*Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies*

That is the new book by Claire Adida, David Laitin, and Marie-Anne Valfort.  Some parts are interesting, especially those showing both statistical and taste-based discrimination against Muslims in France.  But most of the book — above all the title — makes claims which are far too strong.  A better description would have been “Why France Has Not Integrated Its Muslims.”

To cite one obvious problem, the book only offers four pages of text on Muslim integration in America, a relatively successful venture.  And most of those four pages deal with Detroit.  The authors’ own evidence just doesn’t seem so damning, for instance when it comes to “Proud to be an American,” on a scale of one to four, Arab Christians come in at 3.67 for the first generation, and 3.75 for the second or third generation.  Arab Muslims come in at 3.47 for the first generation, and 3.52 for the second or third generation.  Not perfect to be sure, but is that evidence of a massive problem?

There is no talk of Pakistanis in America, a highly successful group with a median income higher than for America as a whole.  Nor is there a peep about Bosnian-Americans, who are mostly Muslim and fairly well integrated.  How about Iranians, a very successful group in America?

The word “Canada” does not appear in the index of this book.

I could go on.  C’mon people, you can do better than this…


It's almost as if when your immigration system selects for above average human capital Muslims, you don't wind up with resentful masses of Muslim lumpenproles.

Lol. What on earth is an "above average human capital Muslim"?

Can you hear yourself?

Don't pretend you don't understand what Sailer's talking about, Nasty.

Is it an arbitrary, imaginary definition that somebody uses to avoid discussing real issues?

That's what it sounds like to me, but I'm trying to make a good faith effort here...

They have forms on the Canadian immigration website which try to do a good job at determining whether you are an above average human resource. It's not perfect, but you can start from there to see how one can process every special little snowflake to try to keep out the bad ones. There are also these things called IQ tests and statistics on their co-religionists and co-ethnics in other countries, which might give you an idea of what to reasonably expect from someone.

Personally, I think this is tantamount to strip mining countries of the resources they need to develop and that most immigration between countries at very different levels of development should not happen. I say this because I'm seeing this happen in real time in a country that not only has high levels of emigration of its best people, but also a rapidly diminishing population, because of very low birthrates, a double whammy that, unless checked, will consign it to oblivion. One extra engineer won't mean that much to Germany, and he would likely be inferior to his German colleagues (by virtue of work habits, quality of education, lack of proficiency with German), but that engineer, in Syria or some African nation, would be a golden asset for the country's reconstruction and development, unless you're ready to simply write them off as perpetual failures. You might as well start encourage Europe's unemployed to go to Africa and the Middle East. In Europe, they're just another angry youth on the dole, but, in those places, the 100 IQ man is king, and they can do some real good. Think that might happen without it being interpreted as colonialism? :)

Just look at the World Bank's data for number of doctors per thousand people and tell me whether a Ghanaian doctor is of better use in the US or in Ghana. I can't argue with the fact that he'd be better off in the US, but, at this rate, everybody from the developing world would have to move to the West, because they simply can't have any expectation that things will get markedly better at home. http://www.unz.com/isteve/gallup-poll-640-million-want-to-emigrate-to-first-world/

Broadly, "above average human capital" describes humans that fall in the top 50% of the bell curve for IQ, conscientiousness and a host of other traits.

I’m seeing this happen in real time in a country that not only has high levels of emigration of its best people, but also a rapidly diminishing population, because of very low birthrates, a double whammy that, unless checked, will consign it to oblivion

Are you in Bulgaria?

Are you in Bulgaria?

Or Portugal, or Latvia, or indeed many places on Europe's fringes.


There are also these things called IQ tests and statistics on their co-religionists and co-ethnics in other countries, which might give you an idea of what to reasonably expect from someone.

Broadly, “above average human capital” describes humans that fall in the top 50% of the bell curve for IQ, conscientiousness and a host of other traits.

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value.

So "above average human capital Muslim" is an arbitrary, imaginary definition that people use to avoid discussing real issues. (Sounds like something only the federal government could be capable of handling properly.)

@Peter Akulayev: No, I'm Romanian. Yes, the Bulgarians have it a bit worse, though I'm not sure, but allow me my ethnocentricity :). Our population has been reduced by over 4 million in the past 20 years due to early mortality, fertility collapse and, especially, emigration. Recently, we have fallen under 20 million people for the first time since 1969, I think, when we were in an engineered natalist upsurge. Eastern Europeans are the only large grouping of peoples in the world who greatly self-restrict fertility in response to economic insecurity and even the appearance of poverty. Since January 2015, 600.000 more people have left. There's a blog keeping a tally. Aside from the Roma "expats", most of the people who leave do so after getting a decent University education likely paid for by the state. they skew young, and they leave before starting a family, reducing the odds that they would ever return due to the accrual of social capital in another country, should they have a family there. The ones who are already older when they leave mostly go alone and leave their children and elderly here, because of the lower cost of living. Unattended children who become almost feral are an actual problem being studied. Our baby boomer cohort is not yet retired, but will soon be, making Romania one of the oldest countries in the world by dint of emigration. After the harrowing fiscal prospects have resolved themselves naturally, we are left to face the issue of Roma fertility. I was amazed to learn that the UN predicted a population of 16 million people for my country in 2050. It seemed very large. Then I read that 50% of them are expected to be Roma, from the 3% today (actually, more like 10-15%, but ethnicity is self-reported). Back to emigration - just from my circle of acquaintances, the smartest kid in Math in my hometown studied Nuclear Physics at MIT and lives in the US now. Another is an astronomer in W. Europe. The girl with the highest grades in my Uni group left for Brazil with a FMCG corp. Two more bright ones are Academics in W. Europe, a few of the ok ones that I keep in touch with are in France and Canada, where they do corporate work. Some of the less bright bulbs from my early school days have gone to Italy and elsewhere as caregivers, tradesmen etc. The bleed out of doctors alone to the West is severe enough that the government has specific programs to address it. Ultimately, there are too few doctors among the refugees streaming into Germany and elsewhere, which means that maintaining their doctor/thousand people ratio will require topping off from elsewhere where the education and credentials are a better known value. This leads to pretty proactive recruitment in Romania itself. Understandably, I have become an immigration restrictionist, not just out of principle regarding my love of Western Civ. and the obvious drawbacks we keep discussing in relation to certain groups, but also out of a sense of impending and self-fulfilling national doom.

I meant developing peoples. The West has its own fertility issues and problems with affordable family formation and precarious economic situations.

Above average human capital means they have a good education when they arrive.

Revision to the mean would present itself then. 2nd and 3rd generations would be less integrated, less well off than their parents....who were supposedly super-humans of integration.

Firstly, human capital is to some degree replicated in subsequent generations. Educated people tend to make sure that their children are educated. Second, there are likely other variables in in subsequent generations, such as greater integration with general American society, that could counter any revision to the mean in human capital.

That might be true, but if the argument is that immigrants are the 'cream of the crop' then you would expect to see 2nd and 3rd generations worse off, not better. NBA, NFL, etc. players do tend to produce children who are better athletes than the average parents, but their children tend to be worse players than their parents (if they play at all).

@Boonton: a study has probably been done, but for every pro athlete with a pro kid who doesn't measure up (Pete Rose Jr, Tim Hardaway Jr, etc) I can think of one where the kid outpaces the father (Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Peyton (and Eli I guess) Manning, etc). Maybe not the best example of what you are trying to say.

To say nothing of the fact that pro's kids are much, much more likely to make it to the show in the first place. (There is some nepotism at play but sports is mostly a put up or shut up proposition). Also Archie is the best of the Mannings.


That doesn't defeat revision to the mean. If you take 100 pro-NBA players, you have a population of 100% professional NBA players. Their kids will be less than that, period. They probably will have a higher % of NBA players than the general population (and we can debate endless how much is genetics versus environment) but they will nonetheless revert to the mean.

Which mean?

The mean for the population group, e.g., Koreans, Ashkenazim, Anglo's, etc.

That is particularly dumb. Koreans have different means in Korea, in Los Angeles, in Tokyo.

