Todays headline in the Netherlands: 'illegal Poles take jobs of painters'. So they can paint as well as plumb.

I'm sure that you and David Cohen have stumbled across "nativist" who hold such easily refutable views. Most "nativist" that I listen to hold that immigrants are not necessarily "blank slates" to be molded by the pre-existing culture, but instead bring with them the culture they are from and that can have positive AND NEGATIVE effects. Thus it is important to control immigration to those groups that are more likely to benefit our society and to exclude those who will have a negative effect.

h-man:

And which immigrant group in America over the past hundred and fifty years had a negative effect?

Logic and the BNP have never been close friends.

If all the 20ish Polish plumbers look like the guy in the Polish Plumber Tourist ad, the birthrate in the UK may have an upward thrust in about a year of so.

All kidding aside, the keyword in this article is, I believe, they come to work. Refreshing that.

Peter

Mestizos, Black Africans, to give an example. Higher crime rates, lower productivity, greater strain on public services when welfare is available. Poorer performance in school, both academically and behaviorily.

(I might add that this holds true past the 1st generation) Furthermore results in European Countries (including British Isles) are the same as in America. The results regarding Mestizos can't be duplicated precisely because the US is the only country receiving them as immigrants in large numbers. However one can surmise by viewing results in their home countries such as Mexico, Brazil that the same phenomonen is occurring. (which would also suggest language is a non issue)

Compare the results of those two groups with results from immigration of European, and East Asians and South Asians would show that with the latter three groups there is practically nil effect on crime rates, a big increase in productivity and entrepreneural behavior, and minimum strain on public services.

OJ, himself is confused since on previous posts he has pointed out that one of the major "advantages" that Finland has is a homogeneous population.

My view is that whether immigrants are benefit or a drain on their host country depends a lot more on the culture and laws of the host country than on the immigrants. I fould find it quite plausible that the same set of immigrants would benefit the UK while draining France.

One of the reasons immigrations succeed is because of the pressure created by the nativists for immigrants to assilimate and to reduce immigration once too much arrives to quickly assimilate.

The problems with current immigration boils down to:

1) The replacement of the melting pot for multiculturalism, and its subsequent failure

2) That the current wave of immigration is overwhelmingly from one nation creating fears about sovereignty and the future role of English

3) The symapthy for citizens on the border who are threatened by the rampant illgeal entries over their property

4) The obvious and complete refusal by both parties to listen to the people on this issue is creating intense suspicion on whom the govt serves

"Polish Plumber" sounds like s0mething that should be related to the "Rear Admiral" and the "Wet Willie".

(So why did I have to modify one word above? If you are going to add a content filter, could you add it to the Preview, too?)

People can be assets, but, as AOG and h-man point out, conditions need to be right for that to be true.

Capital and land can be assets, as well, but only if there's enough production capacity to take advantage of their availability.

Yeah - OJ - what's up with s-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g being caught up in your filter?

"s0mething" is a compound word and thus a product of the secular collectivist rotten European society. Contractions too.

H: So, to clarify, you're saying that Mestizos and African-Americans are genetically inferior?

David
Doesn't have to go genetics or statements of inferiority. One could say their culture, attitude, religion, traditions, are not suitable for the type society that we might want in this country.

Odd that you jump to the use of the word inferior since that is a value judgement that isn't necessary when describing choices people make as to the lifestyle they want. Is an Italian inferior to a German if he decides he would rather have a two hour lunch instead of a one hour lunch? No, but you could say that consistent choices of that nature will have the result of less productivity. Therefore when the American public exercises a choice as to the Nationalities they want to immigrate they can decide based on the type culture from which the immigrant is immigrating and the actions of the previous immigrants who are already in America.

I think we are capable of choosing productive immigrants as opposed to those that are not as productive. Also those that tend to abide by the law as opposed to those who don't.

What possible objection could you have if I choose admission of immigrants weighted in favor of a particular group, since your position is that they are all equal anyway.

H: Come on, be serious:

Higher crime rates, lower productivity, greater strain on public services when welfare is available. Poorer performance in school, both academically and behaviorily.

(I might add that this holds true past the 1st generation)

Was it the multi-generational criminality, stupidity or laziness that you feel is neither genetic or value-laden?

"The flexible nature of the term mestizo during the Spanish colonial period of 1530-1750, along with the varying treatment toward these people, defends the idea that race is not biological. Instead, it is a socially constructed concept developed by those who wish to maintain power and organization." The">http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/webpages/andean2k/conquest/mestizo.html">The Origin of Race

Perhaps Mestizos, like Russian peasants and Black slaves were bred to be docile and strong of back. Aggressive males were removed from the gene pool and over the generations those characteristics declined.

Conversely, Muslim males have been bred for mindless violence and after 700 generations, they've become the unthinking killing machines we are fighting today.

