Loyal MR reader V has a request:
1. Engage with the arguments by Sailer and his ilk that Mexican immigration is different than the waves of the 1920′s, 1880′s, etc.
Specifically, they cite the example of New Mexico, current Latin America, evolving California, etc. where class-based hierarchies that closely mirror IQ differences have proven remarkably stable to all sorts of interventions over the time span of centuries (whether peaceful in the case of NM or violent in the case of the Mexican revolution).
Also, they point out that communication differences as well as the changed nature of the economy now (i.e., many fewer blue collar manufacturing jobs that transition families between immigrant manual labor to white collar knowledge industry workers, fewer overall manual labor jobs such as garment factories, the presence of a welfare state, etc.) make assimilation a much harder proposition.
Interesting to see what Tyler and Alex have to say in response to these arguments…
To that list I would add that, related to TGS, the negative effect of immigration on U.S. educational norms has been more significant than it otherwise might have been. On the other side of the ledger, here are a few relevant factors:
1. The slower influx of Mexicans (100,000 a year vs. a former 500,000 a year) means that assimilation will from now on proceed more rapidly, and certainly more rapidly than the critics had been predicting.
2. The effect of Latino communities in lowering crime rates and revitalizing neighborhoods and cities has been stronger than might have been expected twenty years ago.
3. The notion that Latino migrants to the U.S. might help seed and sustain a broader Latin American economic and democratic boom has become a reality, and this was not obvious twenty years ago.
4. The idea that “the New World” will become a major trading bloc to rival “Chinese Asia” is a more important idea than it might have seemed twenty or even ten years ago. The United States needs extensive Latin connections to maintain its status as active leader of that bloc.
5. Outsourcing is more of a force than we had thought, and the possibility of outsourcing raises the (relative) gains from allowing immigration. I will write more on this in the future, so I’ll leave the details for now.
Overall, the arguments on immigration have changed quite a bit in the last ten to fifteen years, but those changes have cut in both directions.
” The effect of Latino communities in lowering crime rates and revitalizing neighborhoods and cities has been stronger than might have been expected twenty years ago”
Is that the same thing as saying Latino communities have higher crime, just less than someone might have expected? If so, ‘someone might’ have expected lower crime too. There’s a lot of people with different beliefs about everything.
What Tyler is actually saying is that Hispanics are less crime-prone than blacks, so he’s really damning them with faint praise. The Hispanic crime rate also increases after the first generation.
No, it’s not the same as that.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/02/latino-immigrants-and-crime.html
Wrong. Unz’s article was thoroughly refuted by Jason Richwine, among others. See here: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/model-minority/. And more: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=4723
I have no idea what you guys are talking about. None of the statistics you are spouting have any relevancy to the actual figures being used today, and a couple of the sources linked to are highly biased. Anyone can create a single study and have the facts convey whatever political message your agenda desires. Just look at anything FAIR publishes. Why not take an historical look at the data and see what it says? http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/immigrants-and-crime-are-they-connected-century-research-finds-crime-rates-immigrants-are
These are a much closer numbers to what I have been reading that have been published from a variety of government agencies. Several reports have also stated that many numbers from anti-immigrant researchers have revealed miscalculations as well as a large portion of the prison population labeled hispanic, which were actually found out to have been white. The facts are Immigrant hispanic populations have a much lower crime rate than non-immigrant Citizen populations.
Almost makes you want to call some of these folks nasty names….
1. The slower influx of Mexicans (100,000 a year vs. a former 500,000 a year) means that assimilation will from now on proceed more rapidly, and certainly more rapidly than the critics had been predicting.
Sailer has often pointed out how East Coast intellectuals like Tyler have a warped view of the prospects of Latino assimilation because they do not know that there have been Latinos in the US for many generations and that even to the fourth or fifth generation they show no signs of assimilating to white norms. For example: http://www.vdare.com/articles/roll-over-michael-barone-even-fourth-generation-mexicans-are-failing
Is the 100,000 number only the legal Mexicans or does it include the illegals too? What fraction of the Mexicans coming in each year are legal?
It’s 100,000 illegal immigrants: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/6_ideas_for_the_ash_heap_of_history?page=full
In 2008, 55% of all Mexican immigrants resident in the US were illegal: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1191/mexican-immigrants-in-america-largest-group
It’s interesting because it makes discussions of what kind of immigrants we need a bit academic. This is a cohort over which we have zero selection power.
Wrong. Though you might say that we’ve chosen to exercise zero selection power of this cohort.
