Sentences about immigration and assimilation

Because of measurement issues and data limitations, Mexican Americans in particular and Hispanic Americans in general probably have experienced significantly more socioeconomic progress beyond the second generation than available data indicate. Even so, it may take longer for their descendants to integrate fully into the American mainstream than it did for the descendants of the European immigrants who arrived near the turn of the twentieth century.

That is from a new NBER working paper by Brian Duncan and Stephen J. Trejo.

Comments

Shouldn't we have made an effort to get past measurement issues and data limitations on a Bet-the-Country question? Or is the answer that the people responsible don't really want to know the answer?

Something like 40% of US born Hispanics are marrying non-Hispanics so integration is moving along. By the end of the century there will no longer be a white majority in the US. Instead a new majority identity will emerge. Due to a high degree of interracial unions and liaisons the majority will be a whitish blend of mixed race whites and Hispanics.

The Brazil Norte our elites have always wanted for us.

Steve, is "notyouagain" one of your boys? Are you teaching "a whitish blend of mixed race whites?"

No, that is solidly your side:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+browning+of+america

First there were racists, then there were anti-racists, then there were anti-anti-racists.

But as is always the case, anti-anti is nothing but pro.

Wrong. I’m against all racism, even the Democrat party’s racism.

You obsess too much about skin melanin.

What's a race? What's the "Hispanic race"?

It is defined well enough to create quotas, side asides, and preferences.

When Steve, before we signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848?

Who is "we" kemo sabe? That was signed in 1848, You must be a really old dude.

You didn't see that as part of the joke? When Steve says "we" he wants to relitigate an 1848 choice about the very ground he lives on.

While I think that the argument hinted at in this complaint is reasonable, it isn't like leaders of the past made decisions with lots of good data in the sense that we would think of good data today. Certainly the decision to revolt against the British Empire wasn't a data driven decision.

Leaders use data to make decisions? By data do you mean polls?

'Bet-the-Country'? Don't get hysterical. Who 'collects' that 'bet'? Bad metaphor.

Countries slowly change, and yet the human race keeps getting healthier and wealthier. Even (and especially) America. Relax. You need some Matt Ridley.

Now apply this logic to climate change.

Oh, precautionary principle, where are thou!

Note: I'm pro-immigration. But its fun to see this argument deployed.

I have exactly the same feelings about climate change (as does Matt Ridley) actually.

"Everyone keeps getting healthier and wealthier even (especially) America"

That's just a stupid statement.

Real median income has been stagnant in all but the top quintile of households for the past 50 years: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/09/19/u-s-household-incomes-a-50-year-perspective

Median net wealth has actually declined as a whole and it has plummeted in the lower three quintiles.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-median-net-worth-of-us-households-over-time-has-gone-nowhere/

I'm not saying how much of this, if any, stems from immigration policy, but that's fucking terrible. You're clearly a smart guy. How can you possibly miss the fact that 80 percent of the nation has zero to show for the past 50 years ago.

And, no, surfing the web for LOL cats does not make up for the lack of financial progress. Hell, the internet may be a net negative thanks to social media.

Sorry for the profanity and the typos. I apparently thought I was dashing off a text to a friend.

If you want another underclass to add to your coalition of the ascendant who will be more favorably disposed towards redistribution of various sorts for a long time, then that's good news.

Speaking of "good news" for the underclass, here's a video of Julius Malema dancing and chanting "shoot the boer".

Things keep getting better for the human race?

Fertility is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

"Shoot the boer, the farmer! Shoot the boer, the farmer! Bbbdddddd pah...pah....pah pah! Bbbdddddd pah...pah...pah pah!'

Don't worry, it will be ok, it will all work out.

Ain't normalcy bias a bitch?

Jumping Julius Malema and his gang:

https://youtu.be/0jiMDwqwPUo

The takeaway from this paper is that the more "melting pot" assimilation there is, the more the immigrants revert to the mean and become just average rather than, as here, above average. Mormons take note!

Mexican Americans are unfortunately doing well below the American average on many metrics

Yes, despite an army of university "diversity coordinators", Deans of Diversity, and "Community Outreach" agents aggressively pursuing any "Latino" (Mexican) that can graduate from high school, they still lag.

Not often mentioned is Latinas graduate from college at a higher rate than Latinos by a wide margin. When I go to our local university campus it is hard not to notice the large numbers of Asians, Latinas, and women of all races but especially white women. Given the prevalence of the hookup culture on campus, you would think hetero males would suck it up and do anything to go to the university. I guess the pull of first person shooters is too powerful to resist.

Here's some data:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/5-facts-about-latinos-and-education/%3famp=1

I note from the High school drop out chart that between 1999 every race/ethnic group has improved.

Whites are where Asians were in 1999

Blacks are where Whites were in 1999

Hispanics are better than Blacks were in 1999.

I thought that the genius of Mormonism was to take a group of people and push their levels of achievement beyond what a demographically similar group would achieve based upon clean living, a strong social network, and a strong safety net (that comes with expectations). Are white Mormon's reverting to the mean? My impression, based on gushing articles about Utah's tech scene and its high levels of social mobility, is that white Mormon's aren't reverting to the mean of US whites, but I haven't done a deep dive in any sort of data to back up that impression.

Weird.

I thought the genius of Mormonism was that you get your own planet.

Your own planet, all populated somehow with your celestial children.

Snark aside, the bottom half of the bell curve is massively better off converting to Mormonism.

I wonder if the utilitarian/horrifying solution is to force a large percentage of the population to convert to Mormonism.

