The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Albion's Gene
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Nature Communications:

Clustering of 770,000 genomes reveals post-colonial population structure of North America

Eunjung Han, Peter Carbonetto, Ross E. Curtis, Yong Wang, Julie M. Granka, Jake Byrnes, Keith Noto, Amir R. Kermany, Natalie M. Myres, Mathew J. Barber, Kristin A. Rand, Shiya Song, Theodore Roman, Erin Battat, Eyal Elyashiv, Harendra Guturu, Eurie L. Hong, Kenneth G. Chahine & Catherine A. Ball

Nature Communications 8, Article number: 14238 (2017)
doi:10.1038/ncomms14238
07 February 2017

Despite strides in characterizing human history from genetic polymorphism data, progress in identifying genetic signatures of recent demography has been limited. Here we identify very recent fine-scale population structure in North America from a network of over 500 million genetic (identity-by-descent, IBD) connections among 770,000 genotyped individuals of US origin. We detect densely connected clusters within the network and annotate these clusters using a database of over 20 million genealogical records. Recent population patterns captured by IBD clustering include immigrants such as Scandinavians and French Canadians; groups with continental admixture such as Puerto Ricans; settlers such as the Amish and Appalachians who experienced geographic or cultural isolation; and broad historical trends, including reduced north-south gene flow. Our results yield a detailed historical portrait of North America after European settlement and support substantial genetic heterogeneity in the United States beyond that uncovered by previous studies. …

The five largest clusters (third set of rows in Table 1),

From north to south: Northeast and Utah, Pennsylvania, Lower Midwest and Appalachians, Upland South, and Lower South. In other words, these are the American-Americans, largely English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and German in origin and mixing for hundreds of years.

which we describe as assimilated immigrant clusters, account for a large portion (60%) of the IBD [identity-by-descent] network and exhibit a markedly different profile. Lacking distinctive affiliations to non-US populations, they show almost no differentiation in allele frequencies (FST at most 0.001; Supplementary Table 5) and high levels of IBD to non-cluster members (Supplementary Data 2), suggestive of high gene flow between these clusters. Moreover, few members of these clusters could be assigned to a stable subset, indicating that this clustering is largely driven by continuous variation in IBD.

Genealogical data reveal a north-to-south trend (Fig. 5), most consistently east of the Mississippi River (Fig. 3). These findings imply greater east-west than north-south gene flow, which is broadly consistent with recent westward expansion of European settlers in the United States, and possibly somewhat limited north-south migration due to cultural differences.

Michael Barone points out that 19th Century railroad men loved to build more east-west railroads than were profitable, probably because they had cultural and political connections along particular latitudes. In contrast, a rare north-south railroad, the Illinois Central, made huge profits due to lack of competition.

While the precise numbers and boundaries of these clusters are not necessarily meaningful and may be partly driven by the assumption that inter-cluster connectivity follows a random graph model, these findings demonstrate that isolation-by-distance, and specifically geography in the continental United States, can be captured from IBD alone.

These five groups are basically the famous four groups in historian David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America – New England Puritans, Pennsylvanian Midlanders, Scots-Irish highlanders, and Lowland Southerners — but with, I believe, Hackett’s Scots-Irish split up by genome folks into two groups “Lower Midwest and Appalachians” and “Upland South.”

 
Hide 104 CommentsLeave a Comment
104 Comments to "Albion's Gene"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Imagine what this territory’s genetic clusters viewed 5o hence will look like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Viewed 50 years, that is.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    A lot browner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/albions-gene/#comment-1758329
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Flip says:

    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?
     
    The map has an Irish cluster (second map), centered on New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, not Boston!

    There is no "German" category because the map is simply giving names to clusters of people with somewhat higher rates of in-marriage compared to others. German Americans almost immediately had very high rates of admixture with other white groups. For the Pennsylvania and Scandinavian clusters, these will be heavily German groups. For both lowland and upland South groups, there will be little German admixture.