Good stuff, JL. Keeping holding people’s feet to the data.
Notice how you say assimilation to white norms, and not the norms of the United States. Of course if you want to be racist, it makes a lot of sense to hate on Latinos.
It is talking about levels of education and socioeconomic status, which makes more sense.
Notice how you say assimilation to white norms, and not the norms of the United States.
I’m talking about things like education and income. There’s a popular argument that because Italian, Irish, and Polish immigrants managed to assimilate to prevailing white norms rather quickly a hundred years ago despite fears to the contrary, so will Mexicans. However, all the data we have say that this is not happening.
Moreover, in American social science, the standard way of ascertaining if some racial or ethnic group is lacking behind is to compare it to whites. That’s what the various “racial gaps” that are endlessly discussed are about.
There’s a popular argument that because Italian, Irish, and Polish immigrants managed to assimilate to prevailing white norms rather quickly a hundred years ago
There’s also an argument that those groups did not completely assimilate to “white norms”, rather the social norms of the US changed to accomodate those groups. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a Congregationalist from 1850′s New Hampshire would probably say the Catholics had, in fact, ruined the country just as predicted. The winners write history after all.
Yes, the general culture assimilated elements of those immigrant cultures as well– and is hardly the worse for it. someone really needs to explain why salsa music, tacos, tequila and La Virgen de Guadalupe are a mortal threat to us now when polka, pierogis, vodka and Our Lady of Czestochowa were not.
Why are lower high school completion rates and educational levels being used as a proxy for assimilation? I would think better metrics would be english-language adoption and self-identification, and on both assimilation is going very rapidly (most third-generation mexican-americans can’t speak spanish – in fact, we probably shouldn’t even call them Mexican-Americans at that point).
yea sure, if the only “white norm” is high educational achievement.
3. You say “Latin America” here, but really you mean Mexico and Central America. Doesn’t really apply to South America.
4. FTAA is dead. You can’t really integrate market economies and creeping Chavezism into the same economic bloc, anyway, and even if Latin America somehow found itself within an economic bloc, they would likely deliberately exclude the US and Canada.
“3. The notion that Latino migrants to the U.S. might help seed and sustain a broader Latin American economic and democratic boom has become a reality, and this was not obvious twenty years ago.”
huh? Where’s the boom? Besides the drug lords in Ciudad Juarez.
Brazil
Also, Chile and Peru have made a huge amount of progress on the economic front. Most of Latin America (with a few notable exceptions, viz Venezula and more arguably Argentina and Bolivia) have made great progress on the democracy/rule of law front. I’m not sure how any of that relates to immigration to America, though. Brazil, which as you rightly point out is the leading light in Latin America — there is only a small Brazilian-American community in the US (about 1 million, mostly legal immigrants — which is tiny relative to both the Brazlian and American populations), and very few Brazilian population centers in the US outside of Floriday; besides, (most) Brazilians don’t even speak the same language as other Latin American immigrants and have a very different culture, so it seems to me any connection would be fairly weak.
So immigration of Mexicans into the USA is a good thing because Brazil’s economy is booming.
So much for cause and effect.
+1
Mexico has made tremendous strides both economically and democratically in the last 20 years also.
You racist jerks.
LOL. Mexico is in the early stages of civil war.
LOL back atcha. Mexico’s growth rates and demographic makeup put it in the ‘second rank’ of emerging economies. The BRICs were first coined, now it’s Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, South Africa, Vietnam, and others.
Try reading stuff from places other than freerepublic
Right. That must be why Mexico is net-immigration and Vicente Fox isn’t actually a foot taller than most of his countrymen.
Grow up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico
Main indicatorsMexico’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in purchasing power parity (PPP) was estimated at US $1.463 trillion in 2009, and $874.8 billion in nominal exchange rates.[11] As such, its standard of living, as measured in GDP in PPP per capita was US $13,200. The World Bank reported in 2009 that the country’s Gross National Income in market exchange rates was the second highest in Latin America, after Brazil at US $962.076 billion,[31] which lead to the highest income per capita in the region at $8,960.[32] As such, Mexico is now firmly established as an upper middle-income country. After the slowdown of 2001 the country has recovered and has grown 4.2, 3.0 and 4.8 percent in 2004, 2005 and 2006,[33] even though it is considered to be well below Mexico’s potential growth.[29]
2010 growth: 5.5%
Are you arguing that Mexico has made a good deal of progress by offloading its peasant class to another country? It’s plausible…
No, although that may have had some effect. I’m concurring with Tyler’s point #3.