But then to someone seeking to confirm bias none other that matters. Words like "mean for the population group" are just mumble words.

Statistics is jus mumbol words.

Are you arguing that such means do not exist? I can show you some very persistent gaps in test scores by two easily identifiable groups.

Are you going to presume a racist, and categorize your sample using 17th century terms?

What if, instead, I was a BMI-ist? I know when weight is below average IQ is above. Should I run some math to confirm my bias against fatties?

At this point, are you arguing that human ethnic groups do not exist? Do you tell your Jewish friends at mitzvahs that they don't exist as a discrete group?

Racists never use a consistent, genome based, criteria to define groups. One day it is white, one day it is Jew, one day the Jews are in white, one day they are in contrast to white.

If nothing else gave it away, this should, that there are no rules, just the rationalizations of the moment.

(My Moroccan Jewish friends are a bit different than the Persian ones, which must play hob for a racist. Which ones are Arabs!)

"Racists never use a consistent, genome based, criteria to define groups."

Yeah, because objective criteria of group definition will totally stop the lying and slandering comming from reality-denying leftwing scum like you.

Just like objectively defined IQ-test differences have done. Ooops...

If these are cultural issues, then actual genome may not matter quite as much.

But maybe the two intertwine.

And as humans live more and more globally that is sure to occur.

If we did know some "good cultures" to emulate we probably should do that and not emulate "bad cultures."

That's a judgement call, and those aren't popular in our current culture.

Did you read the post? it says that second generation were MORE proud to be American.

"Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value." I suppose that SS is referring to Muslims who have more than the average amounts of those attributes.

The more intelligent a person is, the less impulsive and violence-prone they tend to be and the less they will be inclined to net tax-consumption. Of course, Osama bin Laden was a very perceptive civil engineer who weaponized 20 Muslim immigrants.

+1 The rather massive elephant in the room of course.

I guess what's funny is that "anti-immigration" arguments that "selection works" defeat themselves at the first level.

No need to sweat a few thousand Syrians, or institute panicked statewide bans, if in general our systems of selection already work.

Unless you are, for ideological reasons, about to throw that system of selection (or of self-selection) to the wind and start welcoming everybody, without a care for the traits that made their prior wave of immigration less problematic than those in other countries.

That is funny too. Economists trade in papers about free immigration, and not the remote possibility of it happening. People who get upset about these papers, and essays, are not good at quantifying risk.

But then we've covered that.

Refguee situations are usually one-off situations. Well, not really (there's always a conflict somewhere these days), but accepting a slightly larger pool than average of refugees need not impact the general system for immigration.

Suddenly the same government that struggles to consistently deliver my mail has stumbled upon a fool-proof method of determining "good" Muslims from "bad" ones. The mind reels.

That's why it's intellectually dishonest for libertarian/free market economists to argue for Open Borders. Only the State can maintain Open Borders.

Are you conflating the phrase "libertarian/free market" with the phrase "anarcho-capitalist," and if so, why?

First, you just said you cannot trust the government to deliver your mail and therefore cannot trust the government to sort out good from bad immigrants. You must know, as your statement indicates, that government-controlled immigration is just bureaucratic fiat. Market entities and private individuals by contrast must calculate profit and loss for invitees. For-profit businesses and households do not have Open Borders; they impose all sorts of requirements on ingress. Only the State, which can compel taxpayers to cover its losses, can veto private property rights and force the ingress of net consumers, criminals, diseased, militants, etc. So for an-caps, or even "libertarians" (minarchists?) or free market-economists to argue for Open Borders is a flat contradiction of their premises--there are no "Open Borders" in the private sector. Open Borders are a pure State construct. That's probably why Alex Tabarrok shifts from economic analysis to Kantian categorical imperatives whenever the subject is immigration.

Second, this analysis applies whether one is an anarcho-capitalist or even a social democrat. Why are you asking irrelevant questions instead of dealing with the merits?

"First, you just said you cannot trust the government to deliver your mail and therefore cannot trust the government to sort out good from bad immigrants." --No. I said that the government consistently struggles to deliver my mail, not that I "cannot trust the government" to do so. If I believed the latter, then I would never use the Postal Service. And yet I do.

"government-controlled immigration is just bureaucratic fiat." --Just bureaucratic fiat? No, I don't believe that government-controlled immigration is just bureaucratic fiat. There is certainly a bureaucratic fiat involved, but there is obviously a lot more to it than that.

"For-profit businesses and households do not have Open Borders; they impose all sorts of requirements on ingress." --Wow, i guess you've never been to a hotdog stand? Or the internet? All sorts of profitable businesses practice open borders policies.

"Only the State, which can compel taxpayers to cover its losses, can veto private property rights and force the ingress of net consumers, criminals, diseased, militants, etc. --Wow, i guess you've never heard of a homestead? It is not only the state that vetoes private property rights. The tail end of that statement doesn't merit a response for obvious reasons.

"So for an-caps, or even “libertarians” (minarchists?) or free market-economists to argue for Open Borders is a flat contradiction of their premises–there are no “Open Borders” in the private sector. --Wrong, see above.

"Second, this analysis applies whether one is an anarcho-capitalist or even a social democrat. Why are you asking irrelevant questions instead of dealing with the merits?" -- Don't be obtuse. We're both long-time commentators who are each familiar with the other's blog(s). You know full well I dive deeply into all of these details all the time. But, see above, for a more thorough treatment of the "merits" of your "analysis."

Your rebuttal is mainly struggling to point out exceptions. I'll address the hotdog-stand-argument: How many hotdog stands do you see that allow customers who can't pay, or put up with belligerent psycho beggars? And homesteads are unique, one-off circumstances. As soon as they are claimed, a border goes up to keep anybody else from homesteading. Again, only the State can enforce Open Borders. Otherwise, people draw lines around themselves and form households, corporate campuses, military bases, synagogues, etc., with all sorts of criteria for entry.

We’re both long-time commentators who are each familiar with the other’s blog(s).

Now that you mention it, I think you were the commenter who argued for more immigration and I pointed out that seemed rather inconsistent with your enjoyment of big, empty wilderness areas. Have you managed to square that circle yet?

It wasn't a struggle - I thought up those exceptions within a second of reading the sentences I quoted. The fact that those exceptions come so easily to mind, coupled with their existence as exceptions, would be enough for an intellectually honest debate partner to consider the possibility that there might be more to the matter than your 8-sentence "analysis" lets on. And dismissing them as mere exceptions after having just attempted to invoke first principles further reiterates your reluctance to really tackle the details of the matter. Some would call this motivated reasoning. At any rate, you've now collapsed your argument into the false equivalence of private property = public property that has been thoroughly addressed by myself and others at several points of publication, so feel free to start at the following link to gain a sense of just how exhuastively this concept has already been debunked:

And a reminder: As someone who just attempted to admonish me for not dealing with the merits of a position, I would expect you to show some good faith and actually tackle the merits of the arguments made at that link. We're all waiting.

Regarding big open spaces, I recall I did address that, yes. You're free to search my blog for the answer. In the meantime, here's an answer by way of analogy: I prefer silence to endless prattle, but I prefer freedom of speech to both; over-population of a beautiful place is bad, but not as bad as tyranny. Not every principle is a "first" principle.

Taxpayers can't do what shareholders can? Then the proper libertarian position is No Borders, so people are free to draw their own.

In essence, you want the State to protect your "right" to bring in as many berry-pickers as you want and socialize their costs and infrastructure usage on the taxpayer who, for some arbitrary reason, is to be allowed no say in the matter. You sound like one of those libertarians who sees a limited role for the State in punishing miscreants who draw lines around themselves.

Do you know Bryan Caplan actually favors closed borders and oligopoly?


There are almost ten thousand words at the link I gave you. And that's just Page 1. Do you really think that this one rejoinder of yours properly encapsulates and rebuts the full breadth and depth of the arguments contained there? Are you even trying?

"Do you really think that this one rejoinder of yours properly encapsulates and rebuts the full breadth and depth of the arguments contained there?"

Also, bullshit argument making a distinction between private and public property different than "public property is the collective property of the citizens and they have the right to manage it as they see fit, in the same manner as any private property with N (where N>1) owners is managed" are not worth making.