    There are two German subgroups on the second map: Mennonites and Amish.
    , @Jack Highlands
    I'd guess that German-Americans are the main contributors to the 'Pennsylvania' group and descendants of Catholic Irish immigrants from the 1800's and 1900's are submerged in the 'Northeast and Utah' group; they wouldn't form much of the 'Appalachia' and 'Upland South' groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    If millions of Americans kept on illegally invading Mexico and if Mexico wanted to build a wall to stem the tide, would anyone denounce Mexico’s demands on America to stop sending illegals and its resolve to enforce border security with a wall or other means?
    I think not.

    So, why is it a problem when the US wants to secure its own borders?

    Oh yeah, pile of scrap iron in the semblance of a woman in the NY harbor says the US is all about welcoming invasion. We should consult a pile of steel(with Jewish poetess as ventriloquist) than our good sense?

    Someone should draw a pic of Statue of Liberty as dummy doll of ventriloquist Emma Lazarus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. dearieme says:

    “Hackett’s Scots-Irish split up by genome folks into two groups”: I wonder whether that started life as a Scots/English distinction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    yes, you'd imagine people from either side of the anglo-scottish border might not have trusted each other and divided up

    a map of clusters of border surnames from that region would be interesting
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Lot says:

    I am listening to the 9th Circuit hearing on CNN.com right now.

    It is not going well at all.

    Team Trump wrote good briefs, much better than Washington but their lawyer is stuttering and often incoherent. The one Republican judge is asking him direct hostile questions and getting frustrated at the lack of direct answers.

    The young Obama judge is a lot more articulate.

    http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn%3Fsr

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Team Trump's lawyer is clearly trying to do his best, but he's out of his league.

    He's moved to damage control and trying now to just get a partial reversal of the Seattle judge's order.

    He also got caught up focusing on "standing" where all the judges are skeptical. The "President has specific Congressional authority" is the best argument.

    I still think we may pull out a near complete or complete win.
    , @Boomstick
    I've heard the DoJ lawyer presenting was inserted at the last moment when the lawyers who developed the brief had to recuse themselves due to some prior entanglement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Lot says:
    @Lot
    I am listening to the 9th Circuit hearing on CNN.com right now.

    It is not going well at all.

    Team Trump wrote good briefs, much better than Washington but their lawyer is stuttering and often incoherent. The one Republican judge is asking him direct hostile questions and getting frustrated at the lack of direct answers.

    The young Obama judge is a lot more articulate.

    http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn%3Fsr

    Team Trump’s lawyer is clearly trying to do his best, but he’s out of his league.

    He’s moved to damage control and trying now to just get a partial reversal of the Seattle judge’s order.

    He also got caught up focusing on “standing” where all the judges are skeptical. The “President has specific Congressional authority” is the best argument.

    I still think we may pull out a near complete or complete win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Look, it’s Marco Rubio the dummy.

    I wonder who his Ventril is.

    Marco Rubio the dummy in action:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Moshe says:

    Can someone explain the maps?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    The dots represent areas with disproportionately high levels of one cluster.
    , @anon
    different source populations landed at different spots along the east coast and mostly pushed out westwards along similar latitudes (cos they were blocked north and south) and so kept their genetic distinction instead of all mixing up along the east coast and then expanding as a single homogenous group

    ish

    (that's east of the Mississippi - west of that is different)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Opinionator
    Imagine what this territory's genetic clusters viewed 5o hence will look like.

    Viewed 50 years, that is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Brian Caplan: All we need to do to make immigration work is change human nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    It's worse than that. Econ 101 classes usually cover "normative" and "positive", but Caplan seems not to have learned the difference.
    , @syonredux

    Almost all social science saying, "Heterogeneity is bad" can easily be reinterpreted as "Intolerance is bad" or "Identity politics is bad."
     
    More like "heterogeneity leads to intolerance and identity politics."

    So, if you want tolerance and don't want identity politics, homogeneity is the way to go.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. In other words, these are the American-Americans

    Thank you, Steve. This is some of the stuff I’ve been thinking about: How can we define Americans?