Also, if you note in point #1, with our economy sluggish and Mexico’s booming, immigration has predictably slowed greatly. Which is what you would expect to happen. And if Mexico keeps booming you could argue it may stop altogether.
@Matt
If 1,00,000 Mexicans came over every year, it’d still take them a bloody long time to finish that peasant offloading,
{ Mexican population = 110 million. }
It could slow to nothing, sure. It could also not. We don’t really know.
Like all countries, Mexico does not have uniform booms and busts, and most of our illegals come from the areas that have seen little of the improvement you point out. But if further slowing of immigration is good for the US, then it makes obvious sense to form policy to bring it about, rather than just relying on what might happen.
Rahul, I don’t want to start a big thing about a silly comment I made, but I wouldn’t put more than the bottom 20-30% of Mexicans in the peasant class. Maybe I’m wrong about that proportion. However, huge areas of northern Mexico are depopulating due to migration north, and if they weren’t migrating north they’d probably be migrating south. I’d say illegal immigration has helped Mexico out quite a bit (point no. 3!) which is the only reason I can fathom why the Mexican government is so adamant that it never be challenged.
I would approve if Tyler banned commenters for calling other people names.
Peasant class? The three Mexican immigrants I have worked with lately are a licensed electrician, a quality control technician, and a semiconductor growth engineer. I have another friend who is a cost accountant.
I’m afraid that people believe that since immigrants take manual labor jobs, that must be all they are trained for and/or genetically capable of.
150 years the United States was in the midst of civil war. Does this somehow imply we were not a democracy (however imperfect), and had not been one before
Require proof of legal residence or a legitimate visa before allowing remittances from US to Mexico and see what happens to their economy. Return the 10-20M peasants the kindly sent us back to their welfare system and see how what that does. Granted, that takes a bite out of our service and construction industries, I’ve heard we have some US citizens looking for jobs.
They’re all the same, you know.
5. Outsourcing is more of a force than we had thought, and the possibility of outsourcing raises the (relative) gains from allowing immigration.
Reminds me of this Steve Hsu post:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2004/11/outsourcing-vs-technological.html
Outsourcing vs technological innovation
Imagine a new software product. A super-version of TurboTax, the software asks detailed questions via the Web and can prepare sophisticated returns – not just for individuals, but even for large corporations. The cost is a fraction of what U.S. accounting firms would charge for the service. Sounds great, right? Artificial Intelligence lowers the cost of doing business. Companies can pass the savings on to consumers. Some accountants lose their jobs, but that is the inevitable price of technological progress.
Now suppose you find out the guts of the software isn’t an AI engine, but rather an office full of Indian chartered accountants in Bangalore. The cost saving is still real, and the fees now go to stimulate the developing Indian economy, rather than into the pocket of a software entrepreneur.
Why is this second outsourcing scenario any worse than the first scenario?
- – -
Seems like a good question.
Because the software entrepreneur was presumably American but the Chartered Accountants are not?
Or perhaps because people are less threatened by a machine than a fellow human?
“Because the software entrepreneur was presumably American but the Chartered Accountants are not? ”
This. Most of the money multiplier affect will go to stimulate the American economy if the first case and the Indian economy in the second.
“Or perhaps because people are less threatened by a machine than a fellow human?”
I’d prefer a human who was at least as accurate as the software program. However, my experience dealing with Indian call centers is the exact opposite. So the premise seems faulty.
That may be relevant to you as a customer but why should the quality of the replacement matter much to the laid-off worker?
But immigration is worse if you have low end immigrants. They and their descendants will vote. Even worse, they will be manipulated by race hustlers to produce another minority bloc to lobby for preferences and more welfare state.
We have to remember that regression to the mean is working in those descendants favor and the mean in Mexico isn’t all that bad or low end. However, I don’t know how strong the selection effects are with immigration to say which mean they are regressing to.
How is regression to the mean working if they are already at the mean of their reference population (Mexicans)?
Well, whether or not recent immigrants are at the mean is a claim that would have to be verified or refuted with evidence. There is no reason to just assume that average Mexican citizens are leaving the country. I was just covering some bases in case there are differences, i.e. ‘low end’ immigrants relative to the averages of Mexico, if that is what wiki meant.
If he meant that Mexico is low end on average or as a whole I stated disagreement with that anyways.
Because one model has a sustainable support cost and the other does not.
Companies that outsource to India are now starting to farm work to less expensive regions.
Americans generally feel less threatened by machines replacing jobs as opposed to Other People getting them.
