Immigration and multiculturalism news

WolfBear

Well-known member
I wasn't talking about the US citizenship test here, and neither was this New York Times article. Rather, it was talking about the RAISE Act's points system, as you would know if you and @Marduk would have actually bothered to take a look at this article itself.

You need at least 30 points on the RAISE Act's points system to immigrate to the US if this bill will ever actually pass the US Congress and be signed by the US President. Only 2% of Americans, specifically those in the green parts of the chart above, will actually get the necessary 30+ points for this:

006cedc76106618927bb909635c806416d7ab9a3.png


This is all shown in that New York Times article that I linked to above.

 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
And why should they be expected to? After all, this is supposed to benefit America, not to set up a system treating current US citizens and foreigners as equals. If you want a system like that, may aswell rename the country to Corporate States of America and start roleplaying as Cyberpunk characters, because that's saner than the schizophrenic attitude that all foreigners should have to meet standards no higher than citizens. After all, citizens have more responsibilities towards the country than immigrants, and more connection to it, so it's only natural they have more rights too, like not having to meet the same standards to go there - in any sane country, immigrating is a privilege, not a right, while for citizens, being in the country is in fact a right.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
And why should they be expected to? After all, this is supposed to benefit America, not to set up a system treating current US citizens and foreigners as equals. If you want a system like that, may aswell rename the country to Corporate States of America and start roleplaying as Cyberpunk characters, because that's saner than the schizophrenic attitude that all foreigners should have to meet standards no higher than citizens. After all, citizens have more responsibilities towards the country than immigrants, and more connection to it, so it's only natural they have more rights too, like not having to meet the same standards to go there - in any sane country, immigrating is a privilege, not a right, while for citizens, being in the country is in fact a right.

Oh, I don't dispute your points here; I just think that the standards set by the RAISE Act are too high.

And if you also want to benefit your country, you should encourage your country's best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging your country's dullest to breed less.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
Oh, I don't dispute your points here; I just think that the standards set by the RAISE Act are too high.

And if you also want to benefit your country, you should encourage your country's best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging your country's dullest to breed less.
...Bruh. 😮
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Oh look, eugenics.

You do know that a merit-based immigration policy is also a form of eugenics, right? Only allowing the best and brightest to immigrate into your country.

...Bruh. 😮

I really do think that people who support merit-based immigration have no grounds to complain about voluntary eugenics. After all, it's a hell of a lot more humane than merit-based immigration, which condemns huge numbers of people to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression simply because they're dull and/or unskilled.

FWIW, I support a merit-based immigration policy along Britain's lines (NOT along the lines of the RAISE Act) and also support voluntary eugenics. So, at least I'm being fully consistent here.
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
You do know that a merit-based immigration policy is also a form of eugenics, right? Only allowing the best and brightest to immigrate into your country.



I really do think that people who support merit-based immigration have no grounds to complain about voluntary eugenics. After all, it's a hell of a lot more humane than merit-based immigration, which condemns huge numbers of people to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression simply because they're dull and/or unskilled.

FWIW, I support a merit-based immigration policy along Britain's lines (NOT along the lines of the RAISE Act) and also support voluntary eugenics. So, at least I'm being fully consistent here.
Merit-based immigration is based upon one premise: if you've got a useful skill, trade, or specialization, a country wants you because you'll add to the prosperity of said country through your work, and you wouldn't be a leech. In return, you get to live there and join their citizenry.

Edit: except/even in states where they consider ethnicity (including Japan, surprisingly enough), but that's its own barrel of worms.

Anyway, that is completely different to eugenics, where people are encouraged or discouraged to "breed" offspring because of perceived or actual positive or negative traits.

I say again: bruh. 😮 What the fuck?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Oh, I don't dispute your points here; I just think that the standards set by the RAISE Act are too high.
Too high for what?
And if you also want to benefit your country, you should encourage your country's best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging your country's dullest to breed less.
That means permanently cancelling everything that roughly resembles feminism no questions asked and cutting needs based welfare for the underclass, without going directly into eyebrow raising territory.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Too high for what?

That means permanently cancelling everything that roughly resembles feminism no questions asked and cutting needs based welfare for the underclass, without going directly into eyebrow raising territory.