Simplistic reasoning from a simpleton.

Occam's razor calls bullshit on your pathetic attempts at imaginary sophistication.

Also, better an evolutionary successful 'simpleton' than an evolutionary dead-end lolobertarian.

I know I've linked to this piece before, but Jacques Delacroix, an Org Theory sociologist with a PhD from Stanford, has a lengthy piece on Muslims in France over in the pages of Liberty that is well worth reading.

I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it has something to do with the french.

And the catholics. They are the worst. They have just created this society, where a lot of muslims wants to live - cause they dont really want to live in the muslims world - but anyway it is there fault, that the muslims are facing the same problems they are having in the muslims world.

The same goes for the germans, the dutch, the swedish, the british, the danish, the italians, the australians.......

It must be about whiteness and priviligie. Thats why muslims are living in harmony with people of other faiths in India, Malaysia, Singapore, TImor, Burma, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria.......

Even worse are the Protestants, who created a world where lots of Catholics--Irish, Central Europeans, Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans--wanted to live in and many Catholics--mostly Latin Americans-- still want to live in because they do not want to live in the Catholic World.

Serious question, Lukas: is your conception of the world really so simplistic that you can only conceive of two possible positions on any issue? Does it have to be either "blame the Muslims, because they can't get along with anyone" or "blame the Europeans, because white privilege?"

Maybe any social phenomenon as complex as this has a myriad of interacting, self-reinforcing and confounding factors at work.

The one thread running through the comments on the last few posts is this absolutely confounding sentiment that any viewpoint not sufficiently reactionary must immediately be labeled politically correct and inherently leftist.

are you new to these comment threads? despite our gracious host's generally amiable centrism, the aggregate commenter here skews hard-right nativist and proud of it. it's a Trump or Le Pen rally but with better assorted links.

Not new. It's just been going much more full-Sailer lately.

In which nativist does not mean Navaho.

I've been reading the blog for a long time and only recently has this skew become more apparent, as I myself have been motivated to start posting. In a sense, the commentariat here has undergone its own shift in response to events in the real world. I don't think that delegitimizes them. Rather, you should view this shift dispassionately and in context and draw conclusions regarding the likelihood of changes in opinions at the wider level which will become noticeable in societies that have issues with assimilating immigrants. Also, I still think that most of the blog's readers fit his positions, at least the more mundane ones. The question is who chooses to be part of the vocal minority that actually posts comments.

No that's a totally bogus explanation. What's happened is Gresham's law in action. The human excreta always drives out decent posters in any lightly or unmoderated forum.

> the commentariat here has undergone its own shift in response to
> events in the real world.


@John - I've never been called human excreta before. Is that one of those newfangled microaggressions people keep talking about?

Is this an argument for paralysis in policy making? Sure, reality is complex, but, ultimately, it is reducible to a few factors that not only suggest a course of action but also allow you to communicate these issues to your fellow citizens in terms they will understand.

I hate to do this, but....isn't it also simplistic to knee jerk claim that more migration is always good?

Isn't a bit simplistic to ignore culture?

heh. Remember when native americans created a world that protestants wanted to live in?

PS their, not there.

So, of all the times you have walk in a library, never has a history book fallen on you?
I mean, you do now of this thing called colonisation? Maybe you have heard of it? It was when all the nice white little countries you just mentioned spent a solid 500 years basically extracting everything and messing up with all those nasty Muslim, African and Latin countries you talk about. Left them in a state that nobody can live in them and now the people living there have two choices: clean up 500 years of colonisation or emigrate to one of the nice little countries..

spent a solid 500 years basically extracting everything and messing up with all those nasty Muslim, African and Latin countries you talk about.

Come again? Latin American societies were the issue of colonization, not 'colonized' societies.

The European era in Tropical Africa extended from about 1885 to about 1960, which is somewhat shy of '500 years'. Haven't noticed that the uncolonized Ethiopia is such a prosperous place. There were, of course, few Europeans outside of Southern Africa and the East African highlands.

Few Muslim societies ever had much of a European colonial population. The Dutch population in Indonesia was 0.4% of the total, the British in India < 0.1%. They had a larger impact on landholdings and the economy, but even in Indonesia, 85% of output was attributable to native producers. The European presence in these loci was dwarfed by the Chinese presence in the Malay peninsula and trailed the East Indian presence there as well. A great many foreigners are resident in and around the Persian Gulf, but these colonies are of variegated in origin (modally East Indian) and have no history prior to 1949. There were a great many Europeans in the Maghreb and extensive landholdings where they were not present. Interestingly, occidental countries have never had antagonistic relations with Morocco or Tunisia and suffered them with Algeria only between 1962 and about 1983. The West has had the most contentious dealings with Libya, where western forces had secure control only from 1928 to 1951. The Arab countries of the Near East generally had no period of dependency on any European power (the case with Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia) or had circumscribed periods which did not incorporate severe penetration of conventional institutions (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt). Yet, our relations with the Near East are antagonistic almost in inverse proportion to their period of dependency.

Talk of 'extraction' is largely economic nonsense.

I think Tyler errs twice here:

1) immigration is a privilege and a challenge. A failure to integrate when most cultures have successfully done so is not the fault of the host country

2) his examples cite either very moderate Muslims (Bosnians who love to drink) or situations in which the immigrant belongs to a tiny community and is forced to integrate (Pakistanis in the U.S.)

Neither is representative of what's happening in Europe today or proposed for the U.S.

What makes you think Pakistanis in the US have been forced to integrate? Successful families there live like Mormons. Integration is easy if you have the capacity to carve out a successful life for yourself and not compete with unskilled labour.

If you have above average income and education attainment the integration process is underway.

If - like in England - you live in large ethnic enclaves with high multi generational unemployment, low education standards and high rates of inter family marriage, birth defects and crime, well, you haven't.

Immigration from Muslim countries is not a theoretical construct. We have decades of evidence. Why is this so hard for people?

Exactly, my extended family and in-laws (both maternal and paternal) are college-educated professionals from Pakistan. Family members who emigrated to the US, Canada, UK, Australia etc. have done very well for themselves and are flourishing as are their offspring. Importing barely literate peasants by the container ship be they Africans, Mexicans, Arabs, Pakistanis etc. usually means just importing poverty, slums and social strife for a long time.

Merkel should have just offered Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan massive amounts of cash to settle Syrian refugees and imported in the likely successes i.e. the engineers, doctors, professors, computer scientists and their immediate families.

One can go overboard in criticism. These sorts did build a great and prosperous nation. Some of my ancestors did arrive in steerage. They were peasants in the places they left. They achieved education and middle class success.

There is an argument for selection, simply because we don't have the open prairie we once did (stole), but I don't doubt that with a hypothetical open continent these could do as well - if they did agree to join an experiment in representative government divorced from state religion.

"imported in the likely successes i.e. the engineers, doctors, professors, computer scientists and their immediate families"
That might be better for the people themselves, but wouldn't their countries be better off if they stayed there, or stayed in Turkey, Lebanon etc? We have to face the fact that it is these countries that have the greater need for human capital, and they will have to develop at some point or else we'll be playing shoot the hoops with migrant waves every few years. The intelligent, educated and accomplished are the natural keepers of their average countrymen and are most responsible for a country's advancement. Take them out of the equation and there is no way you will get improvement. And the peasants understand this at some point and realize that the situation is hopeless, so why not all move?

Relatedly, there are many in the US who miss the importance of an absence of state religion and seek to create one. This is a fringe, but moderately sized fringe, position. The Christian Right believes that minority belief trumps democracy, because God. This is very dangerous to a democracy.

Every person who answers "Muslum extremism" with "this is a Christian nation" risks breaking our advantage.

There are towns in California where you can get a critical mass of Pakistanis or whatever. See Lodi.

"One can go overboard in criticism. These sorts did build a great and prosperous nation. Some of my ancestors did arrive in steerage. They were peasants in the places they left. They achieved education and middle class success."

Mexican Americans, who have been here for many generations, are doing great on social indicators? How about African Americans?