I think people are more comfortable with displacement that comes from technological progress rather than new sources of cheap labour. There are good reasons for this.
I think the question is what are these “good reasons”. And if they truly are “good”.
+1
When you replace workers with machines, most of those workers find new jobs (albeit ones that pay less or are otherwise worse) and GDP per capita rises (because all the old work is done, plus some new work). The winners can compensate the losers for their loses and still have winnings. (Whether they will have to do so depends on the country’s politics.) Expanding the labor pool often (though not always) reduces GDP per capita, particularly if the new workers are significantly less educated and skilled than the natives. It is even worse if they have less genetic and cultural capital to bequeath future generations. In a country that transfers a fair amount of wealth (though clearly not nearly so much as other nations), lower GDP per capita makes all the natives poorer.
I don’t think that explains why natives resent outsourcing (not immigration). No miscegenation with the native pool; no new voters no new welfare recipients.
I apologize. It was so far up to the original comment that I assumed these were direct responses to the immigration post rather than to the outsourcing comment. (Also, this blog template does not indent a first order reply much.)
That said, you can adapt my argument. The first side of it still applies, even if the second one doesn’t. Outsourcing lowers GDP — native workers shift from more valuable jobs to less valuable jobs or unemployment — while mechanization increases it — the original production stays in-country so any new jobs done by displaced workers is extra GDP.
Of course, if outsourcing is dramatically cheaper, consumer benefits may well outweigh worker losses. But it defies most people’s gut feeling to believe that a nation is better off when it generates less value in goods and services.
Because it’s a phenomenon that’s been around a long time and society has adjusted to it. The Luddites were once real people, not just a joke to explain why you don’t have a smart phone.
Actually, compared to most technological & outsourcing advances, the thing that makes this example stands out is the people who would lose their jobs have advanced degrees – CPAs and tax attorneys.
Immigration into a Welfare State and into a Market Economy are likely to be plain different things.
Who will win – the commenters who think Tyler is too bigoted, or those who think he is not bigoted enough?
I propose a new rule – anyone who claims to know what Tyler is really thinking should back that up with evidence. Come to think of it, that’s not really a new rule. Also, try to remember that just because you can’t think of an example of something (possibly because your favorite talk show host never talks about it) doesn’t mean that there aren’t examples. Recall Taleb’s round-trip fallacy.
Having lived around and worked with 1st generation, mostly Mexican, through, I dunno, 6th generation immigrants (actually, we have now immigrated to their territory which we captured by force of arms), I’m not sure that assimilation means or even needs to mean what everyone assumes. Why should there not be some importation of better practices, ideas, etc.? And why must they adopt the worst of our culture?
They always adopt the worst of our culture because it’s the only part they can understand.
Americanization in the Third World means the underclasses in all the world have adopted african american styles.
Of course Mr Cowen and his friends will say that’s assimilation and call it a day.
I feel that I mis-stated in my post above. I meant, why is there an assumption that they adopt the worst of our culture? Data would be useful here, not anecdotes based on popular culture portrayals.
+1
Why should there not be some importation of better practices, ideas, etc.?
I am under the impression that assimilating, adapting, synthesizing, and modifying all kinds of “foreign” practices, food, culture, etc., is what America does best.
After synthesis, adaptation, and modification, we then export “American” practices, food, culture, etc., all over the world.
Win-Win-Win
This subject inevitably brings out the worst in the commentors, or more accurately, brings out the worst commentors.
case in point.
I genuinely like Tyler, he seems a nice fellow.
I just find it odd that some people want Israel to remain a Jewish state, but America to become a 3rd world nation, genetically.
It seems, after all, that no country is bound to submit to immigration any more than to invasion; each is war to the knife, and resistance to either but legitimate defence.
Robert Louis Stevenson
because of TCCC’s mood affiliation, he will never be able to accept the fact that racial genetic differences — and these differences extend beyond the realm of IQ into personality, time orientation, trust, political leanings and temperament — are the seed corn of cultural and values differences, the influence of each reinforcing the other, and that nations are, essentially, large blocs of genetically/culturally similar peoples. an america with tens of millions of amerindian latin americans does not become a richer, more vibrant america. it becomes a more latin americanized america. and by most objective measures, that is a worse thing.
so what you get from TCCC the foodie is a strange inability to understand that recipes can travel across borders easier and with less negative externalities than people.
This.
