “study” into economic associations needs to be balanced by realistic appraisals of other contexts. Recent immigrants are far more likely to found small businesses, they save at higher rates, they often have more children, and in many cases they pay into the national pension systems with no expectation of returns because some significant percentage are temporary residents. Meanwhile, national and state policies make many immigrants ineligible for cash assistance for lengthy periods, their relatives or other sponsors are on the hook to ensure they are provided for.
I think an appraisal of international economics would also be useful. Periods of high migration are often associated with international economic crises, or massive intentional displacements of people. Your’e ignoring all of that context, and building up what looks on the face to be a directed argument for excluding migrants based on “cultural characteristics” which are easily associated with religious or ethnic backgrounds. They look like simple fodder for racist exclusion, in the same way that “intelligent design” is just another attack on science in favor of extremist religious views.
Is it legitimate? Maybe there’s a time and place for it, but without context other than something equivalent to “I have a lot of Jewish friends” it comes off as yet another sign of the times in Trump’s America.
“Ireland is itself a poor country, and Dublin a magnificent city; but the appearances of general extreme poverty among the lower people are amazing. They live in wretched hovels of mud and straw, are clothed in rags, and subsist chiefly on potatoes. Our New England farmers, of the poorest sort, in regard to the enjoyment of all the comforts of life, are princes when compared to them.”
Benjamin Franklin
Oh my, Mike “Winston Smith” Kimel. That is a good one, suggesting that your critics are like Big Brother in Orwell’s 1984. Yes, you have been a victim of torture on an Orwellian scale for sure.
Perhaps we ne d to ask a more fundamental question. What is the purpose of immigration? What are we trying to accomplish?
no, Mike
their claim is not based on your views about immigration and differences in performaces of economies of different countries.
they are based on your racist expositon of those views include execrably bad use of statistics and arguments that look almost word for word like the “scientific” racism used to justify both slavery in America and extermination of lesser races by the Nazis.
and in my case by your assumption that a growing GDP is the measure of and the justification for all things.
I agree with you that culture is a big thing, but that isn’t an argument against immigration. Immigrants from places with low development cultures are often the sorts of people who bridle at the restrictions and inabilities of their own cultures. If they remained where they were born, they’d get by, possibly even do as well as circumstances might permit, but when they move to a more open, development oriented society they often do quite well.
This fits with your ideas, however, immigrants are often self selected. They are culturally ready to make the jump, and often will do well there. For refugees, it is more a matter of luck, though often refugees are from a commercial or educated class that is persecuted e.g. overseas Chinese, Jews, various Christian sects and probably others.
A lot depends on how much culture immigrants are allowed to maintain. In the US, we have lots of crappy jobs and a thin social safety net, so immigrants are shoved into the workplace and public life. They cannot duplicate their old lives save in symbolic form. They have to adopt to a new hybrid culture. In countries with fewer crappy jobs and better social safety nets, it is easier to carry one’s culture with one.
I think I said your comments were stupid, which they were. Self deportation is the part of your comments I thought were stupid.
However, the lane you’re driving in here can easily be viewed as parallel to racist in my opinion.
I do not believe that the purpose of immigration is to raise the GPD of the country.
I have to say this whole discussion is just weird as heck to me. I bought Kimel’s book when it came out, though I had read much of it here. But soon after that I drifted away from Angry Bear. Now I find out that, far from being the data-driven guy, proving that the Democrats are better than the Republicans at pretty much any measure available, he’s being excoriated for being a super racist. I’m completely at sea in trying to understand this.
Maybe this is a different Mike Kimel? Is this the author of Presimetrics, or is this some other Mike Kimel? Has he fallen and hit his head since I last paid attention to him, and has an entirely different personality? Or are people confusing the sentiment “I disagree with you” with “You are a racist”.
As I say, I’ve been away for some long time. But this whole discussion, the one about whether Mike Kimel is a racist, seems goofy and unhelpful to me, not that it really matters what I think.
As of this writing, unless I missed something, nobody has taken a crack at answering my question. What is it about the countries I mentioned that differentiates them from others? Happenstance? If a butterfly had flapped it’s wings differently, Uganda, Laos, and Bolivia would be world beaters? Or maybe the reason why some countries are successful and others aren’t is not something anyone would care about since it is so irrelevant? Or perhaps its just nobody has a better explanation than mine, which of course would make the rest of you racist too.
J Goodwin
Doesn’t it depend on the culture? Assimilate a large number of people who were taught to hate people of group X or to perform FGM and you get a culture with an uptick of crimes against group X or FGM. This isn’t hypothetical. Earlier today I read about a teacher in TX who got fired for tweeting about killing Jews. I don’t feel culturally enriched by people like that. YMMV. (And it should go without saying – the fact that we already have haters isn’t a reason to bring in more.)
Whether it is or not, teaching people of all “racial phenotypes” to be more thrifty, diligent, punctual, etc. will benefit everyone. We think education matters for everyone, be they dolts or geniuses, right?
EMichael,
Congratulations… you provided an example of what I said about cultures changing. Of course, in this case, productive behavior was discouraged by an occupying power that viewed the Irish as a threat. I believe the quote comes from the period of the Protestant Ascendancy.
