Saturday, December 30, 2017

Diversity visa lottery, chain migration in the process of being Trumped?

It's easy to be frustrated by the president's lack of legislative achievement in his first year. As Z-Man puts it, we didn't vote for Trump so he'd give us a tax cut, we voted for him so he'd roll out the unwelcome mat.

That said, Trump deserves high praise for bringing the diversity visa lottery and chain migration into the public consciousness. The dissident right has been railing against this nation-wrecking insanity for decades, but with the Trump administration, it's finally going mainstream:


Politics are downstream of culture, and Trump is changing the culture, first by shifting the Overton Window and now by getting to work on the zeitgeist. He even has our incorrigibly genial host feeling cautiously optimistic.

Awareness is half the battle. The diversity lottery is sheer, indefensible stupidity. It's a program so senseless that if it didn't exist, (((Tim Wise))) would accuse neo-nazis of making it up to whip white people into an anti-POC blood frenzy. At 50,000 people a year, though, it's small potatoes.

Chain migration is the big one. It's stupid too, even from the perspective of those who signal their general support for Legal Immigration on the unenforceable condition of cultural assimilation. Assuming such cultural assimilation was possible--an assumption contradicted by the evidence--bringing the whole clan over inhibits integration with and assimilation to American cultural norms.

Action on these things is, as the Derb puts it, "widely popular and politically plausible". For ourselves and our posterity, let's make sure  it is so.

7 comments:

pithom said...

"The diversity lottery is sheer, indefensible stupidity. It's a program so senseless that if it didn't exist, (((Tim Wise))) would accuse neo-nazis of making it up to whip white people into an anti-POC blood frenzy. At 55,000 people a year, though, it's small potatoes."

The program was designed to prevent the domination of U.S. immigration flows by Chinese, Mexicans, and Indians (its original intent was to benefit Italian+Irish immigration). I say that's a pretty good idea. Its current beneficiaries, however, are disproportionately African, which might be a concern in the distant future (though I think looking at how everyday African immigrants perform in the U.S. is an interesting natural experiment).

Trump's insults of diversity visa recipients ("worst of the worst") are very, very stupid (far, far worse than the Curiel remarks, but who's paying attention?), and may well lead to the public becoming more pro-immigration. It's good he's bringing these issues up, though, since I'd like to see chain migration ended. Chain migration tends to benefit people much more clannish than northern Europeans.

Audacious Epigone said...

Pithom,

When it was updated in 1990, it became nothing more than a way of bringing in people from countries who hadn't sent anyone here in the last five years and to recalibrate that way in perpetuity. It's very intention is to make the US as racially and ethnically diverse as possible.

Stripping the human capital of third-world countries only to suffer down the road from regression to the mean is both cruel and stupid.

Given that a visa diversity lottery recipient ran over a bunch of people in New York last month, I think he's probably fine with regards to his comments.

pithom said...

"It's very intention is to make the US as racially and ethnically diverse as possible."
Better than a domination of immigrant flows by Chinese, Indians, and Mexicans. More diverse immigrant flows assimilate faster:
https://medium.com/migration-issues/immigrant-integration-gets-weird-fcb808d7fcc1
"Given that a visa diversity lottery recipient ran over a bunch of people in New York last month, I think he's probably fine with regards to his comments."
The deadliest terrorist attack last year (Las Vegas) was by a native-born White boomer man. Would Trump be smart, then, to insult native-born White boomer men as the "worst of the worst"? Of course not. Such stupid remarks can only decrease the popularity of sensible immigration restriction, as has already happened with every single issue Trump has touched.

The thing about the diversity visa program is that unlike the visa programs through which most Indians get here (which have genuinely stripped India of top talent) it gives a somewhat above-representative sample of underrepresented countries' populations. What's wrong with that? Certainly better than how the US has handled the Mexican immigration issue.

I have seen no evidence to suggest regression to the mean in children of high-skilled immigrants (rather, the reverse).