Too high to be acceptable. I would prefer somewhat lower standards, like in Britain.

Technically, if society was Based, then it should be willing to give poor people much larger welfare payments in exchange for them agreeing to curb their fertility. IIRC, some US states have child caps on welfare which mean that you can't get welfare for more than a certain number of children or something like that (though I think that California has an exception for children born above this limit who were conceived as a result of birth control/sterilization failure).

And FWIW, smart women would be perfectly capable of refusing to accept these financial incentives. So would dull women, for that matter. This is a case in favor of developing and commercializing artificial wombs, though.

Merit-based immigration is based upon one premise: if you've got a useful skill, trade, or specialization, a country wants you because you'll add to the prosperity of said country through your work, and you wouldn't be a leech. In return, you get to live there and join their citizenry.

Edit: except/even in states where they consider ethnicity (including Japan, surprisingly enough), but that's its own barrel of worms.

Anyway, that is completely different to eugenics, where people are encouraged or discouraged to "breed" offspring because of perceived or actual positive or negative traits.

I say again: bruh. 😮 What the fuck?

But that's the thing: A country can likewise want to increase the number of babies who are born who will subsequently contribute to the prosperity of this country and not be leeches while decreasing the number of babies who will subsequently become members of this country's underclass and be leeches (your words; I strongly prefer the term "burdens" instead of "leeches").
 
Last edited:

WolfBear

Well-known member

Apologies if this post is offensive, but here goes:

I've tended to notice that some or even many of the people who support a merit-based immigration policy balk at the idea of the state having a voluntary (key word here being "voluntary") eugenics policy in regards to reproduction: As in, encouraging (through incentives) the best and brightest to breed more while also encouraging (again, through incentives) the dullest to breed less. Basically, I'm wondering if there is a disconnect here considering that a merit-based immigration policy also functions similarly to eugenics: A state is choosing new residents and eventually citizens on the basis of desirable traits, with those who fail to qualify often being condemned to lifetimes of poverty, misery, and/or oppression. One could defend a merit-based immigration policy as being in the national interest, but one could say the same thing about a voluntary eugenics policy, and a merit-based immigration policy strikes me as being notoriously more inhumane than a voluntary eugenics policy, where people can simply refuse the incentives that are offered to them and thus have large/small families at their pleasure. I understand arguments about low-skilled and/or dull immigrants being a burden on the social safety net, but one could make the exact same argument about low-skilled and/or dull natives; thus, it seems rather irrational to worry about mass immigration-caused dysgenics but not about fertility-caused dysgenics.

Anyway, what do you think? It just seems strange for people to say "Oh, how exactly can we trust the government to decide what desirable traits we want in our future citizenry?" while at the same time being willing to do just this in regards to merit-based immigration. The way that I see it, if the state can identify which immigrants it wants more of and which immigrants it wants less of, then it can also identify which natives it wants to breed more (again, through incentives) and which natives it wants to breed less (once again, through incentives). Being given financial incentives to have extra children--or less children--doesn't strike me as being anywhere near as bad as being condemned to a lifetime of poverty, misery, and/or oppression simply because you're too dull, low-skilled, and/or old.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Too high to be acceptable. I would prefer somewhat lower standards, like in Britain.
That's one of worst examples you could take. It includes immigration of infamous Pakistani grooming gangs, third world migrant tent cities in the capital, and enough islamists for them to dominate prisons and still have a lot left free to roam.
Also honorable mention to the guys mentioned in this post:
So Britain's standards, if you can even call them standards, include a whole lot of people you wouldn't want in your country, or even in the neighboring country, just to be sure the fuckers don't accidentally spread out to you.
Technically, if society was Based, then it should be willing to give poor people much larger welfare payments in exchange for them agreeing to curb their fertility.
So poor people, or low IQ people?;D
And FWIW, smart women would be perfectly capable of refusing to accept these financial incentives. So would dull women, for that matter. This is a case in favor of developing and commercializing artificial wombs, though.
They would be capable, but what would be their reason to exercise that capability, in a feminism compliant culture?

