November 27, 2011

Shocking News

From the NYT comes one of those Local News articles about The Gap that are always breathlessly reported as if local disparities reflect some unique problem:
In New York, Mexicans Lag in Education 
By KIRK SEMPLE 
In the past two decades, the Mexican population in New York City has grown more than fivefold, with immigrants settling across the five boroughs. Many adults have demonstrated remarkable success at finding work, filling restaurant kitchens and construction sites, and opening hundreds of businesses. 
But their children, in one crucial respect, have fared far differently. 
About 41 percent of all Mexicans between ages 16 and 19 in the city have dropped out of school, according to census data. 
No other major immigrant group has a dropout rate higher than 20 percent, and the overall rate for the city is less than 9 percent, the statistics show.

I find "9 percent" implausibly low, but, whatever.
This crisis endures at the college level.

How exactly is it a "crisis" if it "endures?" There's very little evidence that Mexican-Americans en masse consider their children's or grand-children's or great-grandchildren's relative lack of education to be a crisis. 

Much of the punditry on immigration coming out of the dominant NY-DC Axis of Obliviousness assumes that immigration from Mexico is a brand new phenomenon, so the future is wide open. Anything could happen! To New York journalists, the most plausible model would be Mexicans as not the new Jews, but at least as the new Italians. After all, their names sometimes end in vowels, so they must be pretty similar. Thus, we should be seeing tons of Mexican-American Scalias, Mondavis, Gianninis, Scorseses, Giamattis, Coppolas, and Paglias any day now.

From a Southwestern U.S. perspective, however, as amply documented by social science research, none of this looks like a crisis, a crossroads where something has to change. Instead, a relative lack of education among Mexican-Americans just looks like Situation Normal for at least four or five generations at a stretch. 

71 comments:

Bostonian said...

Judging from the NYT comments section, lots of their readers "get it", even if their writers do not.

Anonymous said...

Sailer acts like all the immigrants who came before Mexicans were ultra-gifted geniuses. None of them came to the U.S because they were unemployed. None came because they were starving - all those Irish geniuses who came to America came because they were after adventure and the fact that they haven't produced any geniuses yet is because they are too busy enjoying the New World. All those Jews who were denied entry into the U.S in the beggining of the 20th century on the account that they were too unintelligent were the exception, you see. All others were geniuses I tell you! All those Sicilians were just faking that they couldn't read or write or do basic arithmatic. This is unlike the Mexican immigrants who REALLY can't. The Sicilians were just faking it! You keep the anti-immigration struggle alive, Sailer! They are truly an unique case in American history of an incompetent people being allowed to immigrate to the U.S. All white American, you see, has the genetic potential of a Beethoven or Newton and the Mexicans are duds!

DW said...

Every now and then, the New York Times posts a worthwhile article.

This is not one of those times.

Doug1 said...

Yeah even new york times readers. Was running something like 5 to 1 against winking at illegal mexican immigration, and there was tons of talking about what this is costing us.

I'm sure that illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants are net tax eaters over the course of their lives in this country.

Anonymous said...

"remarkable success at finding work, filling restaurant kitchens and construction sites"--hilarious condescension in the lede, likely to be lost completely on their irony-proof UWS readership.

Anonymous said...

Oddly, this same sort of thing occurs in NJ! What's next?!

morleysafer said...

"said Karina Sosa, 22, a Mexican-American undergraduate at Baruch College and an education activist" -- heh, 99% indeed

PublicSphere said...

Steve, I'm dismayed to find that your 6/1/2008 review of Telles and Ortiz at VDARE.com is strangely truncated:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/roll-over-michael-barone-even-fourth-generation-mexicans-are-failing

Is this a casualty of the new website design?

Fortunately, the UCLA Chicano Research Center has preserved a PDF copy of the whole thing:

http://www.chicano.ucla.edu/center/documents/2008-VDare_June01.pdf

I guess all publicity is good publicity!

Nanonymous said...

Judging from the NYT comments section, lots of their readers "get it", even if their writers do not.

It's even more than that: their "Readers' Recommendations" selection (most liked comments) gets it 100% - no exceptions. The inevitable conclusion is that an overwhelming majority of the liberally biased NYT readership does not subscribe to the Blank Slate and is against open borders. It's like with the affirmative action: almost everyone is against yet elites still shove shove it down everyone's throat.

morleysafer said...

UCLA site now providing web hosting for numerous VDARE articles, I see (while csii.usc.edu manages just 1 lousy Powerpoint slide)

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

"Many adults have demonstrated remarkable success at finding work, filling restaurant kitchens and construction sites, and opening hundreds of businesses."

The "success" shown by the parents of these high school dropouts: peasants, frequently illiterate and unable to speak English, just rolled up their sleeves, flexed their muscles, and went to work. No high school education required.

So why is that not good enough for the second or third or fourth generations?

I'm not saying the outcome is especially desireable, but it's honorable work that someone has to do. Apparently, though, we're required to education the children of Latino immigrants to the point where they don't have to do such work, just so that we can turn around and import yet more Latino immigrants to fill the jobs that "Americans won't do." Good enough for the goose, good enough for the gosling.

The hypocrisy/stupidity/lunacy of the open borders propagandists knows no bounds.

Whiskey said...

The Irish (of which I am one) did not accomplish a whole lot, that is true, compared to say, Jews, as a whole. HOWEVER, there was an empty continent, factories being built every week, strong backs needed, and not much else.

The Irish, Jews, Italians, Poles, and Germans also had two things making them VERY DIFFERENT from Mexicans.

1. Their home countries were VERY far away.

2. They were WHITE. Which meant none of the racialism, "Reconquista" stuff that makes assimilation to White middle class norms (such as not having kids at 16, and going to college, and not joining gangs) pretty much impossible.

Combined with Mexico right next door, Mexican mass media all around, and racial differences, no we can't all get along. Assimilation and absorption into the White American mainstream is impossible. There is no profound racial difference between say an Irishman and a German, and even they can't maintain the same economy, level of wealth-generation, etc. Pour 50 million plus Mexicans with a distinct and hostile-to-Whites racial identity and you get ... disaster.

Whiskey said...

Nanonymous -- Elites shove it down people's throats because there is enough popular support to make it happen.

Not even ISRAEL can stop illegal aliens. They are now "studying" a plan to "detain" illegals (almost entirely Africans) while facing all sorts of "human rights" protests and legalistic arguments against it.