Don't play any game unless you get repeated trials.
So the goal is for both to agree, up front, on a series of follow up meetings with staff.
Then just have a formal handshake meeting.

So the data is an absolute disaster but they want us to be totally cool about it because they are sure it is not as much of a disaster as the data shows it is?

I am not sure there is much here that is comforting. But it is nice to see that they acknowledge this would not be a problem for Norwegian immigrants.

You'd think it would be professionally embarrassing for them to say, "ignore our actual results and imagine that we found something you like better," but in fact they'll probably be lauded for doing so.

Serious question; are the numbers of Latin American immigrants increasing in the past 10 years? I thought that in the past 10 years inflows and outflows of illegal immigrants were balanced, such that we have had around 11 million illegal immigrants living in the nation for the past 10 years, but I am not as sure about what has been happening with inflows and outflows. Also, does it matter to most proponents of lower levels of immigration (both illegal and legal) whether immigrants are well educated? Personally, I think that immigration of well educated people (with needed and marketable skills) is a good thing and that the country would be better off both now and in the long term from it, and I doubt that the reversion to the mean thing really happens all that much for college educated people who marry college educated people. I mean, both of my paternal grandfathers were the first in their families to graduate from college, and every single one of my aunts and uncles graduated from college, and every single one of my cousins over age 22 have graduated from college. So since I haven't seen a lot of reversion to the mean among my own family, I am somewhat skeptical that it really happens all that much in real life, and I am skeptical that it would happen for the kids of well educated immigrants. I mean, how many kids of Indian doctors don't graduate from college?

It is likely that 10 minutes of parental help with homework will go further when the parent has a PhD and works in an intellectual profession 60 hours a week, than when the parent has a grade 8 education and has done manual labour since leaving school.

Somehow that could be relevant to some interpretations which may be drawn from observation.

Doctoral degrees are awarded to about 4% of each cohort nowadays. A comfortable majority are professional credentials which would not have been referred to as 'doctorates' at a time in living memory. Only about 0.75% are receiving academic research degrees (which an additional set receiving research degrees in engineering and other vocational subjects).

Similarly, someone with an MA who works 50 hours a week in an intellectual field, or with a BA who works 45 hours a week in an intellectual field.

These people would be in a better position for 10 minutes of homework help to go far, as compared to someone with a grade 9 education or grade 10 education, working in a job that was 99% manual labour or 98% manual labour.

(Not to mention that they could more easily afford to just pay someone else to do it.)

Yo!! Happy PI Day y’all!!!

Get ready for PI second at 3-14 1:59:26 (the AM one already passed)

it may take longer for their descendants to integrate fully into the American mainstream

Maybe they don't want to integrate into the American mainstream, if such a thing even exists. The descendants of black African slaves haven't disappeared into the so-called American mainstream after over 150 years and don't seem to have any wish to do so. In reality, there's been a significant Hispanic/Mexican presence in the US for an even longer period of time. Why would integration even be desirable? If such a thing would occur, what would be an indication of it?

Are you going hardcore for PI day.??

If intermarriage is evidence of integrating into the mainstream (or at least creating a new mainstream), then there's evidence that the process is underway.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/05/18/528939766/five-fold-increase-in-interracial-marriages-50-years-after-they-became-legal

"More than a quarter of Asian newlyweds (29 percent) and Latino newlyweds (27 percent) are married to a spouse of a different race or ethnicity. Those rates go up even higher for those born in the U.S. — to 46 percent for Asian newlyweds and 39 percent for Hispanic newlyweds."

Although I would suspect those percentages would diverge a bit were you to split the groups into "White Hispanics" vs. "Non-white Hispanics", and East Asians vs. South Asians. The newlywed intermarriage rate for black Americans is only 18%.

It seems to me like the various light-skinned peoples of the world, whether Hispanic or Asian, are currently undergoing the next great expansion of whiteness in the US (the first being Germans/Irish and the second being Southern/Eastern Europeans). That process is what makes the Democratic Party's "demographic dividend" untenable. There are plenty of aspiring "new whites" to make up for the old ones.

I for one still do not consider Hungarians to be white. Sod off, Hunkies!

Maybe they are white, but not really European? Sort of like the Russians? I mean, they don't speak an Indo-European language.

Are Finns European?

Are Finns as fun to troll as Russians or Hungarians? If so, then certainly they are not. But maybe we need to revive the distinction between cultures that have embraced the "Enlightenment" and those that haven't.

You sound like you have been reading Noel Ignatiev's bullshit. Go read any of the old racialist literature and you will see that Germans, Irish, Italians, etc., were always seen as "white," though not necessarily racially "Nordic." And at sufficiently high immigration levels, they were they were seen as a cultural threat to the Anglo-Saxon character of the country.

Your prediction of a new "whitish" majority only works if the white population isn't completely overwhelmed. i.e., it will only occur if future immigration is restricted. Moreover, as newer minority groups grow in population, it's quite likely their out marriage rates will fall, preventing full amalgamation . When you're only a few percent of the population, out marriage is hard to avoid unless you stay cloistered in small, insular communities whereas at higher levels endogamous mating becomes more practical.

When you’re only a few percent of the population, out marriage is hard to avoid unless you stay cloistered in small, insular communities whereas at higher levels endogamous mating becomes more practical.

This might be true for Muslims and Asians, but not for Hispanics, which is where most of our immigrants come from. Hispanics intermarry with non-Hispanic "whites" at pretty high rates. Might have something to do with sharing a common religion (Catholicism being practiced by many "white" Americans), as well as common language roots, and other shared cultural features going back to Western Europe.