Geez, one African-American President and a couple more "Mexicans(*)" in the wings. You'd think that would be good enough to show ability.

* - see above for my critique of racist thought on the "Mexican" category.

"not compete with unskilled labour"
I think you hit a nail squarely on the head without realizing it. Yes, if you import an underclass and you keep importing them, keeping the first comers' wages down and limiting their social mobility unless dictated by government fiat without regard for merit, then you will have problems.

I've posted this before, so excuse me - http://www.vdare.com/articles/la-times-quinones-prints-the-truth-about-immigration

"Her sister Alejandra was the first to leave. In Los Angeles, she and her husband were barely able to make ends meet. As in Mexico, `there was little work and it`s poorly paid,` she said. Eight years ago, she and her family moved to Kentucky, where a friend said there was more work and were fewer Mexican immigrants bidding down the wages for unskilled jobs.`
Funny, isn`t it, how uneducated illegal immigrants have a more acute understanding of how the Law of Supply and Demand affects wages than do many academic economists? Quinones` story goes on:
"They went to night school to learn English because few people in Lexington speak Spanish.Today, the Magdalenos in Lexington earn more than they did in Los Angeles, in a city where the cost of living is lower [only 65% of LA]. Kentucky is now their promised land, and they talk about California the way they used to talk about Mexico…"What we weren`t able to do in many years in California,` Alejandra said, `we`ve done quickly here. We`re in a state where there`s nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It`s clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico—everyone thinks like in Mexico. California`s broken.`"
It`s The Beverly Hillbillies in reverse. Now people are moving from California to Kentucky to be part of a more advanced civilization. "

Immigration of skilled workers is not a one-way thing. There are plenty of instances where successful immigrants go back to their home countries to found good companies they would not have been able to without the skills and connections gained from working in advanced economies. Bangalore's IT cluster has benefitted significantly from skilled Indian engineers working across the world.

Also Germany could do with the skilled labour, the natives are not procreating enough.

Have the American IT industry's American workers benefited from the deluge of worker visas and from the outsourcing of their activity to India? I'm playing it a bit hypocritical here, because my country is a medium cost destination for manufacturing and the like, but if the American people are getting shafted this much, then what hope can there be for mine in the future?

Germany was still Germany and an engine of the Industrial Revolution in 1900 at the frontier of knowledge and productivity, when the population of the larger German state was 56 million and that of what today is Germany was probably around 35 million. The continuity and posterity of the German people and their culture trumps economic concerns, which I find farfetched either way. Incentives matter - a country with a declining population, but good fundamentals, will find that families are more affordable with the drop in real estate prices and the rise in wages. Competing with subsidized foreigners is a fertility killer for Europeans. The Germans could do with less wage repression and the welfare and societal burden of the descendants of their Turkish guest workers.

Well of course the Irish and Germans integrated, they were more like us, they were better. And moreover they spread out over the country and were forced to integrate. But these Jews and Italians and Slavs...they're the scum of Europe. We did intelligence tests on them and proved they have the minds of children! And they're bringing in dangerous ideas...agitating about socialism and workers' rights! And what's more, they're all grouping together in these ghettos in cities like New York - they'll never integrate because they don't even need to! Yes sir, this here wave of European trash is going to ruin this country, sure enough.


What is overlooked in these debates is that prior waves of immigration could not take advantage of welfare transfer payments or civil rights laws.

There are historical writings about how British industrialists found German workers to be lazy and thieves and the same with Japanese workers.

Tyler, stop being so dishonest. Plenty of groups have been here for generations and still haven't even come close to average success. Mexican Americans and African Americans for obvious examples. And if French Racism is really the problem here, you have to ask why discrimination didn't stop Jews and Chinese from overtaking white Americans in social indicators.

"And they’re bringing in dangerous ideas…agitating about socialism and workers’ rights!"

Yes, being in favor of workers rights and social welfare is comparable to Salafism.

It is certainly the case that immigrants in small communities a forced to integrate more completely. For example, Korean communities in Los Angeles which have a large critical mass remain more ethnically distinct than Korean communities in Buffalo, New York, where there are still Korean ethnic communities but the communities are not nearly so self-contained.

It is also certainly the case that the process for selecting immigrants to the U.S. is highly selective, with a high proportion of it based on scarce occupational skills or investment in U.S. businesses, rather than on family ties or low skilled immigration under prior immigration law or in violation of immigration laws.

Also, note that immigrants from countries with large numbers of Muslims are disproportionately members of minority religions relatively to their home countries, and religious affiliation should not be extrapolated from home country to immigrant populations. For example, immigrants from predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are disproportionately Christian and Shiite relative to the population of their home countries. (Likewise, U.S. immigration from predominantly Roman Catholic Latin America is disproportionately Pentecostal Christian). The U.S. remains a prime destination for people seeking religious freedom, a role heightened by the seriousness with which U.S. immigration officials treat claims for asylum based upon religious persecution in their countries of origin relative to many other kinds of asylum claims.

A large share of post-WWII Muslim migration to Europe arises from ties between particular European countries and countries in which those countries once had a colonial role or other strong ties. Thus, for example, Algerians tend to end up in France, Pakistanis in England, and Turks in Germany. In contrast, the countries from which U.S. Muslim immigrants hail are far more diverse, with no one dominant source. The Denver area's largest mosque, for example, does not predominantly consist of people from any one nationality, promoting a racially diverse pan-Muslim identity in many part of the U.S. that did not exist in the "Old Country" and distances U.S. Muslims from their Old Country ethnic identities in a manner that is not the case in Europe.

It is also important to note that a very significant share of U.S. Muslims are U.S. born citizens of the U.S., either because they are descendants of immigrant Muslims, or because are U.S. born converts to Islam, and many immigrant Muslims in the U.S. are naturalized U.S. citizens. Sixty-three percent of Muslim Americans are first-generation immigrants, while 37% were born in the U.S. Seventy percent of those born outside of the U.S. are citizens (compared to 47% of foreign-born, on the whole, who are citizens.) Overall about 81% of U.S. Muslims are U.S. citizens. I suspect that the high rates of citizenship reflect, in part, quite a bit of Muslim immigration arising from social and economic ties developed during the U.S. military presence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, at bases of our military allies, and in the former Yugoslavia.

I've certainly never seen any statistics suggesting that U.S. Muslim immigrants disproportionately come from "moderate" Muslim countries, and norms on a variety of issues in "moderate" Muslim countries are very different from U.S. Christian norms by a variety of large scale surveys like the General Social Survey and its international equivalents.

The fact that integration of immigrant Muslims into U.S. life is notable particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. takes far less forceful measures to force integration than the national policies of countries like France which make integration a high priority. Pressure to integrate is predominantly social, rather than legal.

There are no proposals being seriously floated for European scale migration of Muslims to the U.S. The only proposal that I have heard to President Obama's proposal to increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States. But, that proposal involves less than 0.01% of the U.S. population over a multiyear period, spread across many locations across the United States. Larger numbers of refugees have been admitted in the last few decades to the United States, for example, from Ethiopia, with almost no noticeable impact on U.S. culture or society. The number proposed are tiny and are not a meaningful impact economically either.

That;s the first time AFAIK this blog has linked to Dawn's website, it's an underrated Pakistani English newspaper (initially owned and funded by the founder of Pakistan) that should be more widely known. Even Indians appear to agree given the number of comments they leave on articles there.

Steve Sailer is right, it is easy enough for people of any background\religion etc. to integrate into Western societies if they have the human capital to do middle class jobs. Discussions of culture get rather overcooked and miss this basic point.

Anyway Muslim integration in Europe is going to look like a relatively minor issue in the coming decades once the sub-Saharan African population explosion makes its effects felt. The UK fortunately has the Channel to act as a wall and will hopefully be well out of the sclerotic, decreipt and clueless EU by then.

Fertility rates have been declining in Africa for 40 years. Some countries have suffered declining living standards. Most have not, Dr. Ehrlich.

Not enough... unfortunately. Arab world same thing.