Barkley Rosser,
A lot of things happened to Winston Smith in the book that I don’t claim have happened to me. Here’s specifically what I stated:
Jerry,
That is a good question. I’ve made an attempt to answer it before. My view is that our immigration should be designed to bring in immigrants who are likely to generate a greater improvement in our well being than the amount they cost our society. I have stated it before. It seems to some that is a racist perspective.
coberly,
If you do a ctrl-f for GDP, starting at the top of the page with the OP, the first mention of GDP is in your comment. Like a number of people here, you are reading what is in your head, not what is actually spelled out in pixels.
Kaleberg,
Agreed. If immigrants are encouraged to maintain a culture that promotes harm to others in the society to which they moved, or to avoid developing skills that would help them be productive members of society, society will not be better off with their arrival. Immigrants who who are productive members of society are a boon to us all.
Bean,
People go where the jobs are. Mexico has built itself a pretty crummy economy, particularly considering its natural resources and geographic location. An awful lot of people from Mexico express their irritation with this state of affairs by trying to remove themselves from Mexico. That is self-deportation from Mexico. It has been going on for many, many decades. (I note that the fact that it has been going on for so long speaks volumes about the Mexican political class, and the society that allows the Mexican political class to continue to run the show. It isn’t like they are an army of occupation.)
Jerry,
You are entitled to your beliefs. I happen to believe that the purpose of immigration, like the purpose of everything else mentioned in the Constitution, is defined in the preamble of said document. Our goal should be to bring in people who will helps us form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. In other words, people who will get along well with the existing population (that’s the domestic Tranquility bit), and generate more benefit than costs (that’s the general Welfare bit). That’s straight from this country’s User’s Manual.
Bill White,
FWIW, thanks for buying the book.
kimel
if you mean mention of GDP in this post you are undoubtedly right. if you mean mention of GDP in your series of racist posts, i think you are wrong.
i have no way of knowing if you ARE a racist. but as long as you say the same things about people that racists say, i’d have to say you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. the enemy of all of us and of all possibility to limit the damage done by the racism inherent in all living creatures.
and no, the idea of the preamble was not that we would limit immigration to those who would enhance the gdp. maybe you should read the “give me your tired, your poor…” which was not in the constitution but put on the doorway to the country for some reason.
Mike’s beliefs are equivalent to “its their own fault” and by using “culutre” ..which is largely if not completely derived from transfers of heritage through generations in one region where people remain bound to their small spot on the globe, then culture necessarily include race, religion, and ethnicities.
So if you ask why it “must be their own fault” the answer must be because their heritage (which is also culture and which is then also race, religious beliefs, and ethnicities) requires it In Mike’s system of beliefs people are inherently either better or worse for purposes of making and acquiring economic superiority over others and thus those who are “better” must be are inherently so.
I think he’s sees the distributions of cultures (aka, races, religious, & ethic composites) like a bell shaped curve… on one end are the cultures (aka, race, religion, ethnicity) who are “better” and the other end those that are “worse”.
You can go back through history and use that fact that northern Europe surpassed all other regions in economic wealth and prosperity, invention, etc. at one point in time and then describe that as being the reason they rose in superiority (e.g. the northern European “culture”, therefore to it’s race (Lilly white), religion (Christian) , and ethnicity (Franks). Of course this ignores the fact that the other cultures were far ahead of the northern Europeans for millennia in culture, arts, math, science, prosperity.
But suddenly because somehow the northern Europeans rose above the rest it can only be (in Mike’s logic) due to their racial, religious, and ethnic make-up (e.g. “culture”) that must have finally “gelled” after millennia of stagnating, remaining backwards and ignorant.
That’s not how any historian I’ve ever read describes why northern European eventually surpassed the rest (and I haven’t read Diamond yet), but then Mike’s belief system is built on who knows what foundation?
coberly,
Until such a time as the Emma Lazarus’ poem is made into an amendment to the Constitution, or at least a law, then it doesn’t mean all that much.
I think even you can agree that the country does not have the capacity ot accept everyone who would move to the country this year if allowed to do so. Given that, what is wrong with being selective?
Let’s go with a hypothetical. Say we agree to have a million legal immigrants this year. We allocate some to family reunification, some to this group, some to that, and end up with X slots left. Now you’re deciding between a group of immigrants who happen to be medical doctors in India with no feelings of antipathy toward the majority Christian and Jewish population of this country, and another group who happen to be illiterate polygamist goatherders, also from India, who are members of a political party with strong anti-Christian and anti-Semitic leanings. What is morally wrong with selecting the Indian MDs? Bear in mind that the MDs will probably be net payers of taxes (and will probably be net payers into Social Security). Illiterate polygamist goatherders will probably not. In one case you are imposing a cost on the average tax payer, in the other case, you are mostly benefiting the average tax payer.
I know, I know, racism. But both groups are from India. Perhaps they’re even from the same caste. Still racism, right? In the real world, people in Middle America have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that this could even be a debate, and when they do, they walk away from the Democrats.
Mike,
You said, “Our goal should be to bring in people who will helps us form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,….” quoting the Preamble of the Constitution.
However, that is the purpose of the Constitution. It is not the purpose of immigration.
Mike,
All the “racist” attacks are nothing more than “virtue signaling” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
“Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values by an individual done primarily with the intent of enhancing that person’s standing within a social group. The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue – especially piety among the political or religious faithful”
The great thing about virtue signaling is that it is super easy. You don’t have to take in a migrant family, donate money to support immigrants, or even use logic to debate someone who questions unfettered immigration. You just have to log on and call people “racist,” mission accomplished, good night.