When there is White Flight in Tel Aviv, that's remarkable. And unlike the US, there really isn't much to flee to, that's Israel's only major city that is not rocketed or the subject of Palestinian jihad (ala Jerusalem). Israeli elites should by all accounts in a parliamentary system be more responsive to voter's concerns. Nor is there much gain if any to importing many Africans who will never be voters (and Labor/the Left is locked out of government and has been since Arafat launched the last intifada around 2000 after the Clinton talks broke apart). Neither Labor (which again has been locked out for ten years) nor Likud/Kadima would get votes from these illegals. The cost is high. Only a few places like restaurants and bars profit (there are many, many Filipinos also illegally in Israel).

My sense is that the inequality this mass illegal immigration produces is the desired end-state for a significant portion of VOTERS as much as elites. That is, single women looking for their own Edward Cullen and figuring mass inequality makes both more "Nice White Lady" jobs and finding Mr. Goodbar an easier task. Since all the ordinary guys were sorted out already.

Anonymous said...

You keep the anti-immigration struggle alive, Sailer! They are truly an unique case in American history of an incompetent people being allowed to immigrate to the U.S. All white American, you see, has the genetic potential of a Beethoven or Newton and the Mexicans are duds

Mexicans are unique in that they are New World immigrants. Mexico gained independence in 1821. It is not even 200 years old, but they have already succeeded in irrevocably ruining their country. If you want proof, just look at the fact that over 10% of her population lives in the USA and another 50% would move if given the opportunity.

The New World was not supposed to have the problems of the Old World, namely the impediments to social mobility. The Old World immigrants you trashed seemed to be pretty successful creating socially mobile societies in Canada, the US and Australia. But somehow good governance and open societies seems to have ended at the Rio Grande.

So yeah, count me as one who doesn't have much sympathy for new world immigrants, i.e. Latinos, who inherited nations under 200 years of age and managed to recreate the worst practices of the Old World. Why on earth would we want mass immigration from these regions when they managed to trash their own nations in under 200 years? Heck even the Old World has gotten the message and is now more inviting than Latin America.

Whiskey said...

Follow up, Tim Blair has a story about Germany's largest natural childbirth infant, named Jihad. He joins his nine brothers and sisters. As Blair notes, Goodnight Europe it was nice knowing you. Or its still the demography stupid.

This is not just America. Germany (no Jews there pals!) and Israel can't keep mass illegal non-related immigration out. Africans belong in Israel? Muslims in Germany?

It is not just an elite thing. There are too many people globally who make money or careers or other interests off this process to be an elite phenomena only. There is significant population support. Like this young, White woman. Much of it directed by folks like Bill Gates (the author is the Communications Director for the Gates Foundation). That is tied into the infotainment sphere that dominates in particular women's lives and careers in way that it does not for men, as other institutions like churches and neighborhood organizations just died.

Anonymous said...

I hope the NWO pays you well, Anonymous Astroturfer. Who's your boss? Soros, SPLC, the AFT?

An Unmarried Man said...

I am very disappointed that Telles and Ortiz so readily place the onus for Mexican-American's poor school performance on the education system. Disappointed because their initial research dug out some unpalatable truths I presumed they "accepted" as I do.

I'm convinced that Mexicans, more than any other group, due to a confluence of geography and language, stand to gain the most by widespread integration into other ethnic American realms. Instead, Mexicans congregate generation after generation and the unfavorable traits continue to multiply exponentially.

I found this observation the most telling of the article:


The great majority of American-born Mexican Americans could speak English, but according to the
interviewers 24 percent of the fourth generation Baby Boomers still had a Spanish accent. This marks them
out as a distinctive minority.


I suspect I am not the only person in the English-speaking U.S. who doesn't profile based on that most annoying Spanglish pidgin crap we hear every night on local L.A. news?

There is no reason a 2nd or 3rd generation Mexican shouldn't be able to speak decent, intelligent English. But Mexican cultural oppressiveness prevents anyone from distinguishing themselves. The only way to stand out as a Mexican is to "turn your back" you on your culture.

I attribute any "success" in my educational career to the many friendships I had with Asians and Whites, with a smattering of "nerd" Mexicans (which there are)!

Anonymous said...

"But their children, in one crucial respect, have fared far differently. "

Their children are also losing out on youth employment from being outcompeted by the next wave of foreigners.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Crisis is undergoing a meaning change before our eyes. OED still keeps the idea of turning point in all relevant definitions, but other dictionaries are already recording the meaning as simply worrisome, difficult, doubtful.

I will hazard a guess that younger people, who have grown up with the word abused by journalists and politicians in this way, already intuitively think of "crisis" as merely meaning "problem," with the turning-point aspect no longer required.

Anon 2:03. It's more persuasive if one argues against statements actually made by others, rather than ideas you imagine they might be thinking. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

"Come to Utah. Plenty of places throughout are close to 100% white. Even SLC, where most of the brownskins live, is 80% white as of the 2010 census. I think you'll find both the physical and social climates agreeable."

I wouldn't care if Mexicans had an average IQ of 105. They don't belong. All immigration should be stopped for 20 years.

jody said...

"Much of the punditry on immigration coming out of the dominant NY-DC Axis of Obliviousness assumes that immigration from Mexico is a brand new phenomenon, so the future is wide open. Anything could happen!"

true. they are so far from the border, they are clueless about this stuff.

but this is like the solyndra news story. most of these people have little to no experience with this stuff. i saw that NYT article about how solyndra failed because it "couldn't compete with chinese manufacturers, on cost". it seemed like some guy in a thread last week was quoting that news story to me.

PVs are not something the NYTimers think about much. heck, energy is not something they think about much because it's almost totally invisible, like most engineering. they turn on the switch, the light goes on, the rest doesn't matter. unless the light doesn't go on, their thought process ends.

it's total BS that america "has a stake" in this industry, because there will be no PV industry. germany has spent 20 years on this. PVs basically produce nothing in germany. when germany stupidly deactivated all 17 of their nuclear power plants, did solar step in? did the PVs tech they have been working on for longer, and harder than the americans, fill in for those fission reactors? NO. THEY DID NOT. in fact, germany will have to build COAL power plants to replace the reactors.

jody said...

but here's how we REALLY know that PVs will never provide much serious electrical output, that you can run an industrialized manufacturing nation on. if PVs worked that way: why in the world is china building a new coal power plant every week, instead of building as many photovoltaic factories as they can?

if you could just slap PV panels on buildings and power a city that way...or at least build solar power plants instead of those "evil" fossil fuel power plants...and china is going to outcompete the US and take away this industry...and it's going to be "so cheap" that it costs less than even existing cheap ass wood and bricks and tiles and shingles...then why...is china...building coal power plants...at all?