    It’s almost been like what some judge said about pornography years ago, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”

    Strange comparison, but you know what I mean. There ARE Americans, and this looks like a good start at identifying their core.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Lot says:

    The Albion’s seeds did not just go straight west, they went Southwest first then West, with the exception of the “Pennsylvania” group. It looks like it was weather based, as you need to move South at first to account for losing the moderating influence of the coast on winters. Perhaps also topographical, as the Appalachians and their valleys run in the same direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cortes
    My understanding, faulty no doubt, is that the SW migration was underpinned by the post Treaty of Union influx of the "Scotch-Irish " after 1707 and the capture of the entrepôt tobacco trade into mainland European markets by the Glasgow "Tobacco Lords" who provided cheap(ish) terms of credit for their Presbyterian co-religionaries. As the demand for bright leaf tobacco grew in Europe, groups of pioneers moved SW into the Appalachian mountains.
    If memory serves, a Scottish History Society tome covers the correspondence between a colonial "supercargo" in VA and his masters in Glasgow during the period leading up to the Revolution. Includes examples of misbehaviour by junior agents, bonuses for enterprise and tactics used to minimise prices paid at harvest time.
    Anyway, the Scotch Irish represent the Presbyterian plantation into NE Ireland in the 17th Century.
    , @RebelWriter
    Michigan was settled by many people from VA. IL and OH also had many settlers from the Southeast.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Lot says:
    @Moshe
    Can someone explain the maps?

    The dots represent areas with disproportionately high levels of one cluster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    I'm not sure that's right because the dots are arranged in a grid pattern. Must be some feature (color) that predominates within a defined region that the dot represents.
    , @hbd chick
    explanation from the paper: "...each birth location in the pedigree...is converted to the nearest coordinate on a grid, with grid points every 0.5° of latitude and longitude. Point size is scaled by number of birth location annotations in the cluster at the given location, and coloured by odds ratio (OR): the proportion of ancestral birth locations linked to cluster members at that map location over the proportion linked to non-cluster members at the same location. Points on the map with higher odds ratios indicate geographic locations that are more associated with cluster membership. Maps were generated with the maps R package using data from the Natural Earth Project (1:50 m world map, version 2.0). These data are made available in the public domain (Creative Commons CC0)."

    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14238/figures/2

    (^_^)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Lot says:
    @Flip
    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?

    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?

    The map has an Irish cluster (second map), centered on New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, not Boston!

    There is no “German” category because the map is simply giving names to clusters of people with somewhat higher rates of in-marriage compared to others. German Americans almost immediately had very high rates of admixture with other white groups. For the Pennsylvania and Scandinavian clusters, these will be heavily German groups. For both lowland and upland South groups, there will be little German admixture.

    There are two German subgroups on the second map: Mennonites and Amish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There was extensive German immigration to NC and SC. They were swamped and assimilated by the Scotch-Irish, just like in PA.

    One of the originals, Congaree Township, was renamed in 1735 to Saxe-Gotha Township and first settled by German Lutherans in that year. It was located on the south side of the Congaree River comprising the southeastern third of what is present-day Lexington County, South Carolina. The name was chosen to honor the spouse of a member of the British Royal Family, who was born in an area of Germany known as Saxe Gotha.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Lot says:

    largely English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and German in origin and mixing for hundreds of years.

    These groups were also mixing for two thousands years in Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    These groups were also mixing for two thousands years in Europe.
     
    Where in Europe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Flip
    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?

    I’d guess that German-Americans are the main contributors to the ‘Pennsylvania’ group and descendants of Catholic Irish immigrants from the 1800′s and 1900′s are submerged in the ‘Northeast and Utah’ group; they wouldn’t form much of the ‘Appalachia’ and ‘Upland South’ groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Not necessarily. When considering these groups one has to differentiate the waves of immigration. There were quite a lot of Rhineland Germans who immigrated to the US during the same period as the great Scotch-Irish immigration, and tended to settle in the same regions. When we think of the settlement of the Appalachian mountain and piedmont regions from PA south to GA, we tend to view the population as Scotch-Irish. In fact about a third of these settlers were German, and another significant portion were Welsh, though the Scotch-Irish were the majority.

    From 1780 to 1860 there was very little immigration to the South at all.