Sammy, just out of curiosity under what conditions is a racist attack justified? Can you describe these conditions in singular or composite forms that would constitute a racist belief. Can these be clearly and unambiguously distiguished from a belief that isn’t racist?
For example if you refer to “hose people in the Baltimore ghetto’s” in a pejorative fashion is that racist?
How about “those people in Nigerian jungles” is that racist?
How about “”those Cadillac queens”?
Mike Kimel,
During most of our history we were a country where a man could improve his lot in life by honest work.
The English government established colonies in America in the 1600’s. The proprietors of those colonies were given the right to sell land within their colony. Land was cheap. So a newly arrived immigrant farmer could buy a little land and farm. Even a poor immigrant could learn to farm while working for wages, and then move west and buy land where it was cheaper. And there were men who never bought the land that they cleared and farmed. When someone showed up with a deed, they just packed up and moved further west to the latest frontier.
There was still cheap land after the American Revolution and later under the new US Constitution. Migration was west to the latest frontiers and cheap land.
In addition to the cheap farm land, the settler could hunt, fish, and gather nuts and berries in the unsettled land around him.
That cheap land was still a major factor until about 1900.
That was who we were for most of our history! (About 300 years)
That is not who we are now. In 1924 the US Congress recognized that a change in the American economy had taken place and changed immigration law.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
I would not exclude the influences of culture on our history. Our internal conflicts were limited because we were almost all Christians and we were almost all western europeans or their descendants. Either you spoke, read, and wrote English or you needed a translator which was very inconvenient, to say the least.
Longtooth,
I guess I was writing my response to coberly when you wrote in. So I will ask you what I asked coberly: if we are deciding on which immigrants to let in, and are deciding among Indian immigrants, what is wrong with selecting Indian MDs who don’t profess to views that large swaths of the American public are inferior peoples as opposed to selecting illiterate goatherders who belong to organizations that profess such views? I know, I know, its racism, even though we’re talking about two groups of Indians. Or maybe I’m talking about two groups of Bangladeshis, or two groups of French people.
Fine. So its racism. But the question remains – what is wrong with picking MDs who don’t profess animosity toward most Americans over illiterate goat-herders who do? One group will impose a cost on the American taxpayer, one will provide us with benefits.
Jim H,
Of course cultures change with conditions. But the conditions you describe for the US, they might apply (during roughly the same period) to Australia and Canada, but they don’t apply to any other countries on the list of countries in the OP. And I note that the conditions that applied in the US (and Australia and Canada) are not that far removed from the conditions that applied in Brazil and Argentina, say. Perhaps Mexico also had strong similarities, but that is beyond my knowledge of Mexican history.
I note, however, that you are the first to make an attempt to answer the question I posed in the post. One would think the question – “what causes some countries to perform well on economic and social fronts, and what causes other countries to perform badly?” – is a completely irrelevant issue given how studiously it is being ignored.
Sammy,
Given how many of the usual suspects are busy ignoring what would seem to be a vital question, one which, if we could answer, we could use to alleviate the burden on the vast majority of people around the world, and they are instead busy yelling racism (and apparently would be if I suggested that, among two sisters from whatever country, we should pick the one with more education and views that are more amenable to getting along with the existing population of the US), I am inclined to agree. I cannot come up with a better explanation.
Jerry,
Sorry. I missed this comment:
True. But it is, by definition, unconstitutional to have an immigration policy that violates the Constitution.
Mike Kimel,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States were all colonies of England. The influence of the English legal system was persistent in those countries.
Hong Kong and Singapore were also heavily influenced by England and the influence was persistent. Japan and South Korea were heavily influenced by the United States after World War II. They were open to change and those changes have been persistent. Perhaps those changes in southeast Asia offered advantages to their populations. Such as more freedom than they had been allowed in the past.
The Philippines were occupied by the United States after the Spanish American War. But almost immediately after that war, Filipinos began to establish an independence movement. Either they were not open to change or the changes offered were undesirable. Perhaps American companies had too much influence there. That was certainly the case in Central America.
Perhaps what was needed was an English or American styled legal system but with local entrepreneurs.
Where are the successful former colonies of France or Germany?
Spain’s most successful former colony would seem to be either Chile or Costa Rica. Portugal’s most successful former colony would be Brazil.
What are the primary cultural factors? Religion, language, and then law? Nothing seems to divide a population as deeply as religion. And the province of Quebec was willing to secede from Canada over language. (Primarily) Perhaps law goes unnoticed because in spite of differences in each country’s laws, they all seem to work to establish order. We assume that they are equivalent, but perhaps they are not.
The unfortunate case of the day care worker in TX isn’t hypothetical, but it is anecdotal, and in my view is not at all about “what all Muslims believe because their culture is inferior and can’t mix with pure Aryans.” My view is that it is a hard lesson in being young and dumb in the age of social media, the Fox News spin notwithstanding.
I assume we were all lucky enough to grow up in an era where that phase of our lives was considerably less well documented.
JimH, immigration exclusion policies happened well before 1924. The Page Act, Chinese Exclusion Act, Geary Act, all before 1900, and sent messages to the public that they could engage in activities certainly describable as pogroms (driving ethic Chinese people from their communities and seizing their property).
It’s that kind of “yellow peril” “signaling” that has me most concerned at the moment. There has been much said about the Bush and Obama unspoken rule of not saying we are in a culture war with Muslims, but rather in a “war on terror” or against terrorists. ISIS has made that distinction harder to maintain in the public mind, but the groups who are demanding that politicians use language that we are in a war against Islam are almost certainly looking for excuses for justifying their bad behavior or inner thoughts.