I understand why Tyler may not want to be honest in answering the questions like “why is Haiti such a mess” publicly. Listening to his TED talk gave me an impression that he is never a shallow thinker; we already know he is extremely bright. May be he posts things like this just to enhance the popularity of his blog, as judged by number of comments.
Not this.
What, exactly, are the political leanings and temperament of these races? For that matter, what races are you talking about? Let’s put it this way: what race are Argentines? Mexicans?
The big revelation in recent years was how much of Latino immigrant prosperity in the mid-2000s was built on the subprime Housing Bubble, both as construction workers and as borrowers.
Knowing that they are most commonly employed as roofers, landscapers, masons, carpenters etc. I doubt that’s a big surprise. In any case, why just immigrant prosperity? It is pretty clear now that a lot of mainstream American prosperity itself was founded upon a housing mirage.
“5. Outsourcing is more of a force than we had thought, and the possibility of outsourcing raises the (relative) gains from allowing immigration. I will write more on this in the future, so I’ll leave the details for now.”
Since in common parlance “outsourcing” is the practical opposite of immigration, I look forward to seeing Cowen’s take on this.
Outsourcing is a free trade matter, and it’s easy to show that free trade is a good idea even when immigration is a bad idea because of externalities. At this point I can imagine only minor, trivial ways in which increased immigration would produce synergistic gains with outsourcing, stuff like immigrants acting as bilingual or bicultural middlemen.
Agreed. I’m curious too what Tyler’s argument is.
If at all increased outsourcing seems an argument for reduced immigration: If we can ship the job to the workers, why bother bringing in the workers to do the job?
I think his argument would be that we should do both. There are jobs, mostly in services, that cannot be offshored.
1. The slower influx of Mexicans (100,000 a year vs. a former 500,000 a year) means that assimilation will from now on proceed more rapidly, and certainly more rapidly than the critics had been predicting.
If you admit that slower immigration is better than faster immigration, then it seems to me that the debate is largely conceded. Almost no one has a problem with 100 immigrants a year. 100 million is way too many though. It is true though that for assimilation to proceed at all, not just more rapidly, there has to be some separation from the ‘old world’. I don’t want to read too much into you, so is 100,000 a year enough, too many, or too little?
2. The effect of Latino communities in lowering crime rates and revitalizing neighborhoods and cities has been stronger than might have been expected twenty years ago.
This is true to the extent that Mexicans et al displace blacks from areas like South Central LA, but it doesn’t seem to me like any argument that anyone would actually make in favor of immigration. I mean, whatever the faults of urban blacks, they are our countrymen and ought not be “maneuvered against” in this manner.
3. The notion that Latino migrants to the U.S. might help seed and sustain a broader Latin American economic and democratic boom has become a reality, and this was not obvious twenty years ago.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but in any case US policy ought to be concerned with the effects of immigration on the US, not the rest of the world. In other words, this is another argument that doesn’t seem like an argument anyone would seriously use.
4. The idea that “the New World” will become a major trading bloc to rival “Chinese Asia” is a more important idea than it might have seemed twenty or even ten years ago. The United States needs extensive Latin connections to maintain its status as active leader of that bloc.
This, by itself, has nothing to do with immigration. Chinese Asia doesn’t feature a lot of inter-migration, for that matter.
5. Outsourcing is more of a force than we had thought, and the possibility of outsourcing raises the (relative) gains from allowing immigration. I will write more on this in the future, so I’ll leave the details for now.
Like others, I will await an explication of this one.
The issue of immigration has been going since the Citizen Genet Affair around 1793. Did the large population of German and and Italian immigrants improve relations with Europe in the 20th century?
A question for Tyler: what percentage of your current readers do you estimate are Sailerites? The fraction seems to rise every year.
It’s probably because more Americans every year are getting wise to the welfare/warfare State that is contemporary America and the gaping intellectual abyss that passes for received wisdom among it’s elites. Once you pass the event horizon, there is no turning back, and the policies of the hopefully soon to be Ancien Régime are driving more and more intelligent individuals to surmount the mental blocks that two generations of Bolshevist indoctrination have placed on people.
White people could ignore race, and especially racism directed at them, as long as everyone was prosperous and minorities were so small their opinions could be ignored. Now White people have, presumably, stared into abyss and they have noticed they have no future as a majority in the United States. America will become another Latin American country. That tends to clarify everyone’s thinking.
So no one cared about the OJ verdict because it was one isolated injustice. In the future, all jury verdicts are likely to be like that. Already trials are moved away from Black majority areas, but what happens when there are no more places to move these trials to?