The composite total fertility rates of the Near East and North Africa is 2.73. If you throw in Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it's a bit higher, around about 2.8, perhaps. With naïve assumptions and given the last 20 years, it's a reasonable wager that the composite total fertility rate in this bloc of countries will fall to replacement level in about 20 years.

I said sub-Saharan, Art.


And he brought up 'the Arab world'. Reading comprehension. It's great stuff.

Here's a recent Wall Street Journal article by Drew Hinshaw on the giant population explosion underway in sub-Saharan Africa:


That brings up an interesting question for the refugee enthusiast. Is there a number of refugees where you say, ok, stop the faucet, this has to stop? Sweden has already reached that point and say they're over capacity. There's no reason to believe the number of refugees won't increase drastically in the future, and drastic sacrifices (For non-billionaires) will have to be made if you're not willing to say "no"

If you're not the country optimally located for repatriation, the number is near zero. The appropriate response of affluent countries to refugee flows is maintenance of refugees - waste disposal, potable water, epidemic control, simple shelter, public order maintenance, &c. That means cash and skilled personnel. Very seldom does it mean transporting refugees far afield (Jews in wartime Europe the odd exception).

Serious question j r: Can you sense any kind of sarcasm?

Clearly Tyler's post is a joke. The elephant in the room is not mentioned. Not talking about SELECTION effects, when comparing "muslim performance" in US and Europe is pretty lame.
Mexicans working in Japan are doing pretty good I heard, so WHAT THE F... is wrong with all the racism in america?

The interesting question is, why will an econ professor write something as silly as this?

And yes, any social phenomenon as complex as this has a myriad of interacting, self-reinforcing and confounding factors at work. Who claims otherwise?
But when you already knows this, maybe you should ask questions like; Is it really a good idea to have a lot of poor uneducated people with a very different cultural background migrating to France, a country with no need for uneducated people and certainly not migrants not willing to assimilate?
If your answers is, "no - it is going to give a lot of problems", then your next question could be like: Is it then really fair to blame the french for the failure of muslims to integrate

You could write something like this instead:
The one thread running through Tyler's blogpost and the majority of MSN of the last few years is this absolutely sentiment that any viewpoint that does not sufficiently blaming the West must immediately be labelled racist/reactionary. Why do they hold a worldview so simplistic?

You chose an awful lot of words to say what is essentially "yes."

Wauw, what a clever response.

You chose a awful few words to say: The french are to blame, when muslims fail to integrate.

It is funny how it this patronising of muslims are not considered racist.

Can't you imagine a system where you would be locked out? What if you immigrated to Mars and discovered that scientific athiests preferred other athiests for the good jobs? Would you integrate? Or work in the Christian ghetto?

Depends if 1 million of my armed Christian brothers are on the way to stamp out the heresy.

That is just as much science fiction. There are no million man armies marching on France. They have a problem of one out of a million acting out. Better opportunity might solve the real problem in time, but not the fantasy one.

But then why do I bother. Anyone who thinks either France or the US faces an existential threat is not dealing with this world. And apparently parallels are lost on them.

Yes, its fairly easy. Imagine a modern day HR manager who is now located in a subsistence farming village or a hunter gatherer society. You would be useless and locked out.

I know a friend, a real athlete, who lived with a tribe in Sumatra for a few months. The tribespeople were better at everything than he was. They tolerated him and helped him a lot, and all he could do was carry game back to the camp for them...essentially a donkey. He said it was very humbling.

Imagine that tribe had 5 Phd economists show up as penniless refugees. Yeah, they'd have to think about that.

The Muslims in SE Michigan first came to work in the auto plants -- they weren't a carefully selected group of professionals. A century earlier, Chinese came to work constructing railroads. There are currently a million Filipino workers in the UAE and Dubai (where they make up over 20% of the population). The idea that distance is a filter where only the educated travel long distances is just wrong. Large numbers of laborers have traveled halfway around the world for work in recent centuries (and continue to do so).

A more plausible explanation for the differences in immigrant integration in the U.S. vs Western Europe is that in Western Europe it is possible to live for generations in ethnic enclaves and on the dole. In the US that is not possible -- the need to earn a living drives integration.

"Selection effects" is not only about the immigration rules, and how they carefully select people based on skills.

It is also about which people decides to migrate. The first muslims i Michigan were part of a very small group of people migrating. Hardly representative of the muslims living in the arab world. The arabs migratin from the arab world today, might be a bit different.
US benefits from the atlantic ocean.

I dont disagree with the fact that wellfare states in europe are a problem. But then again, it surely isn't the only explanation. Vietnamese and chinese people in europe are doing well, and they could have chosen the same path as many from the arab world.

"The arabs migratin from the arab world today, might be a bit different. US benefits from the atlantic ocean."

Perhaps. But the difficulty of crossing the Atlantic for those auto-workers was much less than the difficulty of crossing the Med now -- current migrants are undergoing a much more arduous journey.

No, the Arabs did not come to Dearborn to work at the auto plants. That's Blacks to Detroit. They came to Dearborn to found small businesses to serve the auto workers.

Hmmm. Where did these striking Arab auto workers come from then?


BTW, Muslim integration totally fails in England. Upward mobility in education with Pakistanis and East Bengalis is much worse than among generally uneducated Caribbean Black immigrants. The East Bengalis have virtually no upward mobility at all. I believe my source here is Ethnic Differences in Intergenerational Crime Patterns by David J. Smith.

70% of the British Pakistani population originates from an area called Mirpur. Something like 90% of the British Bangladeshi population originates from Sylhet. Both regions are their respective countries' equivalent of Appalachia. When you import unskilled labour from isolated rural locations they will not adapt easily to post-industrial societies.

There is a thriving Muslim middle class in Britain - the current Business Secretary Sajid Javid in the Conservative British cabinet is the son of a Pakistani immigrant and a former executive director of Deutsche Bank - but no one ever hears about them because they are busy working and not blowing themselves up.

but no one ever hears about them because they are busy working and not blowing themselves up.

Except that one time...

Go away banned poster.

Muslim immigrants in England have greater levels of educational attainment than white people in England. The facts belie your argument.

Think about what you wrote and what we're talking about. He was talking about integration, you're talking about immigration

It would be interesting to examine Muslim integration in Muslim societies. For starters, 3 million afghan "refugees" in Pakistan would like to know.

As to Muslim integration in the west- I'll take as a metric of success the number of atheists of Muslim descent. Might be a hard statistic to gather.

You lost me on that second point. Atheists are a minority in every society the world over. Why would this be any sort of metric for integration?

It is really simple, now-a-days the "success" of the immigrants is mainly dependent on the immigrants themselves.
You can see that in Europe: France, the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium and Germany are very similar*, yet the success of modern immigration varies a lot as the people who moved there were different. If you look at it closely, the French-Algerian "hoods" resemble Algerian "hoods", whereas the German-Turkish "hoods" resemble Turkish "hoods". Meaning, while Neu-Kölln and Wedding are pretty shitty, they are not as shitty as the French-Algerian banlieues with their gang-bangs, kidnapping of jews, riots, and planning of terrorist attacks...

In the US, the Iranian, Pakistani and Bosnian immigrants are doing well since the US selected mainly the best people from those countries. In contrast, France didn't select the Algerians, Germany didn't select the Turks, so the outcome is worse. This is also the reason why the Mexicans and Somalis in the US are also not doing well - they were also not selected so Mexican areas in the US look like Mexico and Somalis are trying to turn their areas in the US into Somalia. Meanwhile, in "socialist paradise" Sweden the Iraqi immigrants (again not selected) are doing their best into turning their areas into shitholes, too.

I could go on. C’mon Tyler, you can do better than this…

This is correct. Mississauga in Ontario has a large Pakistani population mostly made up of middle-class Punjabis. AFAIK it is a much happier place to live compared to Molenbeek in Belgium, the banlieues in France, Luton\Rochdale etc. in the UK and no terrorit incidents.

The situation of Mexicans in America is complicated by many of them being natives, for like 15000 years.

(In my area the Gabrielinos merged with Spanish and then American immigrants, only to be called Mexican-Americans by anyone not tracking the family tree.)