Also a technology that doesn't exist, nevermind at a pricetag available to the common person, is about as relevant as to the cases in favor of commercializing matter replicators. Which would be even greater, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't exist.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
That's one of worst examples you could take. It includes immigration of infamous Pakistani grooming gangs, third world migrant tent cities in the capital, and enough islamists for them to dominate prisons and still have a lot left free to roam.
Also honorable mention to the guys mentioned in this post:
So Britain's standards, if you can even call them standards, include a whole lot of people you wouldn't want in your country, or even in the neighboring country, just to be sure the fuckers don't accidentally spread out to you.

Well, that's an argument in favor of doing much more aggressive profiling of Muslim immigrants. I support a default presumption of colorblindness (and religion-blindness as well), but this presumption should be capable of being overridden if one religion has a much more severe problem with radicalism relative to other religions.

So poor people, or low IQ people?;D

Both, technically speaking, though there is a correlation. It's easier to do this with poor people because how will you tell who's low IQ? People can flunk IQ tests on purpose, after all, but if they're poor, then that's more visible. And/or if they're on welfare.

They would be capable, but what would be their reason to exercise that capability, in a feminism compliant culture?

Wouldn't feminism encourage them to reject these incentives, though?

Also a technology that doesn't exist, nevermind at a pricetag available to the common person, is about as relevant as to the cases in favor of commercializing matter replicators. Which would be even greater, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't exist.

Yeah, we're likely talking far future here, unfortunately.

Of course, there is another solution: Commercial surrogacy: Encourage smart and/or successful people to pay large amounts of money to poor people in exchange for them being surrogates for them. If necessary, this can even be subsidized for smart people who are insufficiently well-off. This would be icky, no doubt, but everyone would benefit since smart people would have more kids, society would benefit since reproduction would become more eugenic, and poor people would benefit by getting more money.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
FWIW, I'm highly envious of the success of British Indians. They're not quite as selected as Canadian Indians (British Indian students have an average IQ of 96-97, in contrast to Canadian Indians' 105 or so), but they still integrate into British society quite nicely. Probably helps that less than 15% of them are Muslim.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Well, that's an argument in favor of doing much more aggressive profiling of Muslim immigrants. I support a default presumption of colorblindness (and religion-blindness as well), but this presumption should be capable of being overridden if one religion has a much more severe problem with radicalism relative to other religions.
Still it proves that Britain's standards are extremely insufficient.
If even a country has to have any significant immigration in the first place, i think there is a good argument to sacrifice any kind of -blindness on the altar of minimizing both short and long term social tensions that come with immigration.

Both, technically speaking, though there is a correlation. It's easier to do this with poor people because how will you tell who's low IQ? People can flunk IQ tests on purpose, after all, but if they're poor, then that's more visible. And/or if they're on welfare.
Idunno, have them take an IQ test?
And intentional flunking is only a problem if you have policies that de facto reward people for flunkling the test, which would be silly no matter how you look at it.
Wouldn't feminism encourage them to reject these incentives, though?
No, feminism encourages women to have less, if any children, and focus on a career. Makes them less desirable to the high IQ (if any) men too. Middle to upper class women are most responsive to it to make it worse.
Yeah, we're likely talking far future here, unfortunately.

Of course, there is another solution: Commercial surrogacy: Encourage smart and/or successful people to pay large amounts of money to poor people in exchange for them being surrogates for them. If necessary, this can even be subsidized for smart people who are insufficiently well-off. This would be icky, no doubt, but everyone would benefit since smart people would have more kids, society would benefit since reproduction would become more eugenic, and poor people would benefit by getting more money.
But why would the smart and successful people do that? Wouldn't smart and successful people rather spend large amounts of money on expanding their stock portfolios and trust funds for their few kids?
You are speaking of using propaganda to get the most propaganda resistant people to do something against their economic and other interests, at least according to the prevailing culture.
How do you think that's gonna work out?
FWIW, I'm highly envious of the success of British Indians. They're not quite as selected as Canadian Indians (British Indian students have an average IQ of 96-97, in contrast to Canadian Indians' 105 or so), but they still integrate into British society quite nicely. Probably helps that less than 15% of them are Muslim.
From a lot of prominent ones showing up in the news, it seems that a lot of them end up as leftists or cosmopolitans, so may be a good reason to chill the enthusiasm there.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Still it proves that Britain's standards are extremely insufficient.
If even a country has to have any significant immigration in the first place, i think there is a good argument to sacrifice any kind of -blindness on the altar of minimizing both short and long term social tensions that come with immigration.