“illiterate polygamist goatherders, also from India, who are members of a political party with strong anti-Christian and anti-Semitic leanings”
Got the data on that?
Filipinos were already entrenched in a multi year running war with a few temporary accords against the Spanish, and the Spanish American war provided the breathing room necessary to declare the First Philippine republic. After that, Spain “sold” the Philippines to the US, and we decided that there was not going to be a Republic there, that we were going to be absolutely in charge.
Mike – “True. But it is, by definition, unconstitutional to have an immigration policy that violates the Constitution.”
True, although I think you will have a tough argument proving that an immigration policy that does not raise the GDP is unconstitutional. You might as well declare recessions unconstitutional and hence shall never occur because they cause a drop in GDP.
mike
this is a pretty common story. you are so wrapped up in your “idea” that you can’t even see what other people are trying to tell you.
it is a waste of both our time to argue with each other.
Kimel: “I happen to believe that the purpose of immigration, like the purpose of everything else mentioned in the Constitution, is defined in the preamble of said document.”
Damn. And to think that for all my knowledge of constitutional law, which actually is fairly extensive, I had no idea that the Constitution mentions immigration.
Or that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” means anything other than “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The new Originalism, I guess. Antonin Scalia, the son of Italian rather than non-British immigrants, is scratching his head up there somewhere in heaven. Or down there in Hell. As the case may be.
This guy’s either dumber than a rock or nuttier than fruitcake. Or; like his idol, Mr. Trump, both.
No, make that, dumber and nuttier that Trump.Trump, at least as of now, has never claimed that our immigration laws violate the Constitution cuz of all those hostilities that various groups of immigrants have had toward one another and cuz some immigrants and their descendants commit crimes (including disturbing the peace!), and some have even received food stamps!
Bill White, yeah, Kimel’s undergone an ideological epiphany, i.e., a 180-degree ideological reversal, and for, I guess, the last year or so has used this blog to post something like (I’m guessing here) 30-40 posts singing the praises of the most alt-right parts of Trumpism. He’s been a proud and open supporter of Bannon/Trump, posting one after another bizarre racist and xenophobic claim.
Based on DATA, you see. And then when his claims are deconstructed as nonsense, he claims he was really arguing something entirely different. And then a post or two later, he repeats the claim, someone tears it apart, he ….
You get the idea.
Sweden’s Constitution doesn’t bar immigration from outside Scandinavia. Looks like it works out well for them:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/02/24/the-truth-about-refugees-in-sweden/?utm_term=.34cca5346869
Unless, of course, like here in the U.S., their government has been engaging in some unconstitutional lawmaking and policy for a pretty long time.
Jim H,
I think the English/American legal system or something close to it makes a difference. The “close to it” works reasonably well in the places that developed “close to it” on their own, but apparently “close to it” doesn’t export as well as the real thing. Thank you for answering the question.
J Goodwin,
Yeah. So was 9/11 and San Bernardino. And so was Dylan Roof shooting up a Church in the name of some oafchuckery laden philosophy. Now the latter has been the cause of many fewer deaths – by a few orders of magnitude – this century than the former. And yet the former had many of its symbols banned. And my guess is that if a potential immigrant who looked and sounded and had the same views Dylan Roof had, you’d be in favor of banning him. I know I would. And I’m in favor of banning anyone who has the same views as that teacher too.
Beverly,
Yeah. I’m not an attorney and I haven’t studied constitutional law extensively, or really, at all. But my first tip-off that you are yet again offering a different interpretation than the Courts on something quite basic – this time wrt Article 1, Section 9 – is the fact that the INS reports up to the Justice Department. Otherwise, as per the 10th Amendment, the States would set immigration policy. I invite you to inform the Supreme Court that the INS needs to be abolished or at least turned over to the States.
I notice you found plenty of time to call me names, but don’t give enough of a damn about improving the lot of most of the world to come up with an explanation for what causes some countries to be successful when so many others fail. Yelling racist more important than caring about problems that affect literally billions of people across the globe, I guess.
Mike,
The problem you have is that we have what you said recorded.
Your transition from GDP of certain countries and the success or failure of their emigrants to the US is known to us.
Now, we have “cliterectomy-enthusiasts” and “illiterate polygamist goatherders, also from India, who are members of a political party with strong anti-Christian and anti-Semitic leanings” versus MDs.
Yeah, I am shocked that MDs make more money that those other people.
But that is not what you started with. The US is not about restricting our country to “productive people(in your view), it is about allowing people that want what the US provides.
And it does not exclude people depending on their race, occupation, religion or culture.
Somehow you can write what you have written and are upset because people think you are racist.
You sound like Donald Trump.
Do not be shocked when people treat you like him.
EMichael,
You keep saying I wrote something, and I keep telling you to quote me. Since you never quite find the quote stating what you think I wrote, let me help you this time:
That’s from here: http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2016/10/economic-outcomes-of-immigrants-v-their-stay-at-home-counterparts-what-the-data-shows.html
Since I showed a few graphs that seem to back up that statement, I am happy to stand by that statement. Read it carefully.
No. It isn’t. We let in a million people a year, give or take. How many people would move here tomorrow if they were allowed? A hundred times that? A thousand times that? There certainly hasn’t been a point in my lifetime, or yours, in which we let in everyone who wanted to come to this country. So you are peddling nonsense.
