Jason Richwine on immigration

Posted on August 17, 2009 by David Hume

Some readers have wondered about the specific policy positions which contributors to this website might hold. In regards to immigration, I am in broad sympathy with Jason Richwine’s recent article in The American. Quality, not quantity. I understand the logic behind the arguments of open-borders libertarians (and the milder forms of these positions espoused by liberals and economic conservatives), but I think they are premised on tenuous assumptions in terms of how far polities can appropriately organize and scale. As it is, I will be honest and admit that I am somewhat dubious as to the coherency of the American identity at this moment in history. A nation of this size and numbers is an empire in and of itself, and I think 18th century thinkers had reasonable grounds to be skeptical about the scalability of republican institutions. In the decades before the Civil War American identity was becoming progressively more fragmented, and it took a Civil War to cement it back together.

This entry was posted in culture, data and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Jason Richwine on immigration

  1. John says:
    August 17, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    My favorite idea for immigration is to mandate a college degree. I would allow people to bring their non-degreed spouses, and children under 18, and make a few exceptions for extraordinary achievement like Olympic athletes. Otherwise, no degree, no getting in.

  2. Kevembuangga says:
    August 17, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    Bwa ha! ha! ha!
    Curing the ills of diversity by IQ selection.
    You’ll be skinned alive, definitely not “correct”.

  3. OneSTDV says:
    August 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    I wrote a short series on immigration here. I generally argue for limited, high-IQ, educated immigration:

    Views on Immigration

  4. asdf says:
    August 18, 2009 at 2:15 am

    High IQ immigrants in small numbers are certainly much more likely to assimilate than low IQ immigrants.

    But in moderate to large numbers, high IQ immigrants (and their children) will quickly make up a disproportionate portion of our elite. Many of them will come from countries or backgrounds that have historical grudges (legitimate or otherwise).

    So they will be both willing (grudge) and able (high IQ) to overturn any kinds of founding myths or cultural traditions that exclude them, or even hint at excluding them. And then we are back where we started.

  5. Nayagan says:
    August 18, 2009 at 8:06 am

    so you agree that, in effect, we treat diversity as an unalloyed good?

    How does this square with our citizenship approval process? Would it not follow from that premise that it would take no time at all and require little documentation to become a US citizen through proper legal channels?

  6. David Hume says:
    August 18, 2009 at 10:11 am

    so you agree that, in effect, we treat diversity as an unalloyed good?

    no, go back to mind reading school. i am not “in effect” saying that, and i didn’t.

  7. Nayagan says:
    August 18, 2009 at 10:21 am

    that is exactly what Richwine is saying, “We treat diversity as an unqualified good.”

    When you say you are ‘broadly sympathetic,’ it might help to clarify effect, affect and intent. Richwine is fascinated by the potential of IQ to triage swarthy buckos who wish to sup at the american table–if you refuse to consider the implications, how seriously are we to take any further pronouncements of ‘broad sympathy’ with any position.

    ‘Quality not quantity’ is cute–but ultimately the ‘tard’s escape from an argument.

    surely a swarthy bucko like yourself can accept that the act of sympathizing with Richwine’s ideas are of greater import than simply reassuring your readers that you haven’t gone soft on your co-ethnics.

  8. Poo-Pah says:
    August 18, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    “But in moderate to large numbers, high IQ immigrants (and their children) will quickly make up a disproportionate portion of our elite. Many of them will come from countries or backgrounds that have historical grudges (legitimate or otherwise).

    So they will be both willing (grudge) and able (high IQ) to overturn any kinds of founding myths or cultural traditions that exclude them, or even hint at excluding them. And then we are back where we started.”

    Could this scenario have already happened? Think about it for a second.

  9. Polichinello says:
    August 18, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    My favorite idea for immigration is to mandate a college degree.

    So why invest in educating the natives when you can import a cheaper version? Immigration should be limited to a few exotic specialties, and then only for a limited time, as the natives are then trained to take over.

  10. Tony says:
    August 19, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    I personally think that minimum wage is too high for any more strictures than already exist on immigration. Alongside the recession, illegal immigration (to a lesser extent) has made the construction field an absolute nightmare for legitimate business. Already with the status quo, we have more immigrants than we can count, catch or naturalize. The libertarian part of me says this is not an issue of funding, but unintended consequences of America being so awesome compared to dictablandas and latifundias.

    “Brain drain” is a well-documented economic fact. Well-educated foreigners who want to move to the U.S. will try to get in and are more likely to succeed. We took the chance to re-evaluate our immigration standards last year (including quotas) and we didn’t implement such a new standard (the Economist did something on it…) possibly for those reasons.

    There is no reason I can see, however, that we shouldn’t place a higher priority on educated persons’ visas. As for the highly educated immigrants becoming the new elite? Absolutely not for two reasons: 1) They don’t have a unified agenda and 2) These people have ties to their home country. Even some of the war refugees I met from South Viet’Nam miss it and would like to move back someday.

  11. SFG says:
    August 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    I’m not a fan of Kevin McDonald (he’s way too paranoid), but you can’t deny the (understandable) Jewish obsession with the Holocaust has helped drive America to the left and gotten us entangled with Israel. Of course, we might not have gotten the bomb without importing all those brainiacs (Jewish and otherwise) from Europe…

    Also, a lot of our scientists and engineers are Chinese, and we’re soon going to be competing with them. This might turn out to be a problem.

    There is a problem in that our country is too anti-intellectual to produce its own scientists. So we have to import…

Comments are closed.