NYTimers didn't think this one through. and it's because, NYTimers don't go outside and see a million solar panels on all the buildings in new york city, or a dozen solar power plants upstate, collecting all that free sunshine and sending it south down to NYC. their thinking is limited to NYC, so they don't realize it hasn't worked in germany or china either, despite decades of them trying to make it work. just like they step out in NYC and don't see lots of mexican neurosurgeons and lawyers, having not seen the decades already spent trying to turn mexicans into that in new mexico, california, and texas.

if PV didn't work in germany or china, and educating mexicans didn't work in the southwest, it's because THIS STUFF DOESN'T WORK. PV does not work for baseline power generation. if it DID work, then NYC would be covered in PVs and new york state would have solar power plants instead of nuclear reactors and coal burners. likewise, and the US educational system doesn't work for turning do nothing mexicans into highly performing students. if it did, they would not have a 40% dropout rate in california, and new york would soon be overrun with mexican architects and computer programmers. but, they won't.

Grumpy Old Man said...

Well, all the pundits who have discovered the "higher education bubble" will be proved right when the next generation of Gonzalezes and Sanchezes found high-tech startups and become billionaires, after dropping out of high schools that require the merest hint of literacy and numeracy for graduation.

Or have we just acquired a helot class some of whom are actually willing to work?

Whiskey said...

For those who haven't seen Steve's latest at VDARE, go there NOW! Possibly his best yet.

That is all.

Truth said...

BTW STEVE:

I finally read your "J. Edgar Mulatto or Gay" piece at Takis. Good article. You show some real talent, at times, at this writing thing.

Tom Regan said...

The common link between the Permissable Punditry on 'right' and left is the presumption that the rest of the world wants to be just like us.
The neocon swill that passes for the right thinks that the A-rabs and Afghanis are crying out for us to transform their society into some anodyne, atomized society safe for Starbucks and American Idol reruns.
The left thinks the Mexicans want to leave behind their macho manual-labor social model and become simulacrums of the NYT editorial staff. Sure, you might earn much more money over the course of your career by dropping out of high school and working in a car bodyshop than you would piling up $100,000 in college debt to become a respectable white-collar drone, but its just not, well, nice.

Anonymous said...

Laugh now but people oc color will soon run this country.


So long rackets

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,
Steve's point is this:
The Ellis Island wave of European immigration initially faced huge difficulties with life n America due not in the least language, cultural and educational barriers, but yet their descendants of the second and subsequent generations generally thrived and produced highly productive citizens.
But all the empirical evidence tells us that is simply not happening with Mexican immigrants, subsequent American raised generations show little inclination to 'better' themselves.
They seem perfectly content to be 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' in to perpetuity.

Anonymous said...

but is american education a net benefit for its citizens? I suspect not. With the vast majority of the youth of the america white majority opting for college, with the huge oversupply in white collar labor, that makes blue collar labor and its undersupply an attractive option. GIven the long years of work and loss of income and accrual of debt that goes with attaining a college education, I think that the mexicans have the right idea. Fark college. I have three degrees and wish I had never gone a single day to college. I would be a lot better off if I had just stuck with what I had first done right out of high school--navy nuclear power.

Anonymous said...

Sailer acts like all the immigrants who came before Mexicans were ultra-gifted geniuses.


No, you ninny, he does not. And your inability to understand what he said in plain English suggests that you're rather a dim bulb.


The point is that we have hundreds of years of experience with Mexicans in this country, and they're not middle-class material any more than blacks are.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, you're about as "Irish" as I am Jewish.

Peter A said...

"All those Sicilians were just faking that they couldn't read or write or do basic arithmatic."

Most Sicilian immigrants, and certainly the vast majority of non-Sicilian Italian immigrants were literate - in Italian - and posessed basic mathematic skills. They also, more importantly, tended to be skilled laborers - stone cutters, masons, merchants, etc. For the most part we did not get the dregs of Europe, we got ambitious young people with some education. It was simply too hard to get passage if you were an illiterate dolt.

ATBOTL said...

When the NYT allows comments on online articles, the results are shockingly sensible over a wide range of issues.

Rohan Swee said...

@11/27/11 2:03 PM: Sailer acts like all the immigrants who came before Mexicans were ultra-gifted geniuses. None of them came to the U.S because they were unemployed. None came because they were starving - all those Irish geniuses who came to America came because they were after adventure and the fact that they haven't produced any geniuses yet is because they are too busy enjoying the New World.

Alright, I'm ready to be persuaded that large-scale Mexican immigration is exactly like earlier large-scale European immigration. Let's take just one group and a couple of examples to save space and your time. Consider two important manifestations of civilization and invested social capital, "schools and school systems", and "hospitals". Now enlighten us as to how Irish immigrants to the U.S. had exactly the same effects, positive and negative, on the existence and functioning of these important institutions, as Mexican immigrants.

I'm waitin'. Start persuadin'. (I don't mean to sound skeptical at all. I mean, back in the day, the schools I went to, founded and originally funded (and pretty much still run) by crazy-ass Irish, sometimes seemed to be as heavily attended by Jewish and Episcopalian kids as by Catholic. I have no doubt that pattern holds for the educational institutions foun...er, associated with the newer arrivals.)

Spread Eagle said...

There's very little evidence that Mexican-Americans en masse consider their children's or grand-children's or great-grandchildren's relative lack of education to be a crisis.

There's no cultural imperative demanding educational excellence from the children of Mexican immigrants. But within a generation one could develop, if the burgeoning higher ed bubble doesn't burst first, which it might.

Elli said...

By my count, the first 17 out of 20 commenters giving their residence as NY/NJ/CT opposed mass immigration/multiculturalism/blame and cost shifting to the diminishing white majority.

So if the target audience of the NYT is overwhelmingly opposed to those policies, why do they continually re-elect incumbents and party machine picks at the local, state and federal level who enact those policies? And why do the rest of us, who are presumably even more opposed?