Well, former occupation, yes. And I for one was quite pleased when John Demjanjuk had his citizenship revoked and he got booted.
And if we have not excluded people based on race, religion, or culture, we have certainly given preferences based on race, religion and culture. I realize there was more than piece of legislation that got referred to as the “Lautenberg Amendment” but the one I have in mind was passed in Nov 1989. Under its provisions, a few hundred thousand Soviet Jews and Evangelical Christians, as well as however many Bahai and other persecuted minorities from Iran were given special status and admitted into the US. And it has generally been a positive thing. Last time I checked, precisely none of them engaged in terrorist acts in the US intended to kill Americans or have gone abroad to help ISIS or Al Shabaab . It is hard to get data but most of them were better educated than average and have probably benefited our economy quite a bit.
I guess to be absolutely precise, I should amend my previous comment where I wrote this:
To…
Last time I checked, I was unable to find any evidence that anyone admitted under the Lautenberg Amendment, or fitting that profile, or their chldren, had engaged in terrorist acts in the US intended to kill Americans or have gone abroad to help ISIS or Al Shabaab or similar organizations.
oboy
You tell me to quote you and then show me your quote that clearly agrees with what I wrote?
What part of
“GDP of certain countries and the success or failure of their emigrants to the US is known to us.”
is incorrect?
Perhaps I was not clear enough in my writing, but I was saying you have segued from your initial claims to cliterectomy-enthusiasts” and “illiterate polygamist goatherders, also from India, who are members of a political party with strong anti-Christian and anti-Semitic leanings”
EMichael,
Just to make sure we’re on the same page.
And it is a fairly innocuous statement. It is supported by data. So I don’t know what got you exercised about it.
And I did point out the relationship is not exact. As I have commented in the past, and plan to revisit – I’d like to see what is it about some groups that make them overperform or underperform the rule. I have a hypothesis. I am going to guess you will hate it.
Meanwhile, I notice you made no attempt at all to answer the question in the OP. It is an important question. If someone comes up with a good answer, one that can be applied, the lives of literally billions of people could be improved. You prefer to throw brickbats at me than to answer the question.
I am not talking about your data, I am talking about your including non data to further “support” your data.
“I happen to believe that the purpose of immigration, like the purpose of everything else mentioned in the Constitution, is defined in the preamble of said document.” Actually, as I pointed out here yesterday, the Preamble says that the states are ratifying the Constitution because they think the Constitution as written not by Mike Kimel but by its drafters will, as it is written, help form a more perfect union, etc.
He also happens to believe that the 9/11 hijackers were immigrants. Or at least he repeatedly says that they were. But actually, one held a student visa, the others a visitor’s or business traveler’s visa. Not even one was an immigrant:
Kimel’s inability, demonstrated time and again now, to actually understand straightforward sentences mirrors Trump’s inability to do so. But he also happens to believe some false things that don’t even require the ability to understand ordinary sentences; they require common knowledge or a simple google search. Too much trouble, of course.
In other words, there ain’t any connection between what Kimel happens to believe and actual fact. But that doesn’t stop this blog from allowing him to post things he happens to believe and represent them as fact. Which of course is the very essence of Trumpism.
Which raises the question of … well, you know.
Several points.
Sure, culture influences economic performance, but it changes over time and it varies within countries and it is not the end all and be all.
Regarding 1984, the matter of Winston Smith coming to believe something he did not is most famously the matter of his coming to believe that 2+2 = 5 after being tortured, although perhaps you had something else in mind. It remains a bit of a stretch and frankly a bit insulting to imply that your critics are like Big Brother whether torturing you or just being disagreeable.
You state that Mexicans have been trying to come here, but in case you have not checked, they have stopped. Net immigration from Mexico has been basically near zero if not negative, although Central Americans are still coming across the border. All the hysteria by Trumpsters over Mexico is just looney.
Regarding MDs from India or anywhere else, we restrict their entry, very stupidly in my opinion and also that of Dean Baker who has made much of this as part of why medical care costs are so high in the US. Neither political party seems to be pushing opening that up.
Barkley:
Made that point on the transitioning to being more productive over generations repeatedly with Mike. Others have said the same thing. No one wants to remain poor and children go beyond their parents as they blend with society.
Start to let the professionals immigrate to the US other than H1Bs and watch how fast professionals start to complain. The restrictions to immigrant doctors are high and more than likely made so by the AMA.
Nobody has seemed to catch on to the stoppage of Mexicans crossing the border and how many are going back to Mexico. Obama has removed or deported more immigrants than past presidents and they are being tracked in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) systems. Come back and it is a felony. Even more immigrants are turned away at the border if they do not have documentation.
Then too Trump and his followers need their boogeymen.
Oh, and while I think I have suggested that some of your arguments seem to smack of racism, I think I have avoided calling you “a racist.” If I did, I retract and apologize. But I stand by my more substantive questions and criticisms that I have made in past posts.