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Trump's insults of diversity visa recipients ("worst of the worst") are very, very stupid (far, far worse than the Curiel remarks, but who's paying attention?), and may well lead to the public becoming more pro-immigration.

This is utterly nonsensical.

> The deadliest terrorist attack last year (Las Vegas) was by a native-born White boomer man. Would Trump be smart, then, to insult native-born White boomer men as the "worst of the worst"? Of course not. Such stupid remarks can only decrease the popularity of sensible immigration restriction, as has already happened with every single issue Trump has touched.

I'd say without diversification, Las Vegas would have never happened. Thanks to flooding the borders with low quality immigrants, we're becoming a low trust society. Couple that with the half a century worth of white dehumanization and you got the right mix for the past several years. In a cohesive society, we never had these incidents. Thanks to diversity, we're having them with such a frequency that it barely registers a full media cycle.

Build the wall and deport em all. It's the only solution that makes sense if we don't want to live in an anarchotyranny society.

Audacious Epigone said...

Pithom,

Immigration restrictionism has been a populist issue for decades, hell probably forever. That hasn't been the obstacle to making it happen. The owned marionettes in the political class have been the reason that restrictionism hasn't happened.

With Cruz as president, there's maybe a 10% chance we're talking about chain migration right now. With any other candidate, it's 0%.

Trump has put it into play and it's a real legislative possibility. He is the first president since Eisenhower who is poised to significantly reduce immigration into the US. I don't give a fuck if his approach to it is divisive and causes the issue to be less popular. It's been popular forever and that has resulted in exactly nothing being accomplished.

Gabriel M said...

Serious question: what is the purpose of putting triple parentheses around Tim Wise?

Tim Wise has one Jewish grandparent, is not considered Jewish under historical Jewish standards nor those currently adhered to by the Orthodox or Conservative movements, is a supporter of Boycott Disinvestment and Sanctions and Israel, is married to a non-Jew, has no affiliation to any Jewish organization and doesn't even have Jewish cultural affectations. On the other side of the coin he seems to have had a bar mitzvah and sometimes identifies as a Jew so he can made #AsaJew denunciations of Israel

I'm not gong to dispute that he is a Jew, personally I don't think he is, but I can see how one could reasonably differ. I can't, though, see how his Jewishness is salient fact about his person to the extent that it needs to be (((triple emphasized))). Is there such a lack of awareness in the dissident right about the disproportionate role of Jews in American Leftism that it needs to be supplemented with one-drop-rule Jews? Is attributing the actions of everyone with one Jewish ancestor to their ostensible Judaism some sort of tried and tested recipe for success in promoting White interests?

Audacious Epigone said...

Gabriel,

Speculative aside: Paternal grandfather is the one I suspect a plurality of American men would most identify ancestrally with, since many (most?) of us who are millennials or Zers are European mutts of some sort. I do--I'm Virginia cavalier English on the paternal side--my unique surname even gets a couple mentions in Albion's Seed--while my maternal grandmother is German and my maternal grandfather is Irish.

I think without exception I've stuck to the following when using the triple parentheses: 1) Anti-white, talks about "white privilege", 2) Doesn't talk about Jewish privilege, and 3) Is at least partially Jewish.

I guess that's not entirely fair to Wise, who has written once about Jewish privilege in which he feebly denies its existence (and Asian privilege, too!) by first downplaying the advantageous disparities over non-Jewish whites these groups have, and then explaining away the residuals with things like education. Does he ever attribute underwhelming academic black achievement to explain the black-white gap?! Rhetorical.

The primary intention with the parenthetical salience is to point out that whatever "white privilege" is, "Jewish privilege" is it on steroids. If you're putatively worried about white privilege without being worried about Jewish privilege, you're full of shit or you're playing favorites (the latter of which is fine, just own up to it).

What someone like Wise hates to reckon with is that by his own accounting, he's more "privileged" than virtually every one of his white nationalist and identitarian critics.