The window for real integration has been open only for a very short period that started recently: sometime after desegregation. Was it possible at all for a non-white person to truly integrate into American society before that? The white Hispanics probably did integrate in earlier periods, not in spite of being Hispanic but because of being white.

The way I see American society today (or, well, in the previous decade, when I used to live there) is that accent, culture, and mannerisms have almost completely trumped skin color when it comes to recognizing a paisan. As an Indian, and not a very dark-skinned one, hardly anyone paid any attention to me until I opened my mouth. And in big cities, no one paid any attention to me.

Of course, the way the Left is going full-bore with identity politics, all of this might come undone very soon.

For PI day I’m going to bing read O’Reilly books.

The window for real integration has been open only for a very short period that started recently: sometime after desegregation. Was it possible at all for a non-white person to truly integrate into American society before that?

See the life of Charles Curtis. I'd wager his type were more common than pure-blood Indians in 1920. LaDonna Harris (b. 1930) makes a big to-do about being Comanche, but only one of her grandparents was an actual Comanche. See also Hawaii, where people with partial polynesian ancestry have for generations outnumbered those whose background was thoroughly polynesian.

You don't think the non-assimilation of Africans been a problem?

Wasn't an option for the longest time. Blacks have had an ambivalent reaction to it's being much more of an option. Eccentric Christian names have long been common among blacks, but only around 1966 did you begin to see blacks giving their children artificial Africanisant names which sound like diseases.

I was thinking this guy was born before 1966, but it seems he was reborn in 1971, switching from the religion of the slave buyers to the religion of the slave sellers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Abdul-Jabbar#Religion_and_name

Oh, assimilation happens just fine.

It's anecdotal, but here's my story: My grandparents fled Mexico during the Mexican Revolution and started from scratch in California. My grandmother used to work on the cannery lines. They adopted their new home and became citizens (we have the naturalization papers of my grandfather and great-grandfather framed and on the wall). My mother was born in the USA, worked hard in school, became a lawyer, married a white doctor, raised kids, and we're all successful, with graduate degrees, scattered across the country. I married a woman from Germany, and I assimilate just fine with them (until I open my mouth and betray my Americanness). Heck, most people think my mother is white (just a slightly darker shade of white).

Let the kids learn English, teach them the value of applying oneself, and they assimilate easily. Really, is this any different from the Italian and Irish immigrations a century ago?

Depends. Upper caste Iberians from Mexico are qualitatively different from Salvadoran, Honduran criminals.

Italian and Irish immigration had its cost too. It took us decades to break up their mobs.

"Their mobs" were a small subset of Irish and Italians in the US. Just as Salvadoran and Honduran criminals are a small subset of Hispanics in the US.

Extra: Intelligent and well-cultured immigrant doesn't recognise his own atypical gifts and performance. News at 11.

Sure, but part of the debate in the US nowadays is whether the US should have lower levels of legal immigration of intelligent and well-educated immigrants. That is part of the unspoken subtext of the push to limit H1b visas. The spoken part is about limiting competition for white collar jobs.

H1b visas are a crock and are an invitation to abuse. If you want tech workers, give them regular green cards.

Sounds good to me, but I don't see that being offered up as a platform or policy position by any Republicans or Democrats. Trump could be proposing something like that to curb H1b visa abuse, but the more important priority for him seems to be cutting the number of legal immigrants. I mean, if Infosys or Tata had to get greencards for their employees, would they be able to profitably undercut the wages of tech workers already employed in the US? Probably not. But I don't think Google or Amazon would have any trouble paying market wages for talent from overseas.

We're trying but it takes more than 3 years to get a green card via the employment route, and in the meantime the immigrant needs to be able to work. That's what the H1-B is for.

Norcal:

a local El pollo Loco employs only spanish-speaking hispanics. They communicate in Spanish with the owners. BUT...two of the kids were discussing a problem at the register...in English. So, it looks pretty clear to me that those two kids will be assimilating pretty quickly.

They already have assimilated.

Living in SoCal and I really don't understand how people are questioning Hispanic-American (Where I live overwhelmingly Mexican) assimilation? They are the workers in our economy, go to school, are my kids best friends, and there is plenty of inter-racial marriage around here. (And many of the new Immigrants are marrying H-A citizens as well.) I wish they more H-A would be stricter on learning English for the kids but in our area they are completely assimilated and frankly are the majority population now.

Or maybe, it is because our city has 5 Catholic Churches as proof they are not assimilating?

It's proof that Mexican Catholic churches are a non-factor as a salutary influence on Mexican society.

You should check out Pittsburgh sometime. Catholics vastly outnumber protestants, and even maybe the Eastern Orthodox religions do too. And Pittsburgh is supposedly the heart of Trump Country.

It’s proof that Mexican Catholic churches are a non-factor as a salutary influence on Mexican society.

You fancy Mexican society would be like what absent the Church?

I agree, collin. I grew up in one of the many SoCal neighborhoods with a more Mexican side of town, and a more integrated side. People got successful, and moved over, and stopped identifying so much as Mexican-American.

I think this paper is documenting what is already a well-known effect, a strong Mexican-American identity is a signal of non-integration, and so not an independent variable. Nth generation Mexican-Americans disappear from the group, as Americans of mixed ancestry.

In other words, assimilation means out-marriage, so it would be helpful for the immigrant group to be attractive to the majority culture.

I think you have it backwards. In a non-racially oriented society, there is just marriage.

Maybe you can excuse "out-marriage" in an obscure journal, but you shouldn't hear it at the wedding banquet.