Barkley
they more than smack of it. they are by definition racist. he offers us a race based view of history and human relations. he may think he would not lynch negroes, but he has no problem disadvantaging people according to race or “culture.”
challenge him on that and he will suddenly decide he only wants to exclude people who advocate killing Americans. as far as I know immigration police already do that. but Kimel means “people who share a “culture” with those who advocate killing Americans.” by their skin color ye shall know them.
by the way “Kimel” is an arablc name.
and he is cute-dishonest
he denied using GDP at all when i accused him of using GDP as the measure of all things… because he did not use that exact word in the present (at that time) post, though he had extensively in prior posts and does so here again.
at some point you (I) just throw up our hands and realize we are dealing with someone who can’t see what he is saying, or just uses are objections as an excuse to say it again.
coberly,
I measure what I can measure. You have written about the Social Security system many times. You don’t care about how money is in the Social Security trust fund. You care about whether people will have a good retirement. You look at the Social Security trust fund because, of all the data at your disposal, it is the one you have that works best.
When discussing immigration, I have looked at real gdp per capita, and I have looked at per capita income. Neither is perfect, but they approximate what I care about, which is how well people are doing in this country.
Also, Kimel is a German name. But I have no “Germanic blood” nor can I trace my ancestry to anyone who spent more than a few days at a time in Germany. Not that it matters.
Barkley,
Estimates of people who are illegal or undocumented or whatever phrase you choose to use indicates that the number remains very high. There may have been a net reduction, and it is possible that in some recent years the net number was zero, but you cannot say that a few million extra people has no effect on wages, etc.
As to whether I am a racist… I have stated before, and nobody seems to believe me… I am an Americanist or a citizenist, if those terms exist. I want what is best for people who are citizens of this country. Notice I am not distinguishing between ancestry. Or faith. Or ability or whatever. If you’re in the club, you’re in the club. And that means it pays to try to have more immigrants who will benefit those of us who are in the club, and keep out those who won’t. (Some may not help because they are unproductive, others because they are violent.) Immigration is not an efficient way to distribute charity. But the fact that some people who are currently in the club have pathologies isn’t a good reason to import more people with the same or similar pathologies.
TYPO CORRECTION: My reference to Scalia in one of my comments yesterday SHOULD read: “The new Originalism, I guess. Antonin Scalia, the son of Italian rather than British immigrants, is scratching his head up there somewhere in heaven. Or down there in Hell. As the case may be.”
Ah, but you probably figured that out, since Italy is not part of Britain. And since Kimel’s main point for the last year or so has been: white immigration from Northern Europe, good. Non-white immigration and white immigration from elsewhere in Europe, not good.
Still, I guess I stepped on my own sarcasm, with that typo. Sigh.
Barkley, why shy away from calling this spade a spade? Or, this duck a duck? Walks and quacks like one, you know.
Mike
The Trust Fund is almost irrelevant to the health of Social Security or the welfare of future generations. That’s why I do NOT “look at” it except to try to point out that the sky is falling crowd who DO look at it are wrong.
One of the frustrations of trying to educate people about Social Security is that most of them can only deal with one thing at a time, if that. SS is not very complex, but it is too much for most people to think about.
You have taken something very complex and reduced it to one thing. LIke the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp light.
Beverly,
Maybe in your map, Singapore, South Korea and Japan (specifically mentioned in the OP) are part of Northern Europe. The rest of us have different maps.
Lordy. I didn’t see your “first tip-off” comment until just now, Kimel. I can’t even begin to fathom why you think the Courts offer a different interpretation of the Preamble than mine. They don’t; trust me. Nor why you think the fact that the INS reports up to the Justice Department means something other than that when Congress enacted the statute that created the DoJ, and when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act and its predecessor statutes and made the Immigration and Naturalization Service part of the DoJ, this gives the Preamble a different meaning than what the clear wording of the Preamble suggests.
Are you saying that this some sort of word-association game? That both the Preamble and the statute creating the Department of Justice include the word “justice” and anything with a title that includes the word “justice” must have been titled by Donald Trump, or something? Cuz, really, that’s just silly. Trust me on this, too.
And as for that Article I, section 9 thing, I guess I should have specified that I had no idea that the Constitution mentions immigration beyond the year 1808. Truth be told, that clause in Section 9 hadn’t really registered with me. My focus was always stuff that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly sunset at 1808. My best recollection is that 1809 was a pretty important year, so I began thinking of the Constitution as containing only things that were relevant in that year too.
God, Kimel. You really are an idiot. Or just stark-raving CRAZY.
just so y’all know, here’s what Article 1, section 9 says:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
http://constitution.findlaw.com/articles.html#sthash.0fR4CF1P.dpuf
Yes, folks, the clause expressly sunset itself on January 1, 1808. Which was a while ago. I think.
And if it gives the Preamble some secret meaning, it’s sure as hell a VERY SECRET one.
Beverly,
Ah. You caught me in a typo. I meant Section 8, not 9.
“For instance, these countries have (or had) reputations of being the home of people who were, on average, diligent, frugal, studious, and punctual among other traits.”
And India, Kimel! India! Known for its punctuality, which is why so many Indian immigrants and children of Indian immigrants have made it so big in Silicon Valley!
And Russia, also known for its punctuality! And its frugality! And diligence! Sergey Brin is definitely punctual, frugal and diligent. He’s a descendant of Tevya the milkman. Who damn well was punctual; never once delivered milk late to a customer.
You. Are. An. Idiot.
Mr. Kimel
In your response to my take on the basis for your opinions regards “culture” being in fact your preference for race, religion, ethnicities. you said:
“the question remains – what is wrong with picking MDs who don’t profess animosity toward most Americans over illiterate goat-herders who do? One group will impose a cost on the American taxpayer, one will provide us with benefits”
I want to remark on your last sentence: “one group” imposes costs, the “one” other group a benefit.