The situation of Mexicans in America is complicated by many of them being natives, for like 15000 years.

There were aboriginal bands with a phenotypic similarity to aboriginal populations in Mexico. There were no 'Mexicans' until the 16th century and there were as recently as 1840 only a five digit population of Mexican peninsulares, criollos, mestizos, and mission Indians in what is now the Southwest.

The American racist definition of Mexican is pretty silly. It is one more situational rationalization. They think there are Mexicans because they "see" them, never mind that they might be Gabrielinos or Guatemalans.

In a genetic sense there are native Americans, and Europeans, each of very diverse types, not uniform at all, and then mixtures of all those. To a racist a half Gabrielino/Swede or a half Guatemalan/Spaniard are both Mexicans. To a geneticist each would be unique, with possible inheritance from either line.

The American racist definition of Mexican is pretty silly

You're talking rot.

I am talking about rot, that's for sure. To the racist there are just Mexicans, until someone says Ted Cruz Marco Rubio and then suddenly Cubans are a race. It is all made up as it goes along.

Anyone with a little intelligence should be able to see that there is nothing at the center except a vague distrust of dark skinned people, but one that can be abandoned the minute one of them proves to be right-thinking. Racists for Carson!

Speaking as someone you likely regard as racist, I and many others are well aware that Mexico is racially stratified. I remember having some Canadian friends visit here and they remarked, after a good deal of hemming and hawing, that US "Hispanics" don't look much like Javier Badem or former Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa (she's on the left, here:

I am talking about rot, that’s for sure. To the racist there are just Mexicans,

No, you're addled enough not to realize that it's a witless anachronism to refer to 'Mexicans' in the American Southwest as having been present for '15,000 years' and then revert to irrelevant prog-trash talking points about 'racism'

That? I live on an old land grant ranch. Mexicans certainly lived here before me, and some of those really were Gabrielinos. Much later this became called America.


-So what? The vast majority of Mexicans in the U.S. have their roots in the 1970s and later.

"You might as well start encourage Europe’s unemployed to go to Africa and the Middle East."

This quote is from Horhe's argument earlier. The funny thing is that this used to be done. Europe's unemployed were encouraged to go to Algeria, South Africa, and Australia, along of course with the Americas (both North and South).

And wasn't it a grand thing for humanity? And wouldn't a modest reprisal of this emigration be a positive thing, so long as it doesn't impact the historical majorities in both countries? Let the IQ run free from high IQ, low opportunity places to low IQ, high opportunity places. I always wondered why African regimes, rather than relying on foreign companies, governments and NGOs with their own agendas, didn't simply hire high IQ foreigners to run things and deport them with their money after a few years, bring in a new batch, rinse and repeat. One way to steal more, the best way actually, is to enlarge the pie. That would take care of so many things. Right now, African countries are running worse than they ever were during colonialism, but they have more white NGO people running around like headless chickens doing close to nothing of systemic importance than they ever had colonial administrators.


Isn't it funny how this was the exact same reaction that greeted the Walt and Mearsheimer book? Or the Bell Curve? Or Nicholas Wade? "This is an important topic, unfortunately this book was sadly lacking . . . " Kill them with sorrowful condescension.

Detroit is a success story. Eid al-Fitr is becoming a big deal at my daughter's school. But issues remain and some of them reflect conflicts that trace back to the Middle East:


In other words, Detroit is becoming Muslim, and your daughter will probably convert and marry a Muslim. Mazel tov.

I grew up in Detroit (not that long ago) and went to school with lots of Arabs and Chaldeans. Literally never had a single "integration" problem. The only recollection of any issue was of some trashy guy in my high school gym class always calling this Lebanese kid "party store owner" (which was actually true, and is common in the area), but not in a seriously threatening way. A lot of Detroit area Arabs also ended up at my university. And yes, in a few cases they marryied white Christians and Jews, both men and women. Total shit show, as you can imagine. Tire fire. Life was basically over.

My wife attended a majority Muslim high school in Deerborn and had a much different experience. She said the Arab male students were boorish and misogynistic toward her and other female students.

Just one person's perspective...

What is being described is a "multicultural" area evolving over time into an Arab Muslim monoculture with different holidays, heroes, social norms, etc., as the now-minorities get uncomfortable and move away. This may all work out fine, assuming pluralistic democracy is the panacea which we are assured it is, but I am doubtful. History is not kind to this idea. Current events are not kind to this idea.

Luckily(?), there is another group in Detroit whose pathologies dwarf any the assorted Lebanese might have had. By and large, they're an integration success story. But they could join ISIS en masse and still be better loved than the rest of Detroit. And safer to be around to boot.

Muslims in america are much furthered removed from the arab homeland. Easier to keep in touch with original culture, easier to get reinforcement migrants, if they radicalize and are caught its easier to flee. In other words costs of refusing to assimilate are lower...returns on refusing to assimilate may also be higher.

Just because a small group of people have been highly successful doesn't mean its a wise idea to let more in. The mere fact of having only a few members of your culture in a new country may put pressure on you that incentivizes you to perform well. Letting in a larger number increases your comfort level so you feel less compelled to work hard to establish yourself.

The U.S. has a looser and more associative conception of nationhood. I wonder if that allows degrees of affiliation which are helpful in these cases, wheras French conceptions induce a dichotomy of responses (you are either part of France or you're not).

Thank you, Professor Cowen. A number of good points.

France might have integrated its Muslims better had the intake pipe had a smaller diameter, had they not ruined their labor markets with grossly excessive regulation, had they not built public housing and made episodic use of rent control, had they vigorously suppressed crime in urban slums, and had they allowed their natives and their immigrants to negotiate in the market without much intervention from lawyers or civil servants.

I dont think thats the issue. Of course France has a lot of things that need reform, but that is an independent issue of the presence/absence of muslim population. Its all about selection: where do these people come from? and what is there baseline level of education, wealth, etc. ? Many of the french immigrants come from their former colonies in Africa, and probably had "nowhere to go". Now contrast that with pakistanian-americans, that probably came to US to study and stayed, or were above average doctors in their own country, etc.

Families rise and decline, even if Steve Sailer would prefer otherwise.

Of course they do, but that doesn't mean I leave the door unlocked and the kids to fend for themselves in the race to the bottom because hey, families rise and decline.

Who is more likely to have successful children in the US.... couple of high school dropouts... or a couple with Masters degrees?

This is unworthy of a community college professor, much less a prominent one.

And blaming the French for the criminality, pathology and terrorism of people who moved there voluntarily? Abject silliness. No grade, redo, not even wrong.

Are you unaware of the fact that white people are always guilty and, because of that, should be demographically destroyed via
a) governments doing practically nothing to increase their birth rate, and
b) importing non-whites in record numbers because ... because.

GMU is basically a community college. It admits like 75 percent of applicants.

No, GMU is a research university with 32,000 students. Community colleges teach trades and commonly have only areal academic majors for students who wanted a bridge to a baccalaureate granting institution. GMU educates to the terminal degree across a broad array of academic and vocational subjects. So does the University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, VCU, and Old Dominion.

GMU actually admits 67% of its undergraduate applicants. That's unremarkable re other state research universities. SUNY Buffalo has an acceptance rate of 62%, the University of Missouri 77%, Ohio State 53%, University of Maryland at College Park 49%, University of Pittsburgh 53%, Temple University 62%, Rutgers - New Brunswick 61%, University of Louisville 72%, University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 59%. The four-year graduation rate (44%) is somewhat lower than many state research universities because GMU is congenial to part-time study. The salient datum is not the acceptance rate (because students pre-select), but the median board scores of those admitted.

"Why Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, Tao, Jewish, Atheist, etc. etc. Integration does not fail in Christian-Heritage Societies" might be a more revealing title.

Wrong. It is not about religion, but education and SE status in home country.

I sort of agree that SE status is most important. But when SE status is low, religion and ethnic identity is much more important. Who do you think is more attracted to joining ISIS, a poor Mexican or poor Arab? The poor Mexican joins a gang, the poor Arab shoots up the night club. Both poor angry young men looking for something to blame, very different outcomes.

