Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind!

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

K. Larson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:39:09 -0000

I find the confidence in the competitiveness of modern, liberal values heart-warming. Unfortunately, the longer I live in a distinctly foreign, illiberal culture (Mainland China) the more I lose confidence in this basic assumption.

Typically, I'm suspicious of argumentation via personal annecdote; but I've seen far too many Chinese youth (including exchange students studying for long periods in the West) roundly reject modern, liberal principles in favor of traditional, authoritarian, ethnocentric beliefs. I think it's a cornerstone of modern liberalism that the fruits of post-Enlightenment thinking are so mind-blowingly obvious that no one could fail to be persuaded. It is a source of terrible existential discomfort to find out otherwise. I do, however, think that if you believe that liberalism can take all comers in all venues, then you don't get out enough.

Despite all of this, as the US-citizen spouse of a non-citizen, I'm tremendously pro-immigration. While I don't believe that freedom will necessarily out-compete tyranny, I do believe in the fundamental virtue of the immigrant. Immigration is, in a way we can barely understand, a drastic psychological trial that self-selects exclusively for those who are willing to entertain the possibility that one way-of-life might be superior to their own. Tellingly, all of people I've met who have rejected modern liberalism are still here (in China).

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

Ace of Sevens — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:15:25 -0000

Didn't Los Angeles start as a Mexican city (thus the name)? The white people are the immigrants who got it all changed and brought their crazy movie industry and stuff.

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

RandomObservation — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:28:29 -0000

"The inestimable Kerry Howley’s outstanding Reason cover piece on fertility panics is now online. Like the typical Howley production, this is a super-readable combo of fascinating facts and trenchant analysis. Kerry’s great on why talk about “desired fertility” is silly, but I think she’s most insightful on the cultural aspects of fertility policy:"

Sure it is a great piece but shouldn't you add a little disclaimer :)
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/about/
http://kerryhowley.com/bio/

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

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

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

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

"I am interested in what is right."

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

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

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

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

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

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

plugger — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:55:07 -0000

"I think we were a lot better off last century getting Italians, Poles, and Jews than we are now getting Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. Judging by the history of those European nationalities, they seem to have more, um... "social capital".

Woah.

And why not? Do you believe they're biologically inferior, perhaps? At least the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans already speak a language spoken in about 1/3 of Californian homes and about 10% of US homes overall, unlike your Italians, Poles and Jews who spoke a hodge-podge of unknown tongues, and were usually poorer and less well educated than modern immigrants. Hell! Millions of 'em (according to Henry Cabot Lodge) were illiterate!

You're looking, today, at the great wave early twentieth century immigrants after 3 generations. While Cahal, Giuseppe, Alesky and Aaron were herding their wives and pinch-faced brood off the boats at Ellis Island, the good Anglo-German-Danish stock already in residence were lamenting the pathetic quality of this latest boat load and begging their leaders for limits.

After all, this latest lot simply couldn't possibly bring .. ahem ...the same 'social capital' as THEIR grandparents

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

mghertner — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:13:52 -0000

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

Again, as I pointed out before, the problem with using inequality as a sign of bad things in the immigration debate is that inequality is often a meaningless artifact of measurement choices, not a sign that any particular person is being made worse off. You seem to not understand this point, because you keep repeating the same error.

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

Of course, my goal here is not to "win a debate with the public", i.e. make politically popular pronouncements. I am not interested in appeals to the majority. I am interested in what is right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plugger — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:37:55 -0000

Sheesh - "Bonus Army march on Washington of 1932".

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

plugger — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:12:49 -0000

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

Not according to the stats I've seen! According to Census data, the foreign born population of the United States only fell below 5% once, in 1970, and then it was 4.7%. Between 1930 and 1950 there was a pause, but I'd point out that for 5 of those years the country was rather preoccupied, and even then immigration was still a feature of national policy, and immigration on a (relatively) massive scale. Besides - that's 20 years out of more than 150 now.

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

Wow. Just...wow.

No. Please. Do tell. Be specific.

You mean the riots? Never heard of the Irish anti-draft riots of the 1860s? Or the Bonus Army march on Washington of 1832? Riots are bad, mmmkay. But they're a result of grievance. Not a consequence of race?

Economics? LA is doing fine. Detroit's in a mess, but so are a host of other rust belt cities.