This is a simpleton’s proposition.. .you declare two groups such that group A is “bad” and group B is “good” by your own definitions. By inference then the only correct response must be to pick the “good” group B for admission.
This is the text-book definition of a circular argument. It’s so obviously a classic form of false logic in argument that I would have been surprised you used it if I hadn’t already long ago figured out that you have nothing but personal opinions and use of selective “fact” to support your opinions.
There are several problems with your selected group A and B definitions.
MD’s are highly educated… selected by academic performance in prior education for training to become perhaps an MD if they are among the top n% of their class, AND had the wealth or were able to tap the resources of wealth to put at their disposal. We can substitute any other professional classification. since the predicate is any group or person that was pre-selected based on educational attainment criteria which infers a group with wealth or access to it.
You perhaps also imply or believe that this group’s attributes include a much greater than average level of intelligence.
Goat herders are your instance of a generalized very low income group who have a very low level of educational attainment and did not have the wealth or access to it to achieve higher levels of educational attainment.
You perhaps also imply or believe that this group’s attributes include a much lower than average level of intelligence.
I will submit that both group’s levels of intelligence are the same if they are from the same population (race, ethnicity). That is their only real distinction is in fact wealth or access to wealth that enabled them to be distinguished by educational attainment.
The offspring of both groups will therefore not be distinguishable by intelligence distributions.
If both groups immigrate to a foreign nation-state AND their wealth or lack of it is not a criteria for immigration, AND if both group’s offspring are provided with the same level of education independent of their parent’s wealth or lack of it, in the new nation-state, then there is no distinction at all between these groups contributions or costs in their new nation-state.
You may like to imply that the lower educational attainment and low wealth group will go on welfare and/or be the beneficiaries of tax transfers from the wealthy to the poorer income groups in our nation and thus a greater “burden” on taxpayers. But that can only be implied if you believe the wealthy in our nation are not benefiting from taxes they pay by at least as much (and of course much more in fact) than the outlay of taxes in welfare and/or tax transfers.
Moreover the offspring of both these groups and their subsequent generations are then indistinguishable from the general population of people already resident.
I will also submit that in most advanced nations (to which these groups A and B would prefer to immigrate) there is a far greater labor demand for lower level jobs than those at the top of the income distributions, and therefore the lower educational attainment and lower wealth group’s immigrants will have more than equal probability of being fully and gainfully employed as the higher educational attainment and wealth group.
Finally, I’ll bring up a morals issue…
Your selection criteria would if extended, select from a nation’s wealthy elites to emigrate leaving behind the less wealthy and less educated population, which further exacerbates the poorer nations whose residents would prefer to emigrate to wealthier nations. This brings me back to may original declaration that you are of that group of people who believe “its their own fault”… e,.g. they have to fix their own issues..
Oh. You meant section 8. Pardon me, but I thought the issue was whether the Constitution specifies WHAT Congress can legislate with respect to immigration, not WHETHER Congress can legislate with respect to immigration.
Yes, Kimel. Yes. The Constitution does give CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY “TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION”, which is a subset of immigration law, albeit NOT the subset that determines WHO CAN EMIGRATE HERE.
Nowhere does the Constitution limit Congress to authorizing immigration only from countries with a high GDP, or people with graduate degrees.
Really, Kimel. Nowhere.
An absolutely eloquent riposte to him, Longtooth.
Except that those goat-herders have professed animosity toward most Americans. And the MDs haven’t.
In fact, goat-herders are known for their desire to immigrate to America precisely BECAUSE of their professed animosity toward most Americans. Which they profess not only orally but also on their visa applications.
CORRECTION: Should say, “… albeit NOT the subset that determines WHO CAN IMMIGRATE HERE.”
Barkley Rosser
You stated:
“Regarding MDs from India or anywhere else, we restrict their entry, very stupidly in my opinion and also that of Dean Baker who has made much of this as part of why medical care costs are so high in the US. Neither political party seems to be pushing opening that up.”
Isn’t this like highway robbery though? India pays the costs of education and then further for medical schools. The US can far better afford medical education than India, yet we would prefer to let India pay those costs and then import the resultant benefit to the US and remove it from India. Sounds like that’s asking for a free lunch, no ?.
Isn’t the answer really to significantly expand the capacity of U.S. medical schools and medical residency programs?
Mike,
You can’t win. You’ve stepped on the third rail. There is a term in psychology called “projection” which means that you project onto others what you hate about yourself. What the hate is about is judging people by their appearance and association. This is a perfectly legitimate, although imperfect, practice that has been bred into the human species by natural selection. We have to know who the good guys and the bad guys are, or at least try, lest we suffer an early snuff of our genes.
It’s only recently that judging by appearance etc. has become politically incorrect, before our inherent nature can adapt, and before a better system can be found. So the Beverly/coberly/longtooth/emichael of the world have to project their politically correct hatred of their own tendencies, onto some vessel…Trump, Republicans, and on this blog – you.
And, not only that, they need you to be their vessel. So no matter what you do, you will be the Angry Bear racist.
Mike-
It’s ok. Economics is not a good way to understand human history. If all economists had the courage of their convictions, they would come to the same conclusions you did.
Then we would stop awarding PhDs for this nonsense and the world would be a much better place.
Thornton:
Good to see you here again.