Are the political machines that strong? Or is it that so very few people will say these things publicly, only in the safety of internet anonymity?

Hey, Whiskey. Progress. Now you're talking about single white women. But who could be whiter than E. Cullen?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

It's a crisis, because these are the people Paul Krugman, David Brooks and Tom Friedman are banking on to pay off the debt and inflate the housing values. I bet they don't let themselves consider even the possibility that Meso-American and Caribbean immigrants won't be declaring six figures in taxable income or raising property values.

Dana Thompson said...

Have you ever reflected on how much injury is done to clarity and rigor of expression in the English language because of the absence of a noun form of "chronic?" Critical is to crisis as chronic is to . . . what? Whenever the word is needed, "crisis" is usually chosen no matter how wrong it is. Anyone who could introduce and popularize the new word would be a great benefactor. Perhaps it could be borrowed from another language. Does anyone have any suggestions?

morleysafer said...

Well, maybe there's also "crisis" in the fin-de-siecle erotica sense.

That was how Vladimir Zhirinovsky used to frame it ("Impotence is over!")

Anonymous said...

"No, you ninny, he does not. And your inability to understand what he said in plain English suggests that you're rather a dim bulb.


The point is that we have hundreds of years of experience with Mexicans in this country, and they're not middle-class material any more than blacks are."

Ok, the fact that you would call me, who's intelligence vastly surpasses yours, a dim bulb, only goes to prove the stereotype of Sailer's readers being arrogant rednecks.

As for your argument, first of all, the U.S hasn't had "hundreds" of years of experience with Mexican immigrants since the country as a whole only has two hundreds years. Secondly, there is no evidence that Mexican immigrants are of a lower quality than most European immigrants who came to the U.S from 1850 to 1950. Most left Europe because they had no land, they were unemployed or were starving. The same as Mexicans. The argument that all those immigrants were white and thus could blend in into mainstream American because of this is also sophomoric and hilarious. Look at Canada...there is a French Canada and an English Canada and they hate each other. The Italian immigrants in the U.S keep mostly to themselves, and still have their "little Italies" in most American cities. Europeans had two horrible wars in a period of 70 years where they killed 65 million of each other. Oh yes, white people get along with each other so fine! No, the reason why European immigrants assimilated into American mainstream is because of Americanization, a brutal process of assimilation where an English elite in the East coast forced newly arrived immigrants to learn English, strip their national identities and learn Anglo-Saxon norms and even get Anglo-Saxon names. This is the reason why all those European immigrants assimilated and not because they loved each other out of ethnic solidarity. And the argument that Mexicans are happy being gardeners and truck drivers is also redundant. The same can be said about a lot of white Americans. You point out that Mexican immigrants after two generations are still working at low level jobs; what about the whites in Appalachia who after 4 or 5 generations are still dirt poor ranchers who have contributed so little to America? Why don't you speak on them? The hypocrisy and callousness of your people is incredible. It just goes to prove that intelligence and ethics go together. Stupid people are callous and only care about themselves and others like themselves. They can't see the logical flaws in their reasoning and even when you show it to them, they still don't care as the truth is not convenient.

Anonymous said...

"So if the target audience of the NYT is overwhelmingly opposed to those policies, why do they continually re-elect incumbents and party machine picks at the local, state and federal level who enact those policies? And why do the rest of us, who are presumably even more opposed?

Are the political machines that strong? Or is it that so very few people will say these things publicly, only in the safety of internet anonymity?"

No. It's because immigration isn't a high salience issue for most voters, and even if it was, Republicans and Democrats alike support and enact those policies, so there is no reason for immigration to create a partisan shift.

helene edwards said...

Further to Peter A re Italians: my grandfather, who came here from Tuscany in 1912, told me that in his village the Church would take any meat or eggs your little farm happened to produce. In other words, Italian immigrants may have been genuinely "oppressed" by an institutional religious culture that prevented individual achievement. My grandfather was very good at arithmetic and built his own furniture. Also forbade speaking of Italian in the home.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

The pattern seems to be thus: bring adult Latinos and assorted others to the US to do "jobs Americans won't do," inculcate in their children the belief that their parents' jobs are beneath them, then import more Latino adults to do the jobs the children of the earlier immigrants have been educated by us to not want to do.

Immigrants who work hard at even the leasst mentally demanding jobs are considered "successful" by virtue of working. Their children raised here aren't considered successful if they end up doing the same jobs, however, for want of a mere sheepskin.

It's fantastical to think that sort of eternal generational progression is the way it's supposed to work: granddad had a 6th grade education, dad has a high school diploma, you have a bachelor's, and your kid will have a Ph.D.

Sometimes matching the prior generation, or even doing a little worse, is the best you can hope for. A certain portion of our youth - apparently in the 10-25% range - will not be motivated to do "book learning" to the point of not even finishing high school. Let's accept this fact and make places for them in our economy: expect them to work rather than mooching off the welfare state, and respect them when they do it.

RKU said...

Whiskey: The Irish (of which I am one)...

That's a bit odd. Our good friend "Whiskey" always used to claim he was "Scots-Irish," but now he's started to claim he's "Irish" instead, which is a totally different ethnicity. Those two ethnicities haven't especially been friendly, as we know from centuries of conflict in Ulster. Sort of like a commenter switching from being a Serb to being a Croat.


But all the empirical evidence tells us that is simply not happening with Mexican immigrants, subsequent American raised generations show little inclination to 'better' themselves.

Actually, that's not correct. I think if you look at the national data for the last 20 years or so, the cohort of Mexican immigrants present toward the beginning of that period underwent amazing economic progress, perhaps more rapid than almost any other large immigrant group during all of American history. This remarkable advancement effect was partly masked by the arrival of additional millions of such (initially impoverished) immigrants thoroughout this period. Since the economic downturn of the last few years, a portion of this progress has been lost, but only a portion.

Obviously, America is a different place today than it was in 1900, making things easier in some respects for new arrivals and more difficult in other respects. But based on bits of data I've seen, I'd think the millions of Mexicans present in the U.S. in 1990 improved their economic status much more rapidly than had the Irish, Italians, Slavs, or Jews a century earlier. It's not entirely clear to me why the national media totally ignored these seemingly astonishing facts, but I'd suspect a mixture of ideology and incompetence is responsible.

And given the near total silence of the NYT and the rest of the elite MSM, I can't really fault random anti-immigration commenters for being similarly unaware...

Anonymous said...

