Disqus - Latest Comments for Chris in Baltimore

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:22:51 -0000

I optimistically clicked on a link to come here, but unfortunately I find a typical shallow libertarian gloss. A fertility conservative (to coin a phrase) is concerned about two things you don't seem to understand: 1) Cultural and civilizational struggles don't typically play out as "arguments". The Israeili Jews didn't win an argument with the Arabs in Palestine, the white man didn't win an argument with the red man in America, the barbarians didn't win an argument with the Romans in Europe, etc. Many such struggles are won largely by demographic force. 2) Culture is more than superficial traits. If you think the only thing that distinguishes an Asian from a European from an African is "rites, cuisine, [and] skin color" you are quite mistaken. There are biological aspects to culture; exactly how deep these go is not clear, but the very possibility of their existence cautions us to proceed carefully with demographic changes.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:46:47 -0000

The other objection that I have to this post, which doesn't reflect a failure to understand on your part but rather perhaps a difference in values, is that putting our culture up for "argument" isn't something I particularly want to do- surely the best outcome from my point of view is not guaranteed if it is so put up. It is entirely possible that freedom of speech will "lose the argument" against supression of "offensive" speech. It is entirely possible that freedom of religion will "lose the argument" against Islamic theocracy. It is entirely possible that female emancipation will "lose the argument" against patriarchy. But I don't want those things to happen! And one way to help prevent those things from happening is to preserve a place in the world where those things I value can flourish, and one way to do that is to not import into that place large numbers of people who are already culturally predisposed against those values.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:12:46 -0000

mghertner wrote:
"So let us save liberalism by being illiberal, yes? Splendid."

Neither immigration controls nor inducements to childbearing are "illiberal" under any definition that would have made sense to our founders (or to me).

"what evidence is there that "importing" people from illiberal cultures makes us illiberal and not the the other way around?"

Not sure what "the other way around" would be, but for examples of immigration leading to illiberal practices, simply look around (or read Mark Steyn's book). Why is there female circumcision in Britain, or polygamy in Canada and the US?

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:42:03 -0000

mghertenr wrote:
"And "our founders" were pretty cool with slavery. They are not the greatest authorities on what constitutes liberalism."
"Even taking Putnam as a given for the sake of argument, I'm not sure those findings necessarily speak to the issue of liberalism vs. illiberalism"

Actually I would say that Putnam's findings are relevant to the discussion, as social trust is a fundamental requirement to a functioning society and civic involvement is necessary for democracy. And if that's not "liberalism" to you, and the Enlightenment liberalism of the founders doesn't pass your test, then I think you may be using an idiosycratic definition.

"But that doesn't mean that immigration is increasing the rate of illiberalism or poverty overall, if we include both the sending and the receiving country."

First off, what the restrictionist (and most Americans) are concerned about is not so much the global level of liberalism as about the level of liberalism in this country. Making us less liberal by importing illiberals is not what we're after, even if we increase the global level of liberalism by partially liberlizing the immigrants. Although it's not clear that we'd even do that- witness the highly radicalized CHILDREN of Muslim immigrants in parts of Europe.
Second, culture pretty clearly does rub off on the hosts as well. Often this is harmless (music and such), but rules and laws that are made to accomodate illiberals (eg, women-only hours at gyms, speech codes, allowances for polygamy) are on the books for everyone.
Third, just follow your own logic: If we import X people who, in their home countries, are 95% illiberal, but in the become only 75% illiberal, then we decrease the world population of illiberals, but if X is >600 million, we become a majority illiberal country! And that's assuming (unwarrantedly) that as the percentage of illiberal immigrants in the US grows they would continue to be liberalized at the same rate.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:44:15 -0000

plugger: It is sometimes claimed that people who make obviously false claims about the nonexistence of races or racial differences are doing so because they care not about truth but about social status. The fact that these denialists so often accompany their claims by attempts to personally denigrate their interlocutors, as you have, only supports this thesis.

"For a century, nativists made arguments like 'There are biological aspects to culture; exactly how deep these go is not clear, but the very possibility of their existence cautions us to proceed carefully with demographic changes.' Only they made them about Irish, Italians, Greeks, and East Asians. "

We either had limited immigration from those groups to begin with or we virtually shut down immigration after a period of time to allow those groups to assimiliate, which is what many restrictionists are advocating now. And if you doubt that the massive influxes of Italians changed New York or of Mexicans changed Los Angeles, or of blacks changed Detroit, then you don't know American history.

"I really suggest that anyone who believes they belong to 'a race' or talks about 'my race' get the cheek swab and have their genetic makeup assessed. If they have the courage, that is. Many of us who have done this are surprised to discover how enormously diverse our origins are."