Sammy
i am so glad that you were able to get that far in the Psych 101 textbook. If you had gotten a little further with your education you would have found out that things are not so simple.
you might even have heard me say right here on angry bear that “racism” is bred into the genes of all living organisms. but if we are going to live in the same world without blood running in the streets every day humans have to learn to rise above that “natural” racism. Mike is trying to turn back the last fifty years if not the last 2000 years (“Who is my neighbor?”) and he does it with crappy statistics.
one of the blessings of overcoming racism is you find out that people who don’t look like you are human too, sometimes with great gifts that would benefit you if you could get your jack boot off his face.
you, sammy, were far ahead of Mike in preferring money to kindness.
Yes coberly,
If I were only so enlightened as you. You are so tolerant of contrary opinion, as evidenced by your comments to anyone who disagrees with you on social security, global warming, or any doctrinaire lib position. You “lead the league” on AB in ad hominem attacks. Time to re-read Psych 101 on “Projection”
coberly,
I am not trying to turn back 50 years or 2000 years. As I noted in the post:
My interest is simple – making people better off. I think it is fairly obvious that people prefer the culture of Singapore to be better than the culture of Uganda. If you have any doubts, ask people around the world whether they’d prefer to receive Ugandan citizenship or Singaporean. (And if you think its just money, ask them if they’d prefer Singaporean citizenship to Kuwaiti citizenship.)
So understanding what causes the difference between Singapore and Uganda, and being able to replicate some of the factors that make Singapore into Singapore more widely, including in Uganda, is to everyone’s benefit unless you assume most people don’t really know what they want and you know better.
But if it makes people better off to make Uganda more like Singapore, it doesn’t seem that making Singapore more like Uganda makes people better off.
Mike,
As you may or may not know “coberly” is retired on some sort of sinecure from the State of Oregon. He drives his polluting VW bus to the mailbox once a month to pick u[ his check.. I, for one, am jealous.
Mike
i have understood what you are saying for many posts now. At first I wasn’t sure. So let me repeat I understand perfectly well that many people believe culture is a driver of economic growth. That is why the culture of inclusion that we have (mostly) in America has been so successful, while the culture of a “superior class” has in general not been so successful.
But even if it were true (and it is not) that there was a culture or race that led to lower economic growth, we would not be wise, not to say moral, to add extra burdens and stigma to members of that race or culture.
You keep repeating yourself thinking that I have missed your point. I have not. l disagree with your point most vigorously. I don’t think we are facing a choice between making America more like Singapore or more like Uganda.
We are facing a choice of what kind of human beings we will be. Do we want more money at any price, or do we want a “kinder and gentler” society. Bush wanted more money, but he thought “kinder and gentler” was what the people would vote for. I vote for the better angels of our nature.
Sammy
if you had read any of my posts on Social Security for the last ten years you would know that I disagree with the liberals almost as much as I disagree with the insane Right.
The liberals want to turn Social Security into welfare as we knew it. The insane Right thinks… or says… it already is.
I got a little further than Psych 101 so I know that nothing I can say could change your mind. I do not indulge in ad hominem, but when someone is wrong I say so. And if they are persistently, stupidly wrong to the point of evil, I say so.
I believe your accusing me of “ad hominem” might be projection.
Coberly,
Go tell people in Uganda that the folks in Singapore are too focused on growth and material goods. The people in Uganda see the people in Singapore and want what they see. They want to be as unconcerned about their childrens’ next meal as the average Singaporean. They want to be as unconcerned about their children developing stomach parasites as the average Singaporean. They want their children to drink the same clean water as Singaporean children. They want their children to have the same opportunities as Singaporean children. They don’t want to worry that when their children grow up, there will be a President for Life who actually, honest to God, eats people. Singaporean parents don’t need to have those concerns.
And guess what? That evil, evil growth is what buys all those things. Sure, growth buys other things that aren’t as desirable – pollution, crowding, traffic, overpopulation, but the average Ugandan will kill or die to give his kids those sorts of problems to deal with as opposed to the problems they actually do face.
The fact is, Ugandan culture fails compared to Singaporean culture. It doesn’t deliver what its people want as well as Singaporean culture does. You worry about stigma, but you should be worried more about how to make Uganda into Singapore. Or into Germany or South Korea. And you should also worry about how to prevent Holland or the US from becoming Uganda. Those are real issues. You can worry about Ugandans having first world problems like self-esteem, anorexia and whether there are enough bags of ketchup in their to-go order when you make them into a first world country. Based on my experience, if Ugandans are anything like South Americans, they will tell you they have too many real concerns to worry about first world trivial nonsense.
Mike
why do you think you are telling me something i don’t know? there isn’t a goddam thing i have said that would let an intelligent person infer that i don’t care about productivity and growth. we do not live in an either/or world.
i will be glad to see the Ugandans build a society they are happy with, including productivity and growth. I bet they don’t do it by telling the world they have an inferior culture and bad genes.
I am beginning to think you have Krasting’s disease.
coberly,
” I do not indulge in ad hominem,”
LOL, ROTFL, whatever other else applies. You are pretty much all ad hom and you deny it. This tells me what I am dealing with here: a complete lunatic.
sammy
i won’t play this game with you much longer.
you need to find a logic teacher to explain to you what an ad hominem is.
but your comment above regarding my having a sinecure from the state is a classic example.
on the other hand my saying that you are too thick to tell the difference is not.
while you are at it look up sinecure. it doesn’t mean what you think.