« The concept of value transference is spreading outside my blog | Main | iOS apps in the NY Times and Half Sigma’s new iPod Touch 5G »

November 18, 2012

Comments

Of course, there's nothing saying that this will go any further than here, and it's quite likely all will be business as usual (with Obama deporting large numbers).

There was no substantive difference between Romney and Obama, as I recall Romney called for self deportation which would mean cutting off the welfare flow to illegals and only a moron would believe that would have happened and as much as I dislike Romney, he's not a moron.

Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth, as on most issues, they never get too curious about the status of their 30 year old mexican groundskeeper who can't speak english because that might mean they would have to pay a little more money to not do any manual labor themselves.

America has done nothing about illegal immigrants and has encouraged them to come here either actively through welfare programs or passively through failure to enforce existing laws. As such a reasonable person would believe that the status illegal is moot and the moral thing to do at this point is to make them full citizens.

Operation Wetback II?

What are the alternatives here?

"But we see that is wrong. The post-election momentum appears to be in favor of enough Republicans joining with Democrats to legalize all of illegal immigrants currently in the country."

Actually, no. Even most of the wimpiest mainstream Republicans such as Rich Lowry have given up trying to win the Hispanic vote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/333525

Rush Limbaugh has been going on a tear about how there's no way to win Hispanics and third world "Americans" because they're too dependent on welfare.

It's good they've given up because once Republicans concede there's is no way to win the NAM vote then the only way to save the GOP is to stop importing low IQ NAMs both legally and illegally.

Now that we're seeing some movement on restricting legal immigration from mainstream Republicans, we in the HBD sphere who are so much further ahead of the rest of the conservative movement should continue to push the envelope further by supporting policies that will encourage legal non-white immigrants to renounce residency and our citizenship and leave.

If Eduardo Saverin and Denise Rich can turn in their citizenship and leave then there's no reason why the US shouldn't support outmigration policies of low IQ immigrants.

A citizenship/greencard buyout that pays $100,000 per family member to leave would clear out a majority of the Hispanic population of California in less than three years.

Sad story.

I'm not sure I see much downside to this. Firstly, mestizo immigrants are likely to be moochers, but unlikely to be criminals at the rates of other ethnic groups. Secondly, if our current entitlement state cannot last, bringing in more moochers will speed up the moment of truth.

It is often said that "illegal immigrants do work Americans don't want to do."

This may be true (at least in some cases, e.g. crop picking) but that's why they shouldn't be legalized! As soon as they get their green cards, they will look for better jobs, e.g. as truckers. They will want their share of government jobs too.

We need to call our congressmen and senators and make sure they oppose any amnesty. The future of the Republican Party, and the country, is literally hanging by a thread. It might not work but we have to try.

"The post-election momentum appears to be in favor of enough Republicans joining with Democrats to legalize all of illegal immigrants currently in the country."

Given that immigration played almost zero role in the campaign, I find it VERY suspicious that this is the issue everyone on the "right" is suddenly eager to compromise on.

More immigration DOOMS the GOP. It turns off the white lower, working, and middle class voters and it brings in so many more democrat voters that even if those whites do go Republican, it won't matter. The GOP leadership is either completely retarded and walking into a trap, or they are evil and wish to see whites be completely shut out of the political process.

We are fucking doomed. The greater HBD community have known this was coming for some time. It sucks to be right.

Eh, Romney was also making amnesty noises.

What the Times is saying here, among other things, is: "Immigration has no effect on us, here at the Times. But it will hurt the lower class Americans we hate. So lets get all the low achieving people crammed into this pathetic country NOW! so our enemies will be hurt. Like Obama said, it is time for revenge."

Legalizing illegal invaders is a real poke in the eye to all the decent immigrants who followed the rules and waited their turn and spent the $$ and time to fill out all the bureaucratic paperwork. It is a real stab in the back to everyone who is law abiding.

It reminds me of the jerks who let others cut in line. They give preference to the pushy and demanding while at once punishing the good citizens standing in line behind them.

Really looks bleak doesn't it, HS.

Let me list the chief problems that I see existing:

1) WORLD WIDE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE is starting in Europe, BRICs, and continuing in Japan;
2) Israel is apparently being faced with a situation where it may not rely (as it has in the past ) on the USA as the re-election of Obama allows the President to move more to the Muslims. This may portend real war in the region.
3) Obama will probably fasce an economy that is falling off the cliff with increasing deficit, collapsing stock and bond markets, and rising unemployment as the Bush tax cuts expire, Obama Care taxes begin in earnest and the sequester cuts spending.

I don't see a way out for Obama. As the collapse continues to evolve Obama's options will contract as his popularity vanishes and the attacks commence by the Republicans and Democrats to scapegoat him for the troubles.

If he does not get amnesty done really fast it will not get done. If he does get it done it will destroy the Democrat party and the Republicans who supported it because of its direct effects and by unintended consequences that will come out over time such as break up of the USA.

WE ARE IN INTERESTING TIMES.