In LA -- which I know better than Detroit -- I see a vibrant and diverse city with all the troubles that attend megapolises all over the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mghertner — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:42:47 -0000

We owe certain things to our citizens that we do not owe to the world at large.

Why? Where does this special moral obligation to people born within the same arbitrarily defined political borders come from? And why doesn't this same moral obligation not extend to people born outside those arbitrarily defined borders? How is this not just bigotry based on nationality, as opposed to bigotry based on race?

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

mghertner — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:39:05 -0000

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

But this just takes us back to the question of evidence, and the fact that there is no evidence that an influx of immigrants from Mexico, China, or Pakistan has made the laws and dominant mores (and economic conditions) of America reflect those of present-day Mexico, or China, or Pakistan. So your claim is just false, absent any evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

Wow. Just...wow.

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

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

mghertner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

mghertner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:17:02 -0000

This:

That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.

Followed by this:

But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world.

Freedom through unfreedom. The disconnect is delicious. What kind of bastion of freedom is a country that punishes people for wanting to take part in that very same freedom? Not a country worth preserving.

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

plugger — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:10:11 -0000

An' lemme come back at you with a quote from Uncle Kracker -

'If Heaven ain't alot like Detroit
I don't wanna go
If Heaven ain't alot like Detroit
I just a soon stay home
If they ain't got no Eight Mile
Like they do up in the D
Just send me to Hell or Salt Lake City
It would be about the same to me'

'Blacks' did nothing to Detroit that the redemptive power of hip-hop can't fix.

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

plugger — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:02:10 -0000

"But I'll engage."

You accept the charge! Then let's proceed to trial.

"We either had limited immigration from those groups to begin with or we virtually shut down immigration after a period of time to allow those groups to assimiliate[sic] ..."

woah! Let's suspend the trial on the charge of 'racism' for a moment, and instead turn my attention to a charge of "ignorance".

At it's peak (1900-1911) the US was expanding it's population, each year, by a whole 1% due to immigration. Between 1850 and 1920, the rate never fell below 0.5%. That's a rate of growth. Cumulative. That's not 'limited immigration'. That means that, over a 25 year period, more than 20% of the population was foreign born! in some parts of the country - New York, Boston -- the percentage was much, much higher. The United States experienced a wave of immigration on an enormous scale between about 1850 and 1930, from nations with no democratic or even 'northern european' connection what-so-ever.

'of Mexicans changed Los Angeles, or of blacks changed Detroit'

How exactly have these places changed? Other than there now being more dark skins on the street? New York and Boston changed in the same way. Lots of dark, swarthy skins. Strange food, Lots of 'Know Nothings', 'Sons of the American West", and so on.

Pittsburgh, and West Virginia. Also 'changed'. Only in those places -- being largely white -- we are reminded of the decline of American manufacturing. Or don't you know your recent US History?

Well - I take it back. You don't know if you're a racist. I know you talk like one, act like one, and think like one.

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

ziel — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:40:53 -0000

We observe a great disparity of wages between 'rich' and 'poor' countries. It's basically this(and, of course, the fall of transportation costs).that motivates immigration from one country to another. Until the wages for the same job are equalized, there will be this movements.

Yes, of course. That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.

When wages 'equalize' between the U.S. and Mexico, there will still be well over 5 billion people in the world determined to equalize them further. There is no end. This is fine if wage parity across the globe is your primary goal. But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world, this is a most unsatisfactory outcome.

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

mghertner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:18 -0000

Eventually, in these sorts of discussions, the real motives of right-wing nationalists, immigration restrictionists, and pro-natalists shine through. They are not interested in preserving any coherent notion of Western liberalism. They are interested in promoting racism, xenophobia, and segregation.

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

mghertner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:49 -0000

This is exactly what Kahane feared most, which is why he also advocated physically forcing Arabs out if they didn't leave voluntarily.

Which is exactly why, as I've written elsewhere, if implementation of Kahane's strategy is necessary for Judaism and Israel's survival, then the Jewish People and Israel have no right to exist, and it is a good thing if they fade away into the dustbin of history. Placing the continued existence of ethnic/national groups above all other values is, pace Godwin, precisely the logic of You Know Who. And I say that as both a Jew and the son of an Israeli mother.

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

mghertner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:52 -0000

Chris,

Actually I would say that Putnam's findings are relevant to the discussion, as social trust is a fundamental requirement to a functioning society and civic involvement is necessary for democracy.