David

Is there more criminality (or less productivity) in 2nd, 3rd, whatever generation of the two groups I named or is there not?

Regardless of Genetics, I think one could say that allowing Ashkenazim Jews instead of West African Negroes to immigrate to America would have different results than the reverse.

In the first case we would have more chess champions and synagogues and in the second case we would have more sprinters and criminality. And yes that would hold up in the future generations.

And you're saying that synagogues and chess champions are better than sprinters and criminals?

h-man

I can't tell you how much your response makes me regret not having made it clear that I was asking a rhetorical question. Are we now to engage in a rollicking, detailed discussion of all our favourite racial and cultural prejudices, notably about those who were kidnapped and enslaved? I pass, but I trust you won't take silence as agreement, although feel free to take it as speechlessness.

I have to wonder how you and Michael et. al. would have viewed the teeming immigrant communities of the Lower East Side in the first half of the 20th century. Crime, illiteracy, unemployment, political corruption, home-country feuds, strange smells and sounds, lack of order and sanitation, babbling in foreign tongues, ethnic tensions, etc. Presumably you would have declared them all unproductive, negative cultural influences and shipped them all back, no?

David:

You guys haven't done too badly, but don't get too comfy because we're still watching. You're all on probation until you produce a sprinter from a synagogue.

Been there, done that.

David

I didn't say that, but Yes I think so. You think the statement I made was inacurate?
(btw, of the 500 fastest times ever recorded in the 100 meter distance 499 are West Africans or descendants there of, from Canada, US, Brazil, Carribean)

Peter

"Viewed the lower east-side.." etc. Certainly after the fact the results of that entire mix you describe would show that it was a major plus for our country and for myself as a free-rider. I would like to think that would have been prescient enough to see that. But I'm sure that would have been willing to commit myself to a judgement and not been cowered by others to simply accept a "politically correct" opinion.

If that "teeming immigrant community" had been Mexican Mestizos instead of Eastern Europeans, would the country be better off economically than it is now or less so? Your call. Or you can remain mute. And I apologize for causing you regret.

h-man;

But how can you believe you would have been prescient enough when you have forced your mindset into judging immigrants on their loyalty, skills and productivity the moment they arrive, and would have compared those skills against the most recent economic reports of the Federal Reserve as to the country's "needs"? My goodness, man, even old-fogey conservatives understood they needed a generation at least to adapt and acculerate. If you were a novelist writing about the immigrant experience, it would be bloody short. Fit in fast or sayonara!

And if Michael is there, I might ask him how he plans to craft an immigration policy that not only violates the almost unanamous, hard-won public consensus and revulsion against racism, but also dovetails instantaneously with the latest economic prognosis of the WSJ or whatever authority he recognizes.

The answer to your question, h-man, is yes.

Peter

Your original "rhetorical" question which I decided to answer seriously was slightly insulting in that it challenged my original point that there are positive and negative effects of immigration and that not all immigrant groups are the same nor are they equally productive.

Recently I have seen posts on the web indicating that West Africans were committing very heinous crimes in the Unitied Kingdom. That combined with the recent bombings, led me to think that if such immigrant groups were not allowed in to Britain, but instead other groups perhaps they wouldn't be as likely to engage in criminal activity. For instance Chinese. For instance Poles (as contained in your original post) would be less likely to commit such crimes. Apparently you think that observation is "over the top".

Your interpretaion of the "hard won consensus and revulsion against racism" means that we not only accept all groups as equal under the law but also as identical and indistinguishable. I'm not part of that consensus.

Pete B:

How did you get all those inferences of racism and distain for hoi polloi from a simple statement that people without the means to be productive aren't assets ?

That's Econ 101, eh ?

The U.S.' current immigration policy leans heavily on selecting the quick and the lucky.

It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to craft a more reasonable one.

The biggest problem is that the American people like pretending that America isn't taking in two million immigrants a year, and that the U.S. gov't is somehow in control of both the borders, and who comes to the States.

Michael:

Apologies for that sloppy juxtaposition. You are right, it's not.

But I fear your functional, exclusively economic approach to immigration may lead you into strange company, especially with it's emphasis on immediate paybacks and "fitting asset "A" into demand "B"" logic. Obviously if we insist that all immigrants be a net gain from the day of their arrival, we're going to look to those that are the most culturally similar and eschew the more exotic. Or we'll start being impressed with the case for restricting where they can work or live.

Of course there are limits to "anybody, anytime", but the practical aspects of an intelligent immigration policy shouldn't submerge the opening ethos--we're offering freedom and opportunity, not hiring servants. My, goodness, have you rejected the classic American dream, the "Give me your poor, your tired, etc..." faith? On your knees, man!

H: Yes, the fastest people alive are Americans and Canadians. Somewhat surprising, to those who know us best.