After living for a while in the US and now in Europe (luckily, 15 km away from France), my two cents: US culture is practically pushed down your throat. Even if you don't want to integrate, you are bombarded every day by marketing. However, this is not done by the government, it happens in the job, in a bar, shopping mall, anywhere. I.e. Christmas. In the US you can claim to be pure from wherever around the world you come from but eventually you end up doing something like the locals.

In contrast in France, you can live for a long time without being influenced because individuals respect your privacy and the only one that deals with your culture is the government through education and culture. People respect your beliefs, they won't invite you to celebrate Christmas but.....a century later the divide will be still there. I don't mean French people should tell Muslim they are wrong because they think different, but perhaps the French should not repress each other when someone makes a display of the local culture, when some tries to sell foreigners something local.

And in some parts of the USA you will be invited to churches frequently.

Yes, the young me interpreted this as a bad thing. US People always trying to meddle in your personal life. Years later, I wonder is there's a trade-off, perhaps small town meddlers are better for integration than cultured people that respects diversity.

Could the problems with Muslims in France be reduced by spending less on welfare/schooling/medical care and more on law enforcement?

A lot of Muslim apologetics being posted on this site lately. Why don't we ask the Han Chinese, the Indians and the Eastern Orthodox Christians of Eastern Europe why they don't want to integrate with Muslims? They've been dealing with Muslims and their "submit or die" conversion techniques for a millennium and a half.

Ask the Israelis too. They carefully screen immigrants, and make sure their own ethnic group stays on top. They've got a wall and everything, and Tyler Cowen keeps reporting from his visits how dynamic and pleasant it is. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from the Israelis.

But we all know that the magic dirt in Israel makes things that work there and are rational anatema for the whole Western world.
After all, we cannot have the white goyim somehow deciding it is OK to assert their interests.

Clean up on aisle 4.

I don't think this has anything to do with Christian heritage. An Indian friend of mine told me about the disaster of Muslim self-governance within India- it's a state within a state.

Muslim cosmology is comprehensive.

The example of Canada skimming a handful of well-to-do immigrants fails to impress. How hard is that? Is it even a good thing to brain drain poor countries?

Especially when France really tries to be anything but a Christian-heritage society.

How well are Somali Muslims integrating in America? Isn't that the relevant comparison for today's policy debates?

They have Mayor Hodges in their pocket. Pretty amusing.

There is no ISIS in the US. It's France that is doing something wrong! http://theweek.com/speedreads/591643/there-have-been-56-isisrelated-arrests-year

"Why France Has Not Integrated Its Muslims."

Why should France integrate its Muslims? Where is this weird notion coming from that states/governments need to *integrate* their immigrants?! What does *integration* even mean? And if integration is really needed (which I doubt), shouldn't the immigrants integrate themselves and not the other way round?

Which state *integrates* the Chinese people in Chinatown? Who integrated all the other immigrants that came to the US during the last 200 years? Why should Muslims need integration? Are they *mentally handicapped* and need a special treatment? I think they don't.

It's not about integration at all. There are many groups in the US that are not *integrated*. The real questions is: Why aren't they committing terrorist attacks while Muslims are doing it. Integrated or not. World-wide. In many, many countries.

This is not about integration. This is about a certain ideology/religion/mindset that is prone to terrorism.

Chinatowns do date from institutionalized racism and land covenants. The older areas of the Central District and Chinatown were nearly the only “open neighborhoods” in Seattle, for example.

Immigrant communities have a different character now.

This does not contradict my point it proves it. The Chinatowns are one good example. The Internment of Japanese Americans is another example. Do the Chinese immigrants commit terrorist attacks in the US? Do the Japanese immigrants?

That was my deleted commented I got banned for. I'm really amazed by this site.

Even if the terrorism angle is solved, that does not mean that integration is not necessary for social capital, maintenance of institutions and of solidarity etc.

"There are many groups in the US that are not *integrated*"

That's a huge problem, not a feature. Often, integration means incorporating Anglo-Europeans norms of behavior and of political conduct. Not being integrated means higher crime rates, crimes resulting from cultural mismatch, lack of empathy towards the host society (as opposed to the over-empathic nature of the host who tolerates indigestible clumps of aliens in their national body) and other issues. The best thing, i think, would be to simply keep immigration to a minimum of people very well selected and monitored for capacity of integration (not necessarily skills, as a brain drain is a crime against the developing world). Incidentally, this is how you maintain global cultural diversity, as opposed to the destructive diversity inside a nation and as opposed to the bland Americanized mush that goes for global culture these days.

I answered you but it got lost and/or deleted. That's so weird. The most antisemtic and racist comments get deleted but I get banned for saying that Chinese/Japanese/Korean people don't commit terrorist attacks.

Christians didn't integrate into the Americas, but forced conversions of Americans to Christianity on pain of death.

The number of remaining American religions and followers is quite small. Incan religion is wiped out. Mayan reduced to some remnants incorporated into the Christian church of Rome. Many American children taken from their tribe by the US and Canadan government tribal nation agencies to erase their tribal religion and indoctrinate them into Christianity.

Not only did Christians have the audacity to give Americans a new name, then they took away their religion. And note that many immigrants were of other religions forced to convert, the conversos who have returned to their Hebrew religion in Texas, for example.

Yeah. Transnational movements of people didn't work out so well for the American natives back then either.

Muslim integration has failed in India, Myanmar, Thailand, China etc

There are thousands of muslim ghetto / No-Go zones in India, called Mini-Pakistan, equivalent to Eurabia, where Cops fear to enter

The problem is mainly in Sunni Islam - In India, Shia muslims, are better integrated, educate their women and many vote BJP; Shia muslims rarely riot on the streets and have never been arrested for Jihadi terrorism

Shia islam is organised like the catholic church - while Jihad exists, the call to Jihad must be given by a senior cleric like an Ayatollah ; whereas in Sunni islam, any random mullah can give a call for Jihad

Shia muslims know that they are a minority within a minority and Sunni hate them ; so they dont plan for islamic takeover and obey Kafir laws

Shia muslims include mainline Shia as well as Shia sub-sects like Ismaili, and Bohra ; In India, the Ismaili and Bohra are converts from merchant caste Hindus and do not break the law ;

For the Bohra, the Syedna interprets the Koran ( flexibly ) ; they wear standard Mullah type dress, but are businessmen, never do Jihad, but they do Female Genital Mutilation; Recently several Bohra women arrested in Australia for FGM

The Ismaili shia sect is led by the Agha Khan ; They used to have a violent history - the Assassin / Hashishin were Ismaili ;
For 3 - 4 generations, the Agha Khan has married white women and gradually become white ; The Agha Khan interprets the Koran for Ismaili and advises his followers to obey kafir laws ; Most of the successful Indian muslims in UK, Canada and Africa are Ismaili merchants - The Agha Khan hobnobs with white power elite


If you look at median income in USA,
White = $55k
Bangladeshi = $45k
Pakistani = $65K
Indian = $95K
So there is a retarding effect of islam


2015, mathcounts 56 finalists
of whom, 44 are east asian, 7 upper caste Hindus, 3 jews, 2 gentiles
and 0 muslim



Has the California 2016 National Merit Semifinalist list

1140 East Asians
280 Hindus
20 Jains
31 Muslims ( includes South asian and middle east muslims )

Not sure if anyone still wants to read this thread. But this article argues it's a simple matter of numbers. Muslims won't make trouble so long as they stay under 2% of the population. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675

I got criticized before for saying that "libertarianism" is mainly an ideology of nerdy autistic white guys, but you haven't done much to disprove me. A whole bunch of you are very desperate to ignore the simple fact that some people are worth far more than others.

The fact is, Muslims are garbage. They adhere to a brutal dysgenic way of life that has turned vast swaths of the planet into primitive sinkholes. They contribute, rape, murder, female genital mutilation, terrorism, and barbarism into every land that they inhabit. The only way to coexist with them is not to.

Clean up on aisle 4.

Thats an interesting viewpoint. I live in the UAE which is a muslim country. The levels of rape and murder are much lower than the U.S.. There is no female genital mutilation or terrorism and there is less barbarism here than in the U.S..