Actually, the one person I know who's had this done came back as basically exactly what I would have expected- Northwest European. Others surely have more diverse ancestery, but genetic cluster analysis readily groups most people into the races that we are all familiar with.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:24:05 -0000

mghertner wrote:

"Who cares if illiberalism in what we arbitrarily call U.S. national territory increases if this just means that U.S. born citizens remain just as liberal as before and immigrants from illiberal cultures are now included in our statistical metrics, some of who became more liberal in the process? "

Beautiful. Well, as a patriotic citizen of "what we arbitrarily call U.S. national territory", I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in an America that still reflects the liberties and ideals it was founded on, and not an America where, thanks to massive immigration, the laws and dominant mores (and economic conditions) reflect those of present-day Mexico, or China, or Pakistan, so *I* care. And, frankly, most Americans do too.

And, because you keep asking: "The entry of middle-class black families into white neighborhoods may have encouraged social isolation, distrust, lower levels of confidence in local government and media, less involvement in local voluntary groups, lower voting rates, and lower levels of expressed happiness. Would any of that be a reason to maintain laws supporting continued segregation?"

Pretty clearly many of those things have happened, but I still don't support legal segregation because of one distinction between blacks and immigrants that seems to have eluded you: blacks are Americans. To most people, although perhaps not to libertarians, that means something. We owe certain things to our citizens that we do not owe to the world at large.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:28:52 -0000

plugger wrote: "Between 1850 and 1920, the rate never fell below 0.5%. That's a rate of growth. Cumulative. That's not 'limited immigration'."

And do you know what happened after that? We shut off immigration almost completely for 40 years.

"'of Mexicans changed Los Angeles, or of blacks changed Detroit'
How exactly have these places changed? "

Wow. Just...wow.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:57:11 -0000

For examples of how demography has historically and is currently changing laws and mores, please reread my previous posts. As for economic conditions, research suggests that immigration has hurt US workers at the low end, and may be contributing to rising wage inequality. And the fact that Hispanics immigrants have low levels of education, and continue to have below-average levels of educational attainment even after being in the US for several generations suggests that as we proceed on our way to becoming a 1/3 Hispanic nation over the next couple of decades, we will lose our global competitiveness.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:00:32 -0000

I wish all immigration advocates were as honest as you. If they would just be open about the post-nationalist premises of their beliefs they would lose the public debate for certain.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:39:56 -0000

Read about Johnson-Reed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of...

I'd be happy with a somewhat less race-centric version of that now. Our current percentage of foreign born among the population is comparable to the historic highs reached early in the last century, and I think a similar legislative response would be wise. In fact we are in even more peril now, as such a large proportion of our foreign-born population is distinct from the mainstream in language, culture, and ethnicity, making assimilation more difficult. And, frankly, I think we were a lot better off last century getting Italians, Poles, and Jews than we are now getting Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. Judging by the history of those European nationalities, they seem to have more, um... "social capital".

And let's just say LA and Detroit didn't used to be "vibrant and diverse [cities] with all the troubles that attend megapolises all over the world".

(Also, megapolises like Tokyo? Hong Kong? Berlin?)

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:15:12 -0000

plegger: "You're looking, today, at the great wave early twentieth century immigrants after 3 generations."

Mexicans have been in the US for 3+ generations. They don't show the same patterns of achievement as the Italians, Jews, etc. See, eg: http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/generat.... I should remind you again that those former ethic groups had, essentially, the door shut behind them by the 1924 law, so they were forced to assimilate, unlike the Hispanics, whose environs in the US are constantly replenished with new blood from the south. I'd like to do them the same favor we did for the others.

Re: More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:27:40 -0000

"Again, as I pointed out before, the problem with using inequality as a sign of bad things in the immigration debate is that inequality is often a meaningless artifact of measurement choices, not a sign that any particular person is being made worse off."

Did you even read the section you quoted ouside of the words "wage inequality"? And yeah, after a point wage inequality does get bad, as it leads to resentments and lack of social cohesion. You get an elite group that is sufficiently removed from the masses that they don't understand their concerns or care about them. For instance, present-day Mexico, with reasonable per-capita wealth, but gross inequalities which send many poor people up here.

"I am interested in what is right."

Good for you. Most people think nations are "right". I'm one of them, but don't really feel like going off on that tangent. Suffice it to say that very few people want to give their votes/money/time/lives to leaders who don't believe in protecting the welfare of their subjects' children.

Re: I Am a Howleyite, or Osama bin Laden Is Right

Chris in Baltimore — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:12:07 -0000

Do you think if you were able to describe to an educated person of two hundred years ago the cultures of present day America, China, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Saudi Arabia, without using their names, and asked him to use his knowledge of their 200-year-old versions, he would be unable to figure out which descended from which? And anyway, what's your argument, "change is a constant, so there's no point trying to control the speed or direction of change"?