What Black people did could be ignored as long as there weren’t many of them and they lived far away in the Inner City. That cities with a Black majority tend to become basket cases didn’t matter as long as you could dream of moving to the suburbs or to the Pacific North-West. But when Whites are a minority that will no longer be possible. Then what Black people do and think becomes important. We can laugh off the Reverend Wright, even though the President sat in his Church for decades, because he has no power. What are you going to do when he is in the majority?
So now the elephant in the room is that all the effort to heal wounds since the 1970s has failed. All the spending has not been enough. Blacks have not given up on race by and large. They have not moved into the mainstream and become rich like everyone else. There is no sign they will in the future either. What they and the Hispanic community think becomes more and more important every year as their numbers grow. It does not look like they have much interest in the sort of world liberals like. If the number of people who take Steve Sailor seriously is growing, it is because it is increasingly impossible to pretend everything will be fine. It won’t.
seriously?
Your inability to put yourself in another’s shoes shows a staggering lack of imagination. Is it possible that there are still aspects of institutional racism and personal prejudice that affect the lives of minorities? My father grew up when the US was a strictly segregated country, did the abject inequality of resources and opportunity suddenly disappear? I usually throw in some language about how bad decisions are made, and people are still responsible for the choices they make, etc., but I think I’ll skip that here because your post is actively offensive to me. This is in large part because it seems to take no account of the aforementioned institutional problems, or you own privilege.
An anecdotal story (for what it is worth). I’m white, my little brother is black. I was a complete f#!k up throughout school, while my little brother had a 4.0 and was captain of the football team (and first team all state). One of us was followed by the police officer at the suburban school that we both attended (hint: it wasn’t me). This fact was commented on by his friends, our family, and finally one of his teachers, who ended up going and having a talk with the officer. The only reason that my brother was followed was because he was one of only a few African Americans at the school, though the officer was not that up front about it.
What would have happened if my brother had smoked weed (something a large number of kids that age do)? The specific targeting would have made it much more likely that any misstep would have been caught and punished (more severely in all likelihood).
The gall of privileged white people to talk about the failings of particular communities without acknowledging the discrimination that is still present sets my teeth on edge.
What America offers is the best chance to be as good as you can be. First, everyone can get educated in America, period. There is always a way. (The soon to be premier of China has a daughter at Harvard.) Secondly, our economic system lets people who find a need to fulfill it and make money. Thirdly, contrary to liberal denegration of Republicans, we all take joy in people advancing, its part of our culture.
But, Hispanics are not taking advantage of our educational system as only 10% of young Hispanic males are even proficient in math and language, which is the same for African-Americans. Without an expanded education level Hispanics will not be adding to American growth. On the other hand we have Asian immigrants, though much smaller in number, which are in the upper reaches in educational achievement and will be our new inventors and leaders.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that the Asians will more than make up for the Hispanics (I still have hope the Hispanics will catch on to education) and America will continue to prosper as in the past.
Never forget, this is a great, great country. Obama may think we are evil and we need restructuring but there is no country in the world that matches our record of bringing prosperity, good health and peace to not only America but to the world at large. Go USA!!!
The problem is that Hispanics and Blacks are heading for a majority in the United States. That a lot of South and East Asians are moving to America too is a good thing, but it won’t make up for the fact that America will no longer have a White majority.
Now this should be irrelevant, but it isn’t. For one thing, Hispanics are not becoming better educated. America has one disgruntled under-performing racial minority. Now it will have two. For another American politics is still mainly shaped by race. White people may not vote down racial lines, but Blacks do and if Hispanics do too, as they seem to, then it is a problem. It is a problem because White people will have a lot of money and yet the Blacks and Hispanics will have the numbers to win elections. How long before the money follows the power?
The future of America, if White America is lucky, is brown hands changing the diapers of incontinent and obese elderly White people. If White America is not lucky, it is brown hands pulling the plug on the life support machine. Which do you think is more likely? Do you think the future of America is more like Detroit or Atlanta?
Try telling that to the people of KY.
On the education front.
You seem to be forgetting that the funding to our school is still vastly unequal. My wife went to a school in NY that did not turn on the heat in Nov. or March. I saw a picture of her once from 9th grade, and all the kids were wearing winter coats indoors.
If we start equalizing the educational opportunities in this country then you can start putting all the blame on the members of the community over the lack of educational attainment. Said another way, White kids in crappy schools still do poorly in educational attainment.
a6bFtB nirtnpdzabzx
3Ayh2m wpbwlwbypcpn
Comments on this entry are closed.