Dan Kurt

[HS: The USA isn't going to break up. Because no one can even imagine such a thing (besides a few hundred vocal but powerless people who post on the internet).]

while i agree with the core of TUJ's solution to out of control immigration, paying x thousands to those already living here to go back would never work.

no matter how financially desperate, a prudent hispanic would never succumb to the lure. how can he be sure he wouldn't be relieved of this small fortune soon after crossing back into mexico? robbing ex-migrants is surely less work than smuggling drugs for the gangs.

Like Steve Sailer said, Carlos Slim is getting MUCH better ROI on his LOAN to the NYT than any upper-class American ever did by granting GIFTS to SuperPACs.

I think paying people to leave is a good idea. The offer could be extended to new citizens, as well, if they are low income.

You would have to use some sort of high-tech bio-scan method to identify people or else they same people would return and then leave again under a different name.

In any case, I sure hope that some way is found to put a lid of immigration from Latin America. I worry more about the corrupt world-view the new arrivals have than their IQs. Some small towns in California that have been more or less taken over by Mexicans and are cesspits of corruption and dysfunction.

http://www.voxxi.com/political-corruption-california-something-water/

http://gawker.com/5644817/bell-california-americas-most-corrupt-town


Corruption will destroy a country faster than anything. I think corruption is more important than IQ. Somehow northern Europe managed to put a lid on corruption (something to do with the Protestant reformation maybe) and spread their low-corruption, high-trust culture to places they emigrated to. These places became the most prosperous and functional places in the world.

The Chinese may have higher IQs than northern Europeans, but they are very corrupt and are unable to produce a society as good as the west (hence many Chinese vote with their feet and move to the West--very few go the other way).

Hong Kong and especially Singapore have managed better because they were smart enough to pick up the idea of low corruption from the British when they were colonies. Japan also has done well since the Americans helped them after WW II.

Now low-corruption, high-trust societies are being diluted with mass immigration from corrupt societies. This is Not Good. But if you try to talk about it you are labeled a racist.

"We are fucking doomed. The greater HBD community have known this was coming for some time. It sucks to be right.

Posted by: Hank the plant | November 18, 2012 at 12:08 PM"

I don't quite understand what the hype is about.

Nothing will change when these immigrants are legalized; they were already living in the open without being threatened or harassed by police in most States.

Also, the real problem now in the USA is not immigrants (this issue is DEAD and only losers continue to talk about it), but the offspring of these immigrants. I see most Latino girls having already two children at age 20.

"Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

"The USA isn't going to break up."

It is already broken. Eat the pain, HS!

"As such a reasonable person would believe that the status illegal is moot and the moral thing to do at this point is to make them full citizens."

And they will be living in your house. That is a moral thing to do. Get it?

"no matter how financially desperate, a prudent hispanic would never succumb to the lure."

I'm not sure about that. I've read about cases where Hispanics in both Mexico and in the USA let their teenage daughters be pimped out in exchange for money. I'd bet that we could get 10% of California Latinos to leave for only a couple thousand dollars. For $100k per person we'd get north of 50% of them to leave.

Prudence and third world don't normally mix well.

"how can he be sure he wouldn't be relieved of this small fortune soon after crossing back into mexico? robbing ex-migrants is surely less work than smuggling drugs for the gangs."

Good question. The solution would be for the government to pay for their flight home instead of allowing them to wade across the Rio Grande again where coyotes would be waiting. The money could also be split up into multiple bank accounts so that if one of their accounts is broken into they'd still have money in other bank accounts.

[HS: The USA isn't going to break up. Because no one can even imagine such a thing (besides a few hundred vocal but powerless people who post on the internet).]

When I was in college 25 years ago, I had a sociology class and the guy gave a detailed presentation on the US 100 years from then, which wasn't too far off from what the Russians put out a couple years ago which isn't too far off from Pentagon what if scenarios, the point is, lot's of credible people wonder about the what if and don't find it inconceivable.

I'm biased though, I believe that when the Federal government launched a terrorist war of aggression against the Confederacy to deny us the right of self-governance, that invalidated the American Revolution which was also fought for self governance. Therefore we have all been subjects of Her Majesty since 1861.

"I think paying people to leave is a good idea. The offer could be extended to new citizens, as well, if they are low income."

I want these buyouts to be targeted at citizen Hispanics and legal Hispanics because they are a bigger electoral threat than illegals who can't vote. But I'd be willing to offer lower payments to illegal immigrants (maybe $25,000 per family member?) as a way to a foot in the door to getting immigrant buyouts part of mainstream policy. Once we get used to seeing illegal immigrants take buyouts to leave the policy could then be expanded to LEGAL immigrants who are, again, mostly on welfare and from the third world.

"You would have to use some sort of high-tech bio-scan method to identify people or else they same people would return and then leave again under a different name."

That's easy to solve. Just take their fingerprints when they go to apply for a citizenship buyout.

"In any case, I sure hope that some way is found to put a lid of immigration from Latin America. I worry more about the corrupt world-view the new arrivals have than their IQs."

Moral tolerance for political corruption is like any other behavioral trait: In addition to environmental effects which also influence behavior, tolerance for corruption almost certainly varies by race because the different races evolved in different socio-cultural environments and thus underwent differing Darwinian selective processes during the 7000 year development of the world's civilizations.