Sure, social trust at some level is a fundamental requirement to a functioning society, but that doesn't mean that decreases from a given level of social trust spell societal doom. Further, as mixed ethnic groups stay mixed for long enough periods of time, the distinctions between the groups gradually wither away, so I see no reason to fear a long term decline in social trust as a result of pluralism. Again, to repeat what I wrote earlier,

Suppose that we found Putnam's same results when it came to the issue of racial integration in the U.S. The entry of middle-class black families into white neighborhoods may have encouraged social isolation, distrust, lower levels of confidence in local government and media, less involvement in local voluntary groups, lower voting rates, and lower levels of expressed happiness. Would any of that be a reason to maintain laws supporting continued segregation?

First off, what the restrictionist (and most Americans) are concerned about is not so much the global level of liberalism as about the level of liberalism in this country. Making us less liberal by importing illiberals is not what we're after, even if we increase the global level of liberalism by partially liberlizing the immigrants.

But that is just insane, a strange fetishistic attachment to meaningless statistical metrics. Who cares if illiberalism in what we arbitrarily call U.S. national territory increases if this just means that U.S. born citizens remain just as liberal as before and immigrants from illiberal cultures are now included in our statistical metrics, some of who became more liberal in the process? That is a pareto improvement in the level of liberalism of actual people measured, and a meaningless decrease in the level of liberalism in an arbitrarily defined place. If the restrictionists and most Americans think places are important and not people, they are simply confused.

Often this is harmless (music and such), but rules and laws that are made to accomodate illiberals (eg, women-only hours at gyms, speech codes, allowances for polygamy) are on the books for everyone.

None of these things are necessarily illiberal. The Jewish community center my parents belong to offers women-only hours at the swimming pool so that Orthodox Jewish women can exercise in the modesty they desire. I don't see this as illiberal; it is a function of pluralism and expands peoples' opportunity sets without clearly making anyone worse off. Owners of private property, such as private universities, should be free to establish speech codes; to say otherwise is to deny property owners the freedom to control their property as they deem appropriate; i.e. it would be illiberal for the government to ban speech codes on private property. So too with polygamy. There is nothing necessarily illiberal with the institution of plural marriage itself; there is something illiberal with bans upon it.

but if X is >600 million, we become a majority illiberal country!

Yes, this is conceivably possible, but not likely. No one sane fears that this is going to happen.

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

Renato Drumond — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:10:11 -0000

Chris in Baltimore, no doubt that immigrants change the receptor country. Which is, by the way, the point that Will's doing

But I think it's important to understand the immigration phenomenon: why this people are leaving their countries? The majority of them don't make that decision by pretending to alter the receptor culture, it is a unintended consequence of their move. The primary concern is the search of a better life.

We observe a great disparity of wages between 'rich' and 'poor' countries. It's basically this(and, of course, the fall of transportation costs).that motivates immigration from one country to another. Until the wages for the same job are equalized, there will be this movements.

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

homer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:56:59 -0000

Here we go again. Kick the rock of 'culture' over and a thousand racist cockroaches scuttle about.

Not very nice, plugger, not nice at all.

But I'll engage. It is true that their is a lot of interracial/interethnic hooking up going on in the entirely atypical cities of San Francisco and San Jose (the 'Ho as it is know to those who escape it). But even there the reality of race sets in. Check the number of white male -asian female v. white female - asian male couples . Likewise check black-male /white female v. black female -white male. Then look at marriage stats -- hooking up ain't quite getting marriage, which is not to say their aren't a lot of interracial marriages in Cali, just that they are less common than one would expect. Final point, I wouldn't, mind all this if the geneflow wasn't all one way. There is about zero immigration into China, India, Mexico (except for those who are much like mexicans phenotypically) and sub-Saharan Africa. What is happening is not some great mix of everyone everywhere, it is the continual entry of non-whites from relatively less successful societies (except in terms of reproduction) into those created by whites -- not only the US but the UK, Australia, Northern Europe.

Sorry, but I don't think ethno/racial suicide is a requirement for morality. Maybe the US needs a two state solution -- one for you virtuous cosmopolitans and one for us 'roaches' who want to be who we are. Give us Oregon and NoCal, you can have the Bay Area, the 'Ho and points south.

Oh, and yeah, Zimbabwe is just a shining example of the absorption of English common law, ditto Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Sierra Leone ...