"Laugh now but people oc color will soon run this country.

So long rackets"

11/27/11 11:22 PM

"Laugh now but people of (sic) color will soon run this country into the ground, long after the whites who created and maintained it lo these many decades have fled to more fertile grounds."

FTFY - You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

"I find "9 percent" implausibly low, but, whatever."


It is not a weighted average. Assuming over half of these "groups" are Asian, sounds possible that the average of the 20 or so "groups" could be 9% if there is no weight given to how many students are in a group.

School administrators are able stat manipulators.

Anonymous said...

In contrast, the documented history of the large (proportionally) Norwegian immigration.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/norway.html


Norwegian migration to North American began on July 4, 1825, with the sailing of the sloop Restauration from Stavanger bound for New York City. From that beginning to the present, Norwegians and Norwegian Americans have scrupulously documented the migration movement, the lives of the immigrants, and the development of their settlements. This documentation takes the form of parish registers, ships' manifests, publication in Norwegian newspapers of lists of emigrants, personal memoirs, letters from America, and book-length histories of the new settlements.
In addition, immigrants from various towns, valleys, and fjords maintained contact in their new country through regional societies that published newsletters, held periodic reunions, and disseminated information on members' places of residence, professions, marriages and new births. Norwegian Americans' pride in their considerable influence on American life has led to the publication of lists and entire dictionaries of biographical and genealogical information on thousands of individuals. Martin Ulvestad's work, published in 1907 and based on 450,000 questionnaires sent out to Norwegians in America, and Thoralv Klaveness' work detailing his epic journey through immigrant settlements for the sole purpose of writing down their histories are examples of Norwegian-Americans' interest in documentation.

Anonymous said...

The Irish (of which I am one) did not accomplish a whole lot, that is true, compared to say, Jews, as a whole. HOWEVER, there was an empty continent, factories being built every week, strong backs needed, and not much else.



Whiskey is now Irish.

josh said...

I am not offended mind you,because when one enters into the world of HBD,PC is left behind,but what is this stuff(again)about the Irish? It seems when a person of color DOES get offended,they trot out the Irish as an example of a segment of the white pop thats no good,so there! and as sure as night follows day,the iSteve posters agree. "Yes," they growl,"we know the Irish are failures but..." I notice Truth in particular likes to go this route. (It may be a Black thing,as Thomas Sowell got into a bit of a fued with Fr. Andrew Greeley when Sowell listed the Irish as at the botton income-wise;Greeley noted that he had deliberately mixed "Irish" with "Scotch-Irish" who tend to be far more rural,less well-paid and less educated.The whole idea obv is to use the Irish as the disproof that whites have any IQ advantage.How can u guys claim to be superior when you've got THEM around your neck??) Of course its complete horseshit. Irish are above average in every metric,such as income,homeownership,education,blah blah blah. One guy made a sarcastic reference to Irish "geniuses";isnt Eugene O'Neil the premiere playwright of the modern world? In listing Irish accomplishments,does,uh,building the country count? All things considered,I should think the Irish are the best of Americans and have contributed the most to this land. The immigartion of the Irish to America was an incredible boon. Those who are always listed as the most "accomplished",the,uh, Swedes,are endlessly ass-kissed on forums like this,even as the damage they have done is wailed over equally endlessly.Its as if this forum is some kind of Wall-like structure,where HBDers stand and wail about the problems beseeting us. Yeah,I like that. A wall,where guys wail. PS:Whiskey Irish? I didnt buy the Scotch_Irish thing,so...no. But I love the guy! Truth too!

morleysafer said...

At least he realized that Mexicans are distinct from the rest (probably due to his vast experience as their U.N. reporter). If they publish enough charts w/ the Dominicans and Ecuadorians making the Chicanos look bad, it might even dawn on the East Coast that the adjoining country poses a unique quality issue for U.S. schools. Presently all Spanish-speaking nationalities are most often lumped into one "vibrant" tableau, for purposes of lucre, and it's been fun to pretend settlers from East Asia are equivalent to rambling mestizos. Here's the daily Beltway concern-troll: Will Romney’s immigration stance become his Latino problem (with add'l reporting contributed by Caliente Strategies Partners, and the firm of Elefante & Chistera in Falls Church)

ATBOTL said...

"...But within a generation one could develop..."

When pigs fly.

Truth said...

UH OH; somebody's developing back problems from the weight of wearing a Tam O'Shanter over his Yarmulke!

Truth said...

"In listing Irish accomplishments,does,uh,building the country count? All things considered,I should think the Irish are the best of Americans and have contributed the most to this land. The immigartion of the Irish to America was an incredible boon."

Yeah, the Irish have made their mark in music, athletics, comedy, acting, various forms of entertainment, and cheap physical labor, just like another group...which one was that again? wait, I'll have to get back to you on that.

Anonymous said...

As for your argument, first of all, the U.S hasn't had "hundreds" of years of experience with Mexican immigrants since the country as a whole only has two hundreds years.

That is true. And it is also true that Mexico is even younger than that. So why has Mexico and the rest of Latin America failed to offer their citizens the same opportunities as Canada and the US? Is it because of the culture or because of the people?

Secondly, there is no evidence that Mexican immigrants are of a lower quality than most European immigrants who came to the U.S from 1850 to 1950. Most left Europe because they had no land, they were unemployed or were starving. The same as Mexicans.

So you are comparing whites of 150 years ago to Mexicans of today. Mexicans of today have the advantage of 150 years of technological progress and examples of successful northern neighbors. Yet, as you pointed out, Mexicans of today are living as poorly as whites of 150 years ago. That might provide some circumstantial evidence that Mexican immigrants are not on par with European ones.

Europeans had two horrible wars in a period of 70 years where they killed 65 million of each other.

Yet, after those terrible events Europe has more opportunity and a better quality of life than Mexico or Latin America. They, along with their New World cousins, continue to lead the world in innovation and technology.

Mexico and the rest of Latin America were untouched by WW1 and WW2, yet outside of pointy boots, what do they lead the world in?

When people express concern over Mexican immigration. It is MASS Mexican/Latin American immigration that scares the hell out of them. A few thousand Mexicans in the US would not be considered an issue. But 15 to 20 million looks scary. Those numbers go beyond simple immigration. They have the potential to alter the character of the nation. And given the current condition of Mexico, we'd rather not take the chance of becoming more like Mexico. Maybe Mexico could enact reforms like China and other nations to better emulate the successful nations of Europe and North America. I'd rather see Mexico raise itself, than have America lowered.