European peoples probably have the lowest tolerance of any race for political corruption.

There's much more to racial differences in psychological profile than just IQ.

No Thank You.

Kurtosis wrote: "Operation Wetback II?

What are the alternatives here?"

The alternative is just normal enforcement. In 2010 we deported 400,000 people. If we could close the borders so the number of illegals doesn't increase, we could rid ourselves of the problem in just a few years. The problem is we want to pretend it's an unsolvable problem and amnesty is the only way to handle it. That's not true, but no one in the Republican party will say that.

There was an op ed piece in the WSJ recently that surmised the amnesty issue is largely symbolic to (legal, voting) Hispanics. The harsher the rhetoric against illegals the more disaffected Hispanics become, even if their interests remain in line with the GOP. The same thing happens with Asians. In other words, it might be a good idea to offer lip service to the "plight" of illegals, to soften the rough edges of the GOP brand. Hispanic support for the presidential GOP ticket has plummeted by about 40% since Bush, but remember it was at one point 40%+. Could you say the same about US blacks?

One fact remains, those 12 million illegals aren't going anywhere and they're multiplying at a higher rate than legal immigrants and native born US citizens. The illegal mexican birthrate is astronomical (3.5 per mother compared 1.8 per white citizen mothers). I would bet good money, too, that even if entitlements like birthright citizenship, and access to public schools and ERs were removed, many if not most would remain unless forcibly deported. Some are returning to Mexico and the net result is zero illegal immigration as those coming in are canceled out by those leaving. But don't count on the trend continuing.

Here is the piece but you may need a subscription to read it:

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578108830276820800.html?mg=reno-wsj

The idea of paying Hispanics to go home is idiotic. It would only be possible if it was politically feasible to acknowledge that we don't want them here. If it was politically feasible to acknowledge that we don't want them here, we could easily send them back without paying them anything. It's a solution of the type that Auster has aptly described as"Assume non-liberalism..."

The only thing that is going to slow down illegal immigration in the future is when there are no many illegal immigrants in the U.S. that wages are depressed and the standard of living for the poor in the U.S. matches in the standard of living in third world countries.

Of course, that is the plan of the Democrats because the elites in the Democratic Party are jealous of the power and control that the elites have in countries like Mexico.

"The idea of paying Hispanics to go home is idiotic. It would only be possible if it was politically feasible to acknowledge that we don't want them here."

Well from that perspective we shouldn't even propose reductions in legal immigration.

"HS: The USA isn't going to break up."

In your lifetime or mine? Probably not. But once whites become a minority, I think it's likely they will self segregate like most other ethnic groups do, and there will be a sort of "soft partitioning" of the USA. There may still be a political entity called the United States of America, but it's unlikely to be very "united," and there will be strong pressures from a Mexicanized southwest for autonomy, or perhaps some sort of political and economic union with Mexico.

Would Washington DC attempt to stop an ethnically Mexican, Spanish speaking region from breaking away? Doubtful. They might try to bribe them into staying (similar to what the Canadians have done with Quebec), but if they really wanted out, I don't see how it could be stopped.

[HS: Why would they want out? All of the Mexicans in Mexico want IN and not out. A more likely scenario is annexation of Mexico.]

The paranoid assumptions about endless Mexican fecundity are silly. Mexico itself is already at barely replacement TFR and dropping rapidly. And Mexican fertility within the US has declined rapidly since the mortgage bubble popped. I'd be willing to bet that it will follow the path of other middle to high income Catholic countries and end up below the native US rate within 10-15 years. Pretty much every country that combines machismo, women in the workplace, and availability of contraception ends up with an incredibly low fertility rate. Watch it happen rapidly to Mexicans, both in Mexico and the US.

"HS: Why would they want out? All of the Mexicans in Mexico want IN and not out. A more likely scenario is annexation of Mexico."

You're assuming there would by then still be a huge difference in the respective standards of living. There won't be -- to assume that a U.S. southwest that is ethnically, politically, linguistically and culturally Mexican would not also resemble Mexico economically doesn't make sense. The question is why wouldn't they want out? They'd rid themselves of their share of what could be by then a national debt that is in the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Being an uber lib, I won't comment on strategy as im highly outnumbered here, but I am convinced immigration is one of the issues that parties can change their mind about fairly easy. The GOP is doing this because it is advantageous to them. If the immigrant population started raising the bar and began to aspire to more SWPL'y careers like law or professorships, I would suspect liberals would change their mind on AA and immigration. They would probably say it threatened sustainable development or promoted US ethnocentrism.

Conservatives hate abortion because the judicial elite legalised it. Unlike with the economic elite, conservatives view the judicial elite with great suspicion. I suspect the GOP will stay pro-life.

While the left elite is still worried about climate change, regular liberals, even SWPLs, don't care as much as they say. And this is going to become a problem as CC is very real.

I talk about this at length on my site.

I would have voted for Romney if I believed he would push out illegals and do something about the CNY/USD rate.

If he had promised to lock up fate people without food until they were thin, then I would have voted for him.

The comments to this entry are closed.