The UAE is also a brutal tyranny run by a mercantile royal family that's propped up by vast numbers of Indian slave laborers. Not really a good example, chief.

Actually "chief", have you ever been to the UAE? Brutal tyrany? Umm, okayyy... I have lived here over seven years and I have yet to see any of this brutal tyrany you talk about.

I am not sure what the country being mercantile has to do with refuting your claim about muslims.

Slave laborers? Last time I checked slavery was illegal here. The laborers certainly could have better working conditions but they still come in droves from the subcontinent.

So why would the UAE not be a good example? You stated muslims inject "rape, murder, female genital mutilation, terrorism and barbarism into every land they inhabit ". I don't see that here( or Oman which is just next door).

"Actually “chief”, have you ever been to the UAE? Brutal tyrany? Umm, okayyy… I have lived here over seven years and I have yet to see any of this brutal tyrany you talk about."

Hold hands on the beach (or worse, kiss your gay lover) and you'll quickly understand how tolerant these folks can be.

"I am not sure what the country being mercantile has to do with refuting your claim about muslims."

I was pointing out how the Sheikhs are money-whores who turned their country into the Gulf's largest shopping mall. Congratulations on completely missing my point.

"Slave laborers? Last time I checked slavery was illegal here."

I guess tricking people with rosy salary numbers and then keeping them isolated in filthy camps is just a cost-efficient guest worker program then.

"The laborers certainly could have better working conditions but they still come in droves from the subcontinent."

An easy choice when the alternative is starving to death in some godforsaken Indian shithole.

"So why would the UAE not be a good example?"

Because most Muslims don't live in a giant shopping mall.

Libertarians: boldly answering questions no one asked.

Hold hands on the beach (or worse, kiss your gay lover) and you’ll quickly understand how tolerant these folks can be.

I understand that the gay lobby has trouble with the notion that the world does not revolve around their derrieres, but it just does not.

Ummm Bert, you seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar since I pointed out the error of your statement about Muslims raping, murdering and causing barbarism to every land they inhabit. That is clearly not true, which I pointed out by using the UAE as an example.

So, once again, have you ever been to the UAE? Being an American and having been living here over seven years I do not see any of this "Brutal tyrany " as you call it. Actually I do hold hands with my wife when out on the town, no problems.
Not exactly a progressive gay paradise, but as long as you are discreet no problems.
Well OK, the Sheiks are into money and it Is the worlds biggest shopping mall. I guess I do miss your point because I still don't understand what that has to do with the original arguement.
As I said before I agree workers conditions could be better but they are hardly "slave laborers " as you originally stated.

But all that being said, so what? This is not a discussion about the merits of the UAE. It was about your generalising all Muslims.

So once again, have you actually ever been to the UAE? Or Oman? You might be surprised, as there is not much "raping, murdering, barbarism, terroirism or genital mutalation" here.

My guess would be that Bert's worldview is a toxic brew of politicized homosexuality, Sailerite reductionism, and Geller-Spencer on their worst day of the year (rather like the specimen who self-confidently informed me that the ruin of Europe in the Early Middle Ages was attributable to 'Muslims', a notion which fails basic chronology).

You need to stop being obsessed with those two countries.

Also I like how Art Deco is still so passive-aggressive about Steve Sailer. I guess he's still bitter about being chased away from that place due to nobody liking him or caring about what he was saying.

You need to get your story straight, Bert. If they don't care about what I have to say, they're not going to bother to dislike me at the same time.

Given that they didn't care what I had to say, they replied to me with amazing frequency and vehemence (and pointless rudeness).

While we're at it, I'm not putting any effort into being 'liked' by 'Syon', 'Mr. Anon', and various and sundry others.

Yeah I wish I had my own monarchy with lots of oil too.

When the oil runs out or its use as combustive fuel is highly restricted if not banned, the sheikdoms will revert back to bandit-states and piracy.

The sheikdoms already earn good coin in various service enterprises and the oil's already run out for Bahrain.

The oil has already run out in Dubai as well. Only time will tell what happens when the oil stops flowing in the rest of the region. It should be interesting.

Would surprise me if it were an abrupt crash: just a wind-down as production costs make Gulf oil less economic than oil produced elsewhere. Given current production rates and proven reserves, they have conservatively 50 years left.

The real problem is improving the human capital of the indigenous population in the interim. As is, the Gulf states produce goods and services outside the oil sector at rates ranging from $10,000 (similar to Tunisia) per capita per year to $45,000 per capita per year (similar to France). The thing is, the production is disproportionately attributable to foreign labor. Once upon a time, about 50% of the income attributable to native Kuwait households was attributable to their ascribed status as Kuwaiti citizens. Not sure if that still holds.

Dear Tyler,

Thank you for taking the time to read our book and blog about it. We take your review and critique seriously, and understand that our title - which generalizes beyond France to "Christian-heritage societies" - might appear to some as a bit of a reach.

Nonetheless, we have two responses to your review. First, any frank discussion of external validity should, in our mind, address the reasons why the scope might be limited. As we explain in Parts I and II of our book, our challenge was to identify whether we could say anything at all about Muslim integration. Our belief is that work to date cannot, because it confounds discrimination due to religion with discrimination due to region-of-origin. Our book's primary contribution is to isolate the religious factor. To do so, we had to study a specific group of immigrants who hail from the same country, who migrated at the same time and in the same way, and who differ only in their religious membership. None of the examples you cite - Pakistanis or Bosnians in America - offer such a counterfactual. We therefore cannot evaluate how well those groups have integrated due to, or in spite of, their religious membership.

Second, your critique of our efforts at generalizability ignores our analysis of the European Social Survey, a representative sample of respondents in 17 Western European countries; this analysis corroborates our claim that there is a Muslim disadvantage to integration in Christian-heritage societies. Finally, your focus on a single indicator in the Detroit Arab-American Study - "Proud to be an American" - ignores the relevant point we have tried to make, which is that on a number of different measures and in a number of different contexts, the pattern consistently points toward the same direction: that Muslim immigrants, relative to comparable Christian immigrants, integrate less, and that this situation does not improve over time. It is this pattern, not any single difference on any single indicator, that we find disconcerting.

Thank you, again, for your thoughts and consideration. Best,
Claire Adida, David Laitin and Marie-Anne Valfort

Thank you for these comments.

Makes you wonder whether Tyler Cowen actually reads the books he talks about.

Stan 1:04 I did read your 9/23 1:19 and just now re read it. Thank you for taking the cansideroble time to write a thoughtful post. We had so many posts in such a short time, we somehow did not get started discussing it and I apologize.As I read it now, I remember why I did not respond. It's a little hard for me to understand you position on the holiness of the Bible story. I'm sure you are correct that there was turmoil during the hundred or so years after the alledged time of Christ. And, as you pointed out, somehow out of the turmoil came the writings and beliefs that were included in the Bible. You are also correct, I'm sure, that the newly found Gnostic scriptures were from a hundred or so years later and the writers might have been from a different gruop.To me, your explanation is such a Catholic way of reasoning, it's hard to respond. This is not to say it's worse than any other way of reasoning, it's just not the way a Protestant reasons. That is to say, it seems like you are saying, Look, there were all these different things written and ideas floating around. Men who were given the authority to decide what the Chruch's doctrine was going to be made their decisions. That's why we believe what we believe. One of those happened to be that Jesus was not married. Maybe I'm incorrect in paraphrasing your case in this way, but that's the way I interpret you. The way I recall all this being explained in my Protestant life is that God guided the writing of the Bible and everything else and made a Jesus who was unmarried. That God made the unmarried Jesus or the original authorities made this call both seem arbitrary. It also seems arbitrary to say the Gnostics versions of events were not included because either a) authorities at the time did not want them in the Bible or b) God did not want them in the Bible. Several centuries went by before the Bible was finalized and for whatever reason lots of writing was not included.The point I stressed, and I didn't see it in your post, was that, so I have read, there was not a place for an unmarried celebate Jewish preacher at the alledged time of Jesus. If that is incorrect, it would be nice to know.

Comments for this post are closed