TGGP said...

I make fun of Whiskey, but I believe him when he says he isn't jewish. In addition to his surname, has he ever even inadvertently let slip any knowledge that you'd expect jews to know and gentiles not to?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

As for your argument, first of all, the U.S hasn't had "hundreds" of years of experience with Mexican immigrants since the country as a whole only has two hundreds years.

Actually, "we" have. Meso-American and other tribes had been here for quite some time when the Anglos and Europeans arrived. They hadn't done much with the place.

This is not actually a slight. If they're happy just hunting and gathering, good for them. But the NYT is worried because they were counting on Meso-Americans generating enough productivity to fund the social democratic empire.

As it turns out, Latino 'vibrancy' doesn't mean increased property values, Latinos get old and sick too, and Latinos are not declaring six figures in adjusted gross income to the IRS. And they wouldn't even if they had that kind of earning capacity.

It is what it is.

Doug1 said...

I’ve been looking at some more of the NY Times comments. My 5:1 ratio estimate above for comments which call for cutting down on illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants, deporting them, and those saying this is all the fault of the Mexican illegal’s own culture and lack of interest in education was WAY WAY underestimating the ratio of comments that run that way. That was because viewing of the comments defaults at the NYT to viewing “hightlights” among the comments. Obviously the comments editor has promoted some comments sympathetic to the Mexican illegals and saying NY can and should do more for them. When I clicked on the “reader recommendation” tab essential ALL the first three pages of most recommended/liked comments were anti illegal immigration, don’t let them in/ deport them point of view. Amazing really. These are NY TIMES readers. Damn. Well I suppose this article has been pretty widely link in the alt.right realist blogshere, but still.

beowulf said...

David Frum has a good column up.

"Why Gingrich's immigration plan is unworkable"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/opinion/frum-gingrich-immigration/index.html

Anonymous said...

"Actually, that's not correct. I think if you look at the national data for the last 20 years or so, the cohort of Mexican immigrants present toward the beginning of that period underwent amazing economic progress, "

True or not, I don't want them here. What is with this obsession with wanting immigrants? Sane people should not want a large group of immigrants.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 8:51 PM

"That is true. And it is also true that Mexico is even younger than that. So why has Mexico and the rest of Latin America failed to offer their citizens the same opportunities as Canada and the US? Is it because of the culture or because of the people?"

Mostly because of the culture. The U.S was colonized by Englishmen who came to start families and form a country for THEMSELVES; Latin America was settled by Spanish and Portuguese criminals who came to rape the women and steal everything they could. The English settlers established a society of equality before the law, where no man or family owns the state, so the only way for a man to climb the social ladder is through productive talent - since becoming wealthy in such a society through force is not allowed. In Latin America, conversely, the state is owned by the descendants of the conquistadores, so there is no incentive to be economically productive since their social status is assured from birth. Hence, in the English colonies of North America, a capitalist burgeois society was established where productive and technological progress is never ending as individuals compete to outdo one another in the marketplace. Conversely, in Latin America, a classic feudalistic society where an aristocracy rules was established, and such a society is stagnant as there is no possibility of social mobility through industrious efforts to produce goods and services.

"So you are comparing whites of 150 years ago to Mexicans of today. Mexicans of today have the advantage of 150 years of technological progress and examples of successful northern neighbors. Yet, as you pointed out, Mexicans of today are living as poorly as whites of 150 years ago. That might provide some circumstantial evidence that Mexican immigrants are not on par with European ones."

I am talking about innate talents and abilities and not where Latin Americans stand compared to Europe today. There is no evidence that European immigrants who came to America were innately more talented than Latin Americans: most were poor, illiterate and starving. Very few who came to America became more than common laborers. The reason why Latin America is on a lower level than Europe is due to historical circumcstances. Different peoples develope at different rates due to historical circumstances, and it is not related to innate talents. Go read Tacitus and see how the ancient Germans and Britons lived compared to the Romans. They were even lower in relation to the Romans than Latin Americans are compared to Americans. Ang guess what? Today they are richer and more developed than Italy and Greece. Historical circumcstances. Using your logic, the Chinese of today are inferior to Europeans because they are innately inferior, and yet China was more advanced than Europe for most of history. Things change.

"Yet, after those terrible events Europe has more opportunity and a better quality of life than Mexico or Latin America. They, along with their New World cousins, continue to lead the world in innovation and technology."

Because Europeans were highly literate and had burgeoise values of productive labor and enterprise whilst Latin Americans did not, hence they rebuild faster and became rich again whilst Latin America never did. Nothing to do with Europeans being better.

"Mexico and the rest of Latin America were untouched by WW1 and WW2, yet outside of pointy boots, what do they lead the world in?"

What did Germania lead the World in at the times of Tacitus besides ability to fight whilst being inebriated? I rest my case.

"When people express concern over Mexican immigration. It is MASS Mexican/Latin American immigration that scares the hell out of them. A few thousand Mexicans in the US would not be considered an issue. But 15 to 20 million looks scary. Those numbers go beyond simple immigration."

Twice as many Europeans immigrated to the U.S and the country didn't fall apart, then why should this concern you?

Anonymous said...

Mostly because of the culture. The U.S was colonized by Englishmen who came to start families and form a country for THEMSELVES; Latin America was settled by Spanish and Portuguese criminals who came to rape the women and steal everything they could.

Thanks for acknowledging that Anglos created better countries in the New World than others without resorting to the usual diatribe of "they stole the land, they got rich off slaves, etc."

Since you seem to be aware of this, don't you think we ought to preserve this unique culture that created these societies? In the days of European immigration, immigrants were forced to give up their old citizenship, learn English and assimilate. Yet today we have Latino activists who push for Spanish language media, ballots, government services and the like.

Anon, if you really believe that Latin American culture is to blame and that Anglo culture is responsible for our riches, don't you think it would go far if fellow Latinos would go full bore into embracing that culture?

Go read Tacitus and see how the ancient Germans and Britons lived compared to the Romans. They were even lower in relation to the Romans than Latin Americans are compared to Americans. Ang guess what? Today they are richer and more developed than Italy and Greece.