    Later German settlers came to the US along with the Famine Irish, and settled with the Irish in the large cities of the Northeastern US. There were also significant population centers of Highland Scots in NC.

    The Scotch-Irish, known to the rest of the world as Ulster Scots, were mostly descendants of people from the Border region of England and Scotland, and were more Anglo-Saxon-Dane than Celtic Scots in origin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Any thoughts from commenters on why the Scots-Irish ethnicity appears to dominate two different (though adjacent) geographic groups on the analysis? Could it somehow be an artifact of their approach?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. OT, but related to another study:

    I was listening to RadioDerb yesterday, to Derb pointing out that the argument “Let us in or we’ll kill you” is the worst argument in favor of opening the border. For some reason, I thought of a study I saw some years ago that showed that testosterone levels responded to winning and losing even in very young children. Post-soccer match, T levels rose in the pre-teen winners and fell in the pre-teen losers.

    So, I figure I can explain the divide between people who think “Let us in or we’ll kill you” is persuasive or ridiculous. It all depends on the reaction we had as children to the fairy tale of the Three Little Pigs.

    As a small child, the moral I drew from that fairy tale is that if you want to protect yourself from the wolf, you have to build a really sturdy house. But other children must draw the moral that if you don’t let the wolf in, he’ll blow your house down.

    So, we’re currently living out an Aarne-Thompson-Uther type 124 story…

    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0124.html

    The Story of the Three Little Sams

    Shrubby Sam saw the big bad wolf blow down the tallest towers in the town, but he didn’t build a stronger house, he just played his pipes and the enchanted people followed him away to a far-off land.

    Barry Sam was a fiddler. He fiddled while Ferguson burned. When the wolf came to his house, the wolf demanded, “Little Sam, little Sam, let me in.” Then Barry Sam said, “That’s not who we are,” and he let the wolf in.

    Drumpfy Sam was a builder, so he built a house with big, beautiful walls of brick. When the wolf came to his house, he said, “Little Sam, little Sam, let me in.” Drumpfy Sam said, “Not by the white goatee on my chinny, chin, chin.”
    Then Drumpfy Sam’s roommate, Chucky the Rodent, said, “Let him in, let him in, or he’ll huff and he’ll puff, and he’ll blow the house in…”

    How does the story end?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Clyde says:

    Looking at map number one I see all Donald Trump voting states below the dark red New England cluster. Exceptions being Maryland and Virginia stuffed with Federal workers and contractors. Fearing Trump will pop their bubble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Cortes says:
    @Lot
    The Albion's seeds did not just go straight west, they went Southwest first then West, with the exception of the "Pennsylvania" group. It looks like it was weather based, as you need to move South at first to account for losing the moderating influence of the coast on winters. Perhaps also topographical, as the Appalachians and their valleys run in the same direction.

    My understanding, faulty no doubt, is that the SW migration was underpinned by the post Treaty of Union influx of the “Scotch-Irish ” after 1707 and the capture of the entrepôt tobacco trade into mainland European markets by the Glasgow “Tobacco Lords” who provided cheap(ish) terms of credit for their Presbyterian co-religionaries. As the demand for bright leaf tobacco grew in Europe, groups of pioneers moved SW into the Appalachian mountains.
    If memory serves, a Scottish History Society tome covers the correspondence between a colonial “supercargo” in VA and his masters in Glasgow during the period leading up to the Revolution. Includes examples of misbehaviour by junior agents, bonuses for enterprise and tactics used to minimise prices paid at harvest time.
    Anyway, the Scotch Irish represent the Presbyterian plantation into NE Ireland in the 17th Century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Lord Jeff Sessions
    https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/829071814093582337

    Brian Caplan: All we need to do to make immigration work is change human nature.

    It’s worse than that. Econ 101 classes usually cover “normative” and “positive”, but Caplan seems not to have learned the difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Does Caplan want diversity and open borders for Israel?

    If the answer is no then he's not acting in good faith and his arguments are irrelevant.

    If the answer is no his views are based on wanting to turn the current majority into a minority because he thinks that will make his group safer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Lot says:

    What are Germania’s seeds? The Amish were from the Western fringes of Germania, farmers from Alsace and Switzerland.