Politesse doesn't determine who people want to sleep with. Culturally, very few Americans are going to accept the baggage of a Muslim family. Physically, very few Americans find Central American indigenous attractive.

LOL. What a great example of bigotry in action. Do you think there is just one kind of "Muslim family?" They are all observant, none educated, let alone agnostic?

"Muslim" doesn't necessarily mean "Arab" or "Persian."

But yes, few Americans are going to marry into the baggage of an observant Muslim family.

You have slid off your own argument. Now you are just noting that American citizens sort themselves by religion at marriage.

Right, but few Americans are going to marry into the baggage of an observant Muslim family. Therefore, Muslim assimilation will be more difficult than, say, a family of Swedish Lutherans.

Strangely enough, I am a Scandinavian Lutheran who already has a Buddhist girl. Ymmv.

I think I agree about the Islam point.

I don't agree about the hotness of central americans...they are good enough for most people. If you're picky, check your T levels.

@Harun - There are attractive Iberians and also mestizos with substantial European ancestry. The indigenous look, well, indigenous.

I had some Canadian friends who visited and thought all the "Hispanic" immigrants would look like Javier Badem and, say, Xochitl Hinojosa. Boy were they surprised.

It doesn't mean out-marriage at all. Some people just grow up in the US speaking English and re-identify as white. It doesn't matter who they marry.

A lot of "white" Americans brag about their Native American ancestry. (*ahem* Elizabeth Warren)
Spain is a country in Europe.
What is the vast difference between the part-indian descendents of French fur traders and the part Indian descendents of Spanish conquistadors?

A lot of “white” Americans brag about their Native American ancestry. (*ahem* Elizabeth Warren)

No, hardly anyone does, because people who chatter about their ancestry are considered bores in most settings.

Warren's a member of the rancid little society of academics, where that pose can be status-enhancing and professionally beneficial.

HArdly anyone? As far as I can tell, anyone who has any Native American ancestry at all is proud of it.
Only for Hispanics is it supposed to be a Bad Thing.

As far as I can tell, anyone who has any Native American ancestry at all is proud of it.

You should converse with people not named 'LaDonna Harris' every once in a while.

immigrant group to be attractive to the majority culture.

What is your definition of majority culture? Most Hispanic Immigrants marry US citizens! It seems most Americans forget most Hispanic-Americans were born in the USA! Didn't Lyman Stone show the H-A baby boom of the 1980s - 2000s? So I know of H-A married couples where one spouse has parents of Immigrants (I don't know legal status) from Mexico and the other spouse has ancestry dating back to the Mexican-American war border move. So are those families assimilating? (Any view of SoCal demographics would understand the H-A populations are the majority in our area.)

Also there is fair amount of inter-racial marriage here as well and I estimate ~15% of kids at the local elementary school are mixed.

My understanding of the data is that most people who identify as Hispanic in the US are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, with 2/3 of Hispanics claiming Mexican ancestry (as opposed to Puerto Ricans, who aren't immigrants, or Cubans, or Central Americans, Dominicans, or Columbians). So the question of assimilation does make some degree of sense when it is asked about a group of people whose most immediate ancestry is outside of the country. Still, one would have to identify core norms of the country to be able to measure assimilation. I think very few people would contest English language fluency and use of English in the home as the primary language of the family as measures of assimilation, and marriage to non-Hispanics may also be a good measure as well, but beyond that, I have a hard time thinking of other measures of assimilation where there aren't huge disparities in the US between people from different regions, races, or socio-economic stations.

I suspect a lot of the issues here are the SW border states are a lot like 1900 - 1950 Boston Irish Immigration in terms of assimilation and impact on US culture. The primary difference is we forget the "Irish Need Not Apply" bigotry of the past and there were Irish culture that later US accepted. In 1920 the conservative Protestant version of Ross Douthat complained the Irish Catholics were not assimilating like the Immigrants of 1850. So in 1928 it was still unacceptable for a Catholic person to be President and by 1960 JFK won the election and we call St. Patrick Day a somewhat holiday for parades. And in SoCal Cinco De Mayo is now bigger than St. Patty day in terms of local activity. And yes many H-A elementary children will have one or two great-grandparent that was an Immigrant while other ancestry were US citizens.

And this is similar to my Irish loving mother-in-law who is proud of their Immigrant Irish Grandparents.

In 1920 the conservative Protestant version of Ross Douthat complained the Irish Catholics were not assimilating like the Immigrants of 1850.

No, more likely complained about the Church as an institution, just less militantly than the likes of Paul Blanshard. Paul Blanshard has latter-day equivalents of some consequence. Thomas Nast does not.

So in 1928 it was still unacceptable for a Catholic person to be President

Did Alfred E. Smith perform better or worse than the two previous Democratic nominees (neither of whom were tainted by Tammany affiliations)?

@Collin
I actually think that the anti-Irish bigotry looks better in hindsight than anti-Hispanic bigotry does now, as the US had a much more homogeneous culture back then such that Catholic immigrants really were bringing in an identifiably alien (to the Protestant majority) worldview. Nowadays there really isn't so much of a dominant culture, so it is hard to say how Hispanic immigrants really differ in their worldview from an America which is itself culturally fractured.

I agree with the anti-Irish Immigrant was MUCH in the past was much worse than the anti-H-A Immigrant bigotry today. In reality most of the H-A Immigrant bigotry is mostly comments and possibly unfair job interviews, etc. But in the SW border states the discrimination is fairly limited in scope in reality. (And in terms of Los Angeles local news you can tell they look at H-A as a key demographic here.)