That is true, but you have left out something that is rather important. Technology in the past traveled slowly and could be monopolized by one nation or culture more readily. The Greeks Romans, and Chinese had long reigns because of that. But today it is virtually impossible because of the speed at which technology travels. That is why America cannot maintain her dominant post WW2 reign because the rest of the world has instant access to everything we do.

Given that fact, that is why I have little respect for Latin America. For over 150 years they have sat on our doorstep watching and have still lagged.

If it really is their culture, then change it. Is it already set in stone after 200 years? Japan in the 1850s, Korea in the 1950s and China today are proof that nations can change and adapt. Maybe if Latinos put in half the energy into pressuring their ruling elite to change as they do ours over amnesty and the like, they might be able to accomplish something.

If Latin American demographics are to blame, then change them too. After all Latinos love to lecture the US on the virtues of immigration and diversity. Let Mexico take in a few million Chinese, Koreans and Europeans. I am sure they would jump at the chance to live in that climate.

Twice as many Europeans immigrated to the U.S and the country didn't fall apart, then why should this concern you?

I don't believe that. According to JFK's pamphlet on immigration, from 1607 to 1958 America took in about 42 million immigrants, mostly European. In contrast, since 1965 we have taken in almost 50 million, overwhelmingly third world, overwhelmingly Latino immigrants. And that 50 million is still growing with no signs of stopping.

RKU said...

Anonymous: Mostly because of the culture. The U.S was colonized by Englishmen who came to start families and form a country for THEMSELVES; Latin America was settled by Spanish and Portuguese...Hence, in the English colonies of North America, a capitalist burgeois society was established where productive and technological progress is never ending as individuals compete to outdo one another in the marketplace. Conversely, in Latin America, a classic feudalistic society where an aristocracy rules was established, and such a society is stagnant

Yes, I think this analysis is correct. One major problem is that since Official Truth has said for decades that *everything* is culture, which is clearly ridiculous nonsense, there's a natural tendency to react against by assuming that *nothing* is culture, i.e. that everything is HBD. But that's not correct either.

It's always seemed pretty obvious to me that the endless problems of Latin America were mostly cultural. Consider the following sizable countries: Mexico, the Philippines, Argentina, and Spain. From a genetic/HBD perspective, they have virtually nothing in common, being (mostly) Amerindian/Mestizo, Southeast Asian, and white European. Yet for the last couple of centuries, they've had very similar sorts of social and political problems, and similar degrees of economic and technological stagnation. The endless problems of (almost totally white) Argentina seem very similar to all its non-white Latin American neighbors, the Philippines seems like a Latin American country which mysteriously happens to be located thousands of miles away, near China, and Spain seems exactly the same, except unaccountably located in Europe.

And although Argentina has always been much more heavily white European than the U.S. and is vastly whiter today, there's probably no other country in Latin America which has made a greater mess of its opportunities over the last century, having fallen from being one of the richest countries in the world to being an endlessly defaulted economic basket case. In fact, (mostly ethnic German and North Italian) Argentina's economic growth rate was much lower than that of Mexico during nearly all of the 20th Century, so either German brains are far inferior to Aztec ones, or cultural factors may be dominating.

the Dude said...

It is true that the Mexicans who come/have come to the US have improved their overall quality of life. So it's good for them. The question is: is it good for the US?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Twice as many Europeans immigrated to the U.S and the country didn't fall apart, then why should this concern you?

Because Meso-Americans aren't European.

Doug1 said...

Anonymous 4:43--

The Mexicans and Central Americans that the US is getting are heavily AmerIndian and in some cases all or virtually all AmerInidan.

AmerIndians have IQs averaging in the high 80s. They simply aren't as smart.

As well they have a culture which doesn't emphasize education nearly as much as Euros and Euro descended whites in American, particularly those whose ancestors are from N. Europe.

Further Mexicans unto the fourth and fifth generation fail to graduate from high school at much higher rates than whites.

They are on average tax eaters rather than next tax providers. They have much higher rates of criminality or their children do than whites. Yeah they are cheap workers but they are a social cost.

With unemployment above 9% we should deport masses of them, anchor babies or not (they'll have to take their minor children with them) and get serious about not letting employers employ illegals.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey said...
The Irish (of which I am one)


I thought you said you were Scots-Irish. That's not the same thing as Irish. The Scots-Irish weren't really Irish at all. They were basically Protestant mercenary hillbillies from Northern England/Southern Scotland who merely passed through Ireland on their way here.

Oops.

dcite said...

"Because Europeans were highly literate and had burgeoise values of productive labor and enterprise whilst Latin Americans did not, hence they rebuild faster and became rich again whilst Latin America never did. Nothing to do with Europeans being better."

And how did they become "highly literate"? How did they acquire "burgeoise values"? From whence came their material development?
If it had nothing to do with Europeans being "better", was it Luck? Anytime any achievement of a non-white race is cited, however questionable, it's presented as a sign of their talents and creativity. Europeans, a small fraction of the world's population, achieve a staggering degree of advancement in virtually every area, with little to no assistance from some do-gooder power, and what do they say? "oh must be their temperate climate; their work ethic." Couldn't possibly be because they're European whites. Only browns, blacks, yellows and red are allowed to associate any achivements with their race.

Regurgitating Jared Diamond PC religion is alien here. That tripe has been ruthlessly, and hilariously refuted on this site and others, not by emotion but by facts and common sense observation. You're like a prime exhibit.
As for races developing at "different rates", who determines just what is "development" or the rate? Really, once someone has figured out that 2 plus 2 makes 4, it doesn't matter that your ggg-grandparents were owned potty-cleaners. Almost everyone on earth, incl Euros, could say that. The immigrants that come here don't have to "develop." Everything is already "developed." The cars, the planes they come in, the cell phones they babble on, the internets they access, the affirmative action positions they expect, the affirmative action education they expect, the welfare benefits and free education they sign up for, the hospitals they invade to an extent that has closed many -- It's all invented and served up, no thanks to them. All they have to do is show up and participate and compete.
At this point, saying the "Latins" are still developing, just give them time, is so absurd. They are in a paint-by-numbers situation. They don't have to invent the concept of the painting, the paint, the canvas. Just follow the numbers the host-civilization has generously provided.