Idunno, have them take an IQ test?
And intentional flunking is only a problem if you have policies that de facto reward people for flunkling the test, which would be silly no matter how you look at it.

No, feminism encourages women to have less, if any children, and focus on a career. Makes them less desirable to the high IQ (if any) men too. Middle to upper class women are most responsive to it to make it worse.

But why would the smart and successful people do that? Wouldn't smart and successful people rather spend large amounts of money on expanding their stock portfolios and trust funds for their few kids?
You are speaking of using propaganda to get the most propaganda resistant people to do something against their economic and other interests, at least according to the prevailing culture.
How do you think that's gonna work out?

From a lot of prominent ones showing up in the news, it seems that a lot of them end up as leftists or cosmopolitans, so may be a good reason to chill the enthusiasm there.

Then what about Canada's, New Zealand's, or Australia's standards? Though I would prefer that they be made a bit looser so that people who narrowly failed to qualify due to their age would still be able to come but would simply be restricted in the welfare benefits that they can access. And that they would also take IQ testing into account since someone might be poor, et cetera but still have a lot of potential, which will be visible if they will take an IQ test.

Technically, you would reward them with subsidies for large families if they have a high IQ and with subsidies for small families if they have a low IQ. But what if they have a high IQ and want small families? Then they will flunk the test. Of course, you could use education as a proxy for high IQ and welfare dependence as a proxy for low IQ.

And Yeah, in this specific regard, feminism has been rather counterproductive for global trends. Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews are too misogynistic, obviously, but their women are able to combine work with having lots of children. Mormon fertility is eugenic, maybe because working women there are rarer. Not sure.

I wonder if importing Modi supporters would be better for Britain?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Then what about Canada's, New Zealand's, or Australia's standards? Though I would prefer that they be made a bit looser so that people who narrowly failed to qualify due to their age would still be able to come but would simply be restricted in the welfare benefits that they can access. And that they would also take IQ testing into account since someone might be poor, et cetera but still have a lot of potential, which will be visible if they will take an IQ test.
Australia's probably least bad of the bunch, but they still have issues.
Like Lebanese gangs and islamists.
I think the best system would be tailored to a given country's needs, if the need for immigration is real as opposed to just business lobby's appetite for flooding labor supply to make it ever cheaper (hint: it will never be too cheap according to them). And for that, some combination of historically most successful systems would be best. Of course meritocratic, with limits requiring cultural compatibility of the immigrants, both in short and long term, no matter how much lobbies from exotic yet troublesome shitholes cry about it, possibly also with set contracts requiring settlement and work in certain professions and\or locations at a time that happen to have a strategic need for workers not filled by natives, as opposed to drawing immigrants to just most desirable in general cities, swiping nice jobs and real estate from the reach natives wallets, and with included clause for swift and unconditional punitive deportation of troublemakers. So something between Australia, Poland, and even outright medieval "charter city" immigration.

Technically, you would reward them with subsidies for large families if they have a high IQ and with subsidies for small families if they have a low IQ. But what if they have a high IQ and want small families? Then they will flunk the test. Of course, you could use education as a proxy for high IQ and welfare dependence as a proxy for low IQ.
Well if in some cases flunking the test is rewarded, then it's a stupid design of the system, try again. The issue with using proxies too much in the system is that their accuracy is limited, sometimes outright skewed if your education system is not a well oiled machine, like the shitshow angloshere's universities are right now. And that inaccuracy compounds with each use of the proxy in the system.

Crime and gangs: the path to battle for Australia's Islamist radicals
And Yeah, in this specific regard, feminism has been rather counterproductive for global trends. Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Jews are too misogynistic, obviously, but their women are able to combine work with having lots of children. Mormon fertility is eugenic, maybe because working women there are rarer. Not sure.
Crime and gangs: the path to battle for Australia's Islamist radicals
I wonder if importing Modi supporters would be better for Britain?
But do they even want to come to Britain, and wouldn't they stay Modi supporters?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top