But in terms of the claims the H-A aren't assimilating made by Conservatives like Ross Douthat or Michael Doughtery who not in the 4 border SW states or Nevada, I believe they don't know the populations and forget that their Great-Great Grandparents heard similar points against them.

and forget that their Great-Great Grandparents heard similar points against them.

FWIW, great-great granddaddy was a respected manufacturer and his obituary appeared on the front page of the local paper. Not bad for a kid from Cork. His son married into a family two counties over that was quite well-established: no potato famine migrants, but just as Catholic.

The Irish immigrant share of the U.S. population peaked at just north of 5% (where it stood in 1860 and 1870). All but an odd minority were English-speaking off the boat. See the work of the Maddison project. Their estimate of per capita product in Ireland in 1870 put it at 64% that of the United States in 1870. Their estimate of Mexico's and Syria's today put them at 30% of that of the United States and 6.7% of the United States, respectively. The anxiety concerned the Church (which, of course liberals today despise in those loci where they haven't suborned it) and concerned the corruption associated with urban machines (who were practicing social work without a license).

it may take longer for their descendants to integrate fully into the American mainstream

What counts as the "American Mainstream" ? Not only is that a moving target (generational change alone revises the definition of mainstream), but it's a subjective one. Are black, Asian, Hispanic and other ethnic communities in America "mainstream American" ? If you define American culture broadly, you could say yes, and then "assimilation" is an easier target to hit. If not, then what target exactly are you trying to get them to hit? What counts as being assimilated ? Is it just speaking English, or are there some other conditions on being considered "American mainstream"? Religious conversion to protestant Christianity? Interest in football?

We used to think joining the armed forces and swearing to protect the Constitution was a pretty good indication of integration to our values. Now we forcibly remove those people.

Seriously. Why don't we just offer the Dreamers citizenship in exchange for a 3 year stint in the military? How hard can this be?

Doesn't the military have this already for a lot of Dreamers?

"Hector Barajas, who founded the support house four years ago, has identified 350 deported U.S. veterans born in more than 30 countries, including India, Italy, Mexico and the nations of Central America. Scores have passed through the support house."

I don't know, maybe 350 is not a lot. If it is just dishonorable discharges, it might be okay. But I would say certainly if it is honorable discharge veterans expelled, that's just terrible.

There is a reduction in the natualization period from 5 to 3 years if you serve in the military, but that only applies if you are already a legal resident. Illegal aliens, dreamers include, do not count.

I, for one, favour the Starship Troopers option.

We should also have power armour. C'mon, you know it makes sense.

I recently learned that the whole thing where they use disintegrating pods for atmospheric reentry actually works. The RUssians did it that way with Yuri Gagarin.

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/why-yuri-gagarin-remains-first-man-space-even-though-he-did-not-land-inside-his

You don't need a heat shield to re-enter! Just eject and parachute the rest of the way down! It's true!

Unfortunately, you do need a heat shield. Peak thermal stress about 300kft; you can parachute safely from ~50kft.

Why don’t we just offer the Dreamers citizenship in exchange for a 3 year stint in the military? How hard can this be?

Because they're here illegally, because the military is meeting its recruitment goals, and because it's highly unlikely the quality of recruits would be improved by putting illegal aliens at the head of the queue. While we're at it, a great many people are unsuitable for the military. Since Hazel fancies soldiers have no skills, that doesn't occur to her.

Art, you are literally retarded on the subject of Dreamers. Not figuratively, literally.

Art, you are literally retarded

You've spent part of this thread appropriating my handle and then answering your own sh!tposts, an activity which actually is ... retarded.

You are also retarded on the subject of me or the 'paid interns at Mercatus' impersonating you. Wrong again, Art.

Reply to down thread:

Immigrants are not deported while serving in the military unless they have committed a crime and been discharged.

Shockingly, if you commit spousal abuse in the military you lose your visa (vast majority of these cases). Sends an important message in my opinion, but hey, I at least attempt to use a moral framework not based on race, religion, or country of origin. Domestic violence should be a disqualifying factor in renewing your visa and staying in the military, no matter how many diversity points you have. Find me the Hispanic American veteran who disagrees, and good luck finding him. You might find one being deported, for domestic violence. The 99.9% serving honorably will give you the same opinion. Send em back, they don’t deserve to wear our flag on their shoulder.

YMMV

I hope you realize that is not really data. What you did was describe hypothetical bad guys who might hypothetically be deported.

Sure, of course. I said as much above. What we don't know is how many good guys are swept up and deported under new rules.

If you don’t get citizenship in the military there is not one single excuse. The military pushes this hard. Commanding officers look good when this happens. They literally give the citizenship papers at a ceremony with mandatory attendance.

What counts as the “American Mainstream” ?

Not you.

Now hold on there, pilgrim. She's more my kind of American than you are.

Maybe you could escort her back to Saskatoon.

The idea of assimilation presupposes that you have something worthwhile that should be preserved. The fact that you have no grasp of America heritage and find the concept totally bamboozling says it all, really.

The problem here is that some people want to exclusively define American heritage as only the white parts of American heritage. But blacks and Hispanics and Asians and Native Americans, all of whom have has significant ethnic communities in the US for over 100 years, ALSO have their own heritage. My point is that that heritage is part of the American heritage. American heritage is bigger than just white European heritage. And that's a GOOD thing - that makes America better. American heritage includes diverse regional multi-ethnic cultures. What would New Orleans be without creole influence? What would the southwest be without Hispanic origins? Barbeque, which everyone thinks of as a white redneck thing today, probably was brought by black slaves imported from the carribean. (http://time.com/3957444/barbecue/)
People who think that "American heritage" only involves white guys with tricorn hats in the North-east have a really narrow view of American heritage.