The "Latin Americans" you are talking are getting help that the European immigrants never got. A generalization, but generally true.
Todays immigrants==I see them at the local second hand stores driving new vans, carrying wads of money, with several children in tow,paid for by insane Americans who actually pay for their own displacement
These people are not "Latins"; they are American Indian or mestizo (their own term.) They do not want to be white Americans, by and large. After 3-4 generations, despite getting free education and healthcare (they have as long a life-span as whites) they don't do well in schools and are dragging down the educational system (that we pay for.) There is no sign they can do better. They are not living in the dark ages. They are living now. A peasant can come here from Mongolia or Moldova and adapt to, and do well. How their grandparen ts lived does not figure in their performance in a Santa Monica high school, or on an SAT.
Even with 80% of hispanics receiving benefits to the extent that they reproduce all they want and get paid for it (our insanity, not theirs) they still do not rise even to average levels of academic attainment, after 3-4 generations. In fact, Mexicans & Central Americans do better in school when they are first generation than 3rd. Although "better" is a relative term. Without the fast-deteriorating USA infrastructure to prop them up, they'd sink into another Central America. In fact, half my county already is.

Anonymous said...

Superb comment by dcite!

eva said...

"And although Argentina has always been much more heavily white European than the U.S. and is vastly whiter today, there's probably no other country in Latin America which has made a greater mess of its opportunities over the last century, having fallen from being one of the richest countries in the world to being an endlessly defaulted economic basket case. In fact, (mostly ethnic German and North Italian) Argentina's economic growth rate was much lower than that of Mexico during nearly all of the 20th Century, so either German brains are far inferior to Aztec ones, or cultural factors may be dominating."

A Chilean woman who had worked in libraries in Texas noted that almost all the records and archives available for Latin America were maintained and preserved by North Americans of European extraction. She noted that Latin American countries (she meant the non-white elements) are not concerned, or don't give it importance. They have little interest in intellectual pursuits, or the importance of a written down history. Chile and Argentina are closer to European white traditions in this. In the modern world, a successful state always depends on intellectual prowess and strategy. Always.
If Mexico succeeds (it is largely run by its European overlords anyway, so you can blame them if you want) it is because of its proximity to the US, and the business it does with the rest of North America. It is being helped by the fact the US is forced by its own government to accept the poorest and least able people Mexico has to get rid of.

Argentina got owned by the international banker class who decided to experiment with the country. In any case, it's problems and social structure resemble that of Spain, Italy and some of eastern Europe. It is not Central America. Except for a few political refugees, they do not leave in hoardes.

Anonymous said...

"And how did they become "highly literate"? How did they acquire "burgeoise values"? From whence came their material development?
If it had nothing to do with Europeans being "better", was it Luck?"

I have already answered this question. You either have poor reading comprehension, which is not shocking in a Sailer reader, or you simply didn't like the answer. Most likely the latter.

How Europeans did it and Latins did not? Historical circumstances and the particular natural conditions of northern Europe. If you go back to Roman times, the Britons and Germans were barbarians compared to the Romans. Usign your theory that everything boils down to genetics, then the Germans and Britons are genetically inferior to Italians and Greeks, and yet nowadays Germany and Britain are more scientifically advanced and have a higher GDP per capita than Greece and Italy. Riddle me that?

The burgeoise society arose due to the particular climate of northern Europe. In a cold weather, the greatest enemy of men is Nature and not one another, hence cooperation and trade become the norm and not warfare and clan feuds. Hence, individuals start trading with one another and forming cooperatives of trade, which become corporations. Because cooperation is so important, economic production becomes the focus of the society and not gaining power over the state to benefit you and your clan. Thus equality before the law and the prohibition of any particular individual or family from owning the state. Hence a society where trade and economic production and not control of the state becomes the focus of the society. Capitalism and the burgeoise society are born. And this society arose in northern Europe and not in southern Europe even though southern Europe was more advanced than nothern Europe throughout most of it's history until recently. Going by your genetic theory, since you regard creating the burgeoise society as a sign of greater intelligence, it should have arosen in southern Europe since they showed signs of greater intelligence creating a more advanced civilization up to that point.

I think it's funny that Sailer's readers, dogmatics who are just as bad as leftists are in claiming that genes are everything, use the excuse that Latins shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the U.S based on the excuse that Latins are genetically inferior, but they have no problem accepting whites with the same characteristics as Latins: poor, uneducated and showing signs of low intelligence. this shows that are the TRUE reasons why Sailer's readers don't want Latins to immigrate to the U.S. The genetic inferiority is just a smoke screen.

Anonymous said...

I think it's funny that Sailer's readers, dogmatics who are just as bad as leftists are in claiming that genes are everything, use the excuse that Latins shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to the U.S based on the excuse that Latins are genetically inferior, but they have no problem accepting whites with the same characteristics as Latins: poor, uneducated and showing signs of low intelligence. this shows that are the TRUE reasons why Sailer's readers don't want Latins to immigrate to the U.S. The genetic inferiority is just a smoke screen.

What percentage of the US population do you want Latin immigrants and their descendants to comprise; 5, 10, 25, 50, or 75%? What's the number?

My number? Well I'd be satisfied with the European percentage of the population before the hideous Immigration Act of 1965 took effect. Why am I concerned about percentages? Well, I guess like any normal human being, I am not keen on being displaced. Is this unreasonable? The supporters of that act felt it was not and went to the Senate floor to declare:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."

As for taking in the dregs of Europe, consider the Greeks and Poles. In 350 years (1607-1958) America took in 500,000 Greeks and 500,000 Poles. Today there are over 500,000 immigrants from El Salvador alone living in the DC, VA, MD area. And apparently you still want more.

Now examine Italians. We took in 5 million in 350 years. However, we probably have 10 million Mexican nationals alive today within our borders. And Italians, unlike Mexicans, aren't known for having any designs on American territory. And apparently you still want more.

Additionally, those lowly Greeks, Poles and Italians learned English and adopted WASP values. Many even changed their names to become more culturally aligned. Constrast this with Latins who cling to Spanish and demand we adapt to accommodate them. If you really believe that Latin America's woes stem from her culture and not her people, then why can't they drop the culture and adopt ours? Those lowly, unwashed, uneducated Europeans did.

If you wish to allow Latin mass immigration into the US, do you also support mass immigration into those same Latin lands? I doubt they do. Based upon the English translations of the Mexican constitution, I doubt they would give others the opportunity to displace them in Mexico.

So are we hypocrites for favoring to live in a nation with people we regard as similar and familiar? No, this is a common, standard and rational belief among all people. Just ask the Mexicans.