The problem here is that some people want to exclusively define American heritage as only the white parts of American heritage. But blacks and Hispanics and Asians and Native Americans, all of whom have has significant ethnic communities in the US for over 100 years,

1. The aboriginal population is a tiny minority in which anomie is fairly common. Their heritage such as it is consists of languages few people speak, folk art and folklore, and some holiday rituals in which people have a mild interest. I doubt aboriginals most intent on their own heritage take much interest in defining it as a subsidiary to a generic category of 'American' heritage.

2. You'd have a hard time finding someone who would tell you that Convention Baptist and African Methodist dispensations, Gospel, R & B, black folk cuisine, and Langston Hughes are somehow to be regarded as if they were a foreign import. They might tell you that these are niche items they don't take an interest in; not everyone fancies Bluegrass either.

3. As recently as 1955, there weren't many Chicanos in the U.S. outside the Rio Grande Valley and New Mexico.

Their heritage such as it is consists of languages few people speak, folk art and folklore, and some holiday rituals in which people have a mild interest.

You must have missed the chapter in the history class about the Native American's influence on colonial America and the ideas of the founding fathers. Many of whom were influenced by observing the Native Americans and in particular the Iroqouis confederacy. (Also pirates, but that's another story.)

Hazel Meade (light beer?)

"You must have missed the chapter in the history class about the Native American’s influence on colonial America and the ideas of the founding fathers. Many of whom were influenced by observing the Native Americans and in particular the Iroquois confederacy. (Also pirates, but that’s another story.)"

The most significant legacy of the Indians of Eastern North America, in particular that of the Irouquois, was a visceral fear and hatred of the Indians, especially the Iroquois, that eventually led to their near extinction. And yes, I have read all about the impact of the Iroquois Confederacy on the Founders. I am very interested in the history of North America up to 1775 as it had an enormous impact on the founding of the US - especially 1608-1775. White descendants of Europeans had been living in NE America for 167 years before the first shots were fired at Lexington Bridge (very close to my hometown). The die was cast then and there, and subsequent generations have nibbled around the edges.

>>White guys with tricorn hats created America.

>I see, so all white people forever have a special claim on Americanness. Even if their ancestors immigrated here in 1890, long after the ancestors of blacks and Hispanics became American citizens with full civil rights. Shared racial karma, FTW!

I didn't imply any such thing - that is purely a product of your imagination, such as it is.

You must have missed the chapter in the history class about the Native American’s influence on colonial America and the ideas of the founding fathers. Many of whom were influenced by observing the Native Americans and in particular the Iroqouis confederacy. (Also pirates, but that’s another story.)

No. I didn't miss it. It was a historical fiction promoted for a few years ca. 1988. It hadn't yet infested history texts when I was in high school. A concise takedown of the thesis was published in The New Republic around that time.

American politicians active between 1763 and 1800 didn't need to puzzle over Iriquois political customs. They had their own colonial charters and institutions of government which had been under construction and in operation for a century and a half. These were in turn inspired by municipal corporations of a sort which had been present since the Medieval period in England &c.

I didn’t imply any such thing – that is purely a product of your imagination, such as it is.

Really?
Gregor: America's heritage needs to be preserved. (Presumably from the threat posed by non-white immigration)
Me: American heritage isn't just white heritage. Lots of those immigrants share a non-white American heritage.
You: White people created America! So there!

Come on now ... if you're not saying that America's heritage is white only, you are at least claiming that it's white heritage is more important.

But let's back off that for a moment. Why even interpret America's heritage through a racial lens in the first place? Who cares if those guys in tri-corn hats were white? What should matter is the values those guys fought for. Do those values have a skin color, or a race, or an ethnicity? if not, then America's heritage is not threatened by the race or the ethnicity of the people immigrating here, but by whether those values are shared by the people who are immigrating. And I would argue that the vast majority of Hispanic immigrants do fundamentally embrace the same values that those white guys in tricorn hats believed in. Because voting for Democrats is not an indelible mark of America-hatred, nor is being a Catholic, or speaking Spanish.

White guys with tricorn hats created America. You really need to read some history or stfu..

We should have taken Canada a long time ago.

White guys with tricorn hats created America.

I see, so all white people forever have a special claim on Americanness. Even if their ancestors immigrated here in 1890, long after the ancestors of blacks and Hispanics became American citizens with full civil rights.
Shared racial karma, FTW!

Sure they created it. And the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Both are vastly different things today, and better too.

I see, so all white people forever have a special claim on Americanness.

Well, that depends. We don't have any particular claim on the institutions our ancestors founded, but any social problems in various and sundry population segments in latter-day America are our fault. And there's nothing of value in our vernacular culture. And it's our obligation to allow settlement colonies of Syrians and Mexicans to set up shop here. (Because there's nothing of value in our vernacular culture and we have no claim to our institutions). Mexicans, Syrians, and Canadian spergs have options. White guys who voted for Trump have obligations.

Art, people bitching about white privilege, has not, so far, resulted in any actual legal barriers for white people getting to do what they want with their lives. Or even differential taxation of white people.

Meanwhile, there are people who have lived in America since they were pre-conscious and even served in the US military, who aren't even allowed to have jobs, and live under the daily threat of being deported to a country they don't even remember.

But poor, poor white guys. Their lives are so hard.

Art, people bitching about white privilege, has not, so far, resulted in any actual legal barriers for white people getting to do what they want with their lives. Or even differential taxation of white people.

You're not giving much thought to this, Hazel. It's public policy in this country, enforced by judicial decrees (with little or no basis in constitutional and statutory law) that civil service recruitment and promotion and berths in state colleges and universities be so ordered to distribute contrived benefits on certain mascot groups. That can only be implemented by imposing penalties on those outside those mascot groups. You can look at the Digest of Education Statistics to see what that means. College admissions (in institutions public and private) are now spectacularly corrupt. It's also gotten quite difficult to compose and administer civil service examinations. The threats from both federal agencies and ambulance chasers is such that corporate personnel have to take pro-active measures. Guess what that means?

Now, this is something which can be borne, but it is a cost. Since people you don't give a rip about are being penalized, you don't notice. I'd suggest its only human nature that people who do face costs have some irritation at them, and don't think they deserve it just because you despise them. And you do, as do the educational apparatchiks and the faculties and the purveyors of mass entertainment in this world.

Meanwhile, there are people who have lived in America since they were pre-conscious and even served in the US military, who aren’t even allowed to have jobs, and live under the daily threat of being deported to a country they don’t even remember. But poor, poor white guys. Their lives are so hard.

You're under the illusion that you're arguing for kindness, rather than simply reporting to us the caricatures you carry around with you in your head. At least propaganda posters have some art in them, Hazel.

But you make explicit your subscription to the status hierarchies of our time, which incorporates what the disreputable Mr. Sailer calls 'leapfrogging loyalties'.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the American nation, not "America" in a vague continental sense. America the nation has its roots in the original English colonies and the extensions thereof. Your minimization of the European foundations of America ("the white parts") is an outrageous distortion of history given that, for better or worse, the nation was founded by whites and was about 85% white even as late as the 1960s.

"... that makes America better."

It makes America different, but there's no iron law that it *must* get better, which is a matter of perspective in any case. The likely outcome of the world colonization of America will be a convergence toward the global average (i.e., shitty) plus the disadvantage of disunity and lack of coherent social tradition. You could call that a "new" America and in your opinion it might be superior (because there would be fewer white people which to you is axiomatically an improvement) but it won't have much continuity with the great American nation of 1776 through the mid 20th century. The globalist-multicultural path will be a repeat of the failed multiracial societies of Latin America. To see the long envied and admired American nation suffer such a fate would the greatest tragedy since the fall of Rome. But I don't think it's going to come to that since the globalists are going to lose.

Hazel Meade,

You are most certainly very dense.

You said:
"People who think that “American heritage” only involves white guys with tricorn hats in the North-east have a really narrow view of American heritage."

I said "White guys in tricorn hats created America." Which is absolutely true. They were mostly English, Irish, Scottish, and some German and Dutch. They were fiercely independent and, for the most part, internalized enlightenment values. The lived in NE America for 167 years as self-employed farmers, craftsmen, businessmen, etc. They had been fighting Indians, especially on the frontier, from 1608 (Jamestown) until 1775 (Lexington). The wars included, but are not limited to, King Phillip's War, the War of the Austrian Succession, The French and Indian War (aka the Seven Years War), and a pan Indian rebellion all the way up to 1775. Then the Revolution from 1775 to 1783. All white guys in tricorn hats. Neither the black slaves in the south, nor the Indians in N. America, nor all the Indians in Latin America under Spanish rule, nor the remaining French in Canada, nor the Chinese in China, nor the Indians in India, nor any of the Arab or Persians in the Middle East had any input into the Constitutional Convention. It was strictly the brainchild and hard work of the white guys in tricorn hats and all of the history that made them who they were. As a result, we have a Constitution like no other, including those of Britain, France, Canada, Australia or any other nation on this Earth. You can read Zinn until your eyeballs pop and I don't give a f*ck. Any immigrants into our nation need to respect our laws or get the f*ck out, including our immigration laws. We will give dreamers a pass since their status is not their fault. They will not be deported. Others can ask permission to enter, and we may grant that permission, but if they plan on introducing some other system of law, like say, Sharia Law, they are not welcome.

If you don't like it, you can hightail your a$$ back to the cold place up north without free speech.

Because of measurement issues and data limitations, Mexican Americans in particular and Hispanic Americans in general probably have experienced significantly more socioeconomic progress beyond the second generation than available data indicate. Even so, it may take longer for their descendants to integrate fully into the American mainstream than it did for the descendants of the European immigrants who arrived near the turn of the twentieth century.

Prior to the 2d World War (really, prior to 1964), there was little in the way of a body of law which truncated freedom of association. People were included or excluded according to the preferences of private parties and the decisions of those parties were not subject to the officious ministrations of lawyers. Also, a celebration of the margins wasn't incorporated into public policy, into the assumptions of those employed to govern institutions, or into popular culture and mass entertainment. You may have seen flashes of it, but flashes were all you saw. A man like Anton Cermak might say, "I didn't come over on the Mayflower, but I came over as soon as I could". That endorses a common project and joining that project, not shaking your fist at the founders of that project.

You don't have to invite your black neighbour over for tea, but if you will open a tea shop to the public it must be open to black people.

but if you will open a tea shop to the public it must be open to black people.

Because it causes Nathan agita to contemplate a world in which your tea shop was actually your tea shop. That was the world into which my parents were born.

No more than the agita it causes you to be decent to people no matter their color or origin.

More typical vicious slander from this guy.

Coming from someone who supports race and sex based legal discrimination...

If my tea shop is my tea shop, I should have the right to purchase china from, well, China, without having to pay special taxes on it.

What's you priority, Art? The right to not tell tea to black people, or the right to buy it from Chinese people?

If my tea shop is my tea shop, I should have the right to purchase china from, well, China, without having to pay special taxes on it.

1. A franchise to be relieved of taxation does not derive from principles of freedom of contract.

2. You cannot construct any tax system without allocating burdens. You can argue the allocation is unfair, but there must always be an allocation.

3. There is no palpable physical entry onto your premises when the wholesale price of tea goes up or down (and it may go up or down for reasons quite irrelevant to the tax code).

4. You're not compelled to buy Chinese tea. The wholesale price of the tea is one component of the trade-offs you consider in operating your shop. Baronelle Stutzman has been hit with a six-figure sum in costs and may be forced out of business for declining to contract with a straw plaintiff. Not that the welfare of someone outside your chosen mascot group interests you in the least.

Ok, so let's say we pass a law making it legal to refuse service to black people, but only if you pay a special racism tax. Are you happy with that?

Ok, so let’s say we pass a law making it legal to refuse service to black people, but only if you pay a special racism tax. Are you happy with that?

No. Tea can be defined by weight, type, and value. You assess the tax on one of those properties. Now try defining 'racism' and the circumstances under which you can 'refuse service' without penalty. You've got the same compliance costs you have now, the same officious entry by lawyers.

Who cares? What is the difference, morally , between taxing someone for buying products from foreigners and taxing someone for not selling products to Americans of the wrong skin color? If your tea shop is your tea shop, buying and not selling are both equivalent forms of social interaction, they are both equivalent freedom of association, freedom of contract, rights. But apparently YOU, Art, think the IMPORTANT right is the one that involves being a douchebag to Americans who have a skin color you don't like.

Who cares? What is the difference, morally , between taxing someone for buying products from foreigners and taxing someone for not selling products to Americans of the wrong skin color? If your tea shop is your tea shop, buying and not selling are both equivalent forms of social interaction, they are both equivalent freedom of association, freedom of contract, rights. But apparently YOU, Art, think the IMPORTANT right is the one that involves being a douchebag to Americans who have a skin color you don’t like.

The difference isn't that difficult to understand, but it's not in your interest at this moment to understand it.

For anyone other than Hazel, I'd point out that someone doing business does not control their environment. They interact with it and do not have enforceable entitlements due from parties that haven't agreed to them either formally or constructively. A tax is part of the matrix within which you work. It may be fair or not fair. It may in its specific application be in your interest or not in your interest. It is only unjust in essence for those who've climbed into the anarchist / Objectivist box car and gone over the cliff.

Taxes are classified by national income accountants as those assessed on 'production and imports' and 'personal taxes'. A 'racism' tax would be a personal tax assessed by people like Hazel and Nathan on those with manners or social viewpoints of which they do not approve. If I suggested we place excises on pornography, there's no doubt that would get Hazel's libertarian back up and Nathan would be upset that the price of stroke books had increased.

But apparently YOU, Art, think the IMPORTANT right is the one that involves being a douchebag to Americans who have a skin color you don’t like.

You keep confusing me with Z-Man and Anti-Gnostic (neither of whom, bless 'em, have anywhere near the trouble you do at getting someone's point, even if they do despise blacks). My concern is multi-fold: that public accommodations law empowers lawyers, that it disrupts the process by which antagonistic social groups reach some kind of modus vivendi with eachother (and that, in turn, is a consequential part of immigrant reception), and it's a tool in the hands of privileged political interests. The legal profession, particular the judiciary, is happy to be the gay lobby's bitch and enforces their vendettas against harmless people like Baronelle Stutzman. Your idea of a sympathetic person isn't a merchant who wants out of the burlesques of our time. Your idea is some clown like Rachel Dolezal. No one can help you, Hazel. You'll always be you, and it's too bad.

My concern is multi-fold: that public accommodations law empowers lawyers, that it disrupts the process by which antagonistic social groups reach some kind of modus vivendi with eachother (and that, in turn, is a consequential part of immigrant reception), and it’s a tool in the hands of privileged political interests.

Public accomodations laws empower lawyers, but tarriffs on international trade don't? You realize that there is a vast lobbying apparatus devoted to the manipulation of trade policy for the sake of domestic political interests, right? And how does the application of tariffs not "disrupt" the process by which economic interactions reach a pareto optimal equilibrium? And how is that okay, but public accomodations interfering in racial groups interactions isn't? You think it's of crucial importance that a handful of white racists be allowed to exclude blacks from restaurants because you claim (dubiously) that it is somehow important to improve interracial social harmony that they be allowed to do so, and yet you don't think that the distributed economic costs of imposing tariffs on foreign trade, the rent-seeking, and the cronyism is worth mentioning.

but tarriffs on international trade don’t? You realize that there is a vast lobbying apparatus devoted to the manipulation of trade policy for the sake of domestic political interests, right?

Not, particularly, no. Tariff schedules are quite modest and Trump's gambits are unlikely to change that. There are reams and reams of special interest carve-outs in trade treaties, but they're not much concerned with tariff schedules.

Hazel Meade: world's worst libertarian, world's worst rhetorician, or Canada's lousiest export? Yes.

"... who wants out of the burlesques of our time." A well-turned phrase, that captures so much more than the baker-who-must-bake-all-the-cakes business. Gives me a useful heading under which to file a pretty constant stream of observations.

"Hazel Meade: world’s worst libertarian, world’s worst rhetorician, or Canada’s lousiest export? Yes."

More typical vicious slander from this guy.

Loves to dish it out, can't take it

When dealing with crucial topics like these, is there any middle ground between Stupid and Nazi? It appears not. I guess being Jewish I should be happy that we're mostly picking Stupid, but I still find it depressing.

Comments for this post are closed