    The biggest wave of Germans in the mid to late 19th century were from the poorer parts of Eastern Germany and Prussia, as well as the diaspora further East. War, political instability, and cheap American gains undermined the rural German economy during this period. These same basic causes continued to cause lower but still large numbers of German immigrants into the 20th century.

    More prosperous German Catholics settled more in Midwestern cities rather than farms.

    The violence and instability of the 1848 revolutions saw liberals from across Europe, including many Germans, move to the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    The German seeds were partly the small farming sects that you mention but also religious societies like the Moravians which was a German protestant community that emerged from Czech lands and then later settled in the area around Dresden-Leipzig before coming to the US in the 1700's. They have much more to do with "Pennsylvania Dutch" than the better known Amish or Mennonites.

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That's where the census map shows those broad areas of German "ethnicity".

    The fact that "Pennsylvania" is a doppelgaenger for Germans is probably right and certainly fits in with the North South divide, with the heavy German presence going into Ohio and Indiana, and with the Ohio River Valley as a sort of boundary.

    But there was a lot of admixtured German too in the reddish-brown group directly beneath that, think Eisenhower, Chuck Yeager, Madison Bumgarner, and some of my own relatives.

    I read Hackett's book but I'm not sure where I would "plug in" the German contribution: They were not New Englanders, they were not Virginia coastal snobs, they were not Mountain Men, and they were not Slaveholders. They were just farmers and businessmen who generally got on with the Indians, and generally opposed slavery. Unlike the four other groups.
    , @Whoever
    The first of my German ancestors, fleeing religious persecution, came from Schwarzenau in North Rhine-Westphalia in the early years of the 18th century. Others came from Friedrichstal in Baden, where they had settled as religious refugees from Switzerland. They located first in Pennsylvania and then along the Ohio River Valley.
    They got along fine with the Indians until the Revolution and the British unleashed the Shawnee on them.
    Those leading directly to me became associated with the American Fur Company and spent decades on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and in the Pacific Northwest, then into California after the Mexican War and the Sutter's Mill events.
    Other of my German ancestors were Volga Germans who migrated from Kosakenstadt to Kansas and then Nebraska in the middle of the 19th century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. David says:
    @Lot
    The dots represent areas with disproportionately high levels of one cluster.

    I’m not sure that’s right because the dots are arranged in a grid pattern. Must be some feature (color) that predominates within a defined region that the dot represents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Oops. You and I are saying the same thing.

    Back to the movie.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. David says:
    @David
    I'm not sure that's right because the dots are arranged in a grid pattern. Must be some feature (color) that predominates within a defined region that the dot represents.

    Oops. You and I are saying the same thing.

    Back to the movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Moshe
    Can someone explain the maps?

    different source populations landed at different spots along the east coast and mostly pushed out westwards along similar latitudes (cos they were blocked north and south) and so kept their genetic distinction instead of all mixing up along the east coast and then expanding as a single homogenous group

    ish

    (that’s east of the Mississippi – west of that is different)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. iffen says:
    @Lot

    How do the Germans and Irish fit in? Are they basically the same as the British and Scotch-Irish?
     
    The map has an Irish cluster (second map), centered on New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, not Boston!

    There is no "German" category because the map is simply giving names to clusters of people with somewhat higher rates of in-marriage compared to others. German Americans almost immediately had very high rates of admixture with other white groups. For the Pennsylvania and Scandinavian clusters, these will be heavily German groups. For both lowland and upland South groups, there will be little German admixture.

    There are two German subgroups on the second map: Mennonites and Amish.

    There was extensive German immigration to NC and SC. They were swamped and assimilated by the Scotch-Irish, just like in PA.

    One of the originals, Congaree Township, was renamed in 1735 to Saxe-Gotha Township and first settled by German Lutherans in that year. It was located on the south side of the Congaree River comprising the southeastern third of what is present-day Lexington County, South Carolina. The name was chosen to honor the spouse of a member of the British Royal Family, who was born in an area of Germany known as Saxe Gotha.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    The Germans who settled the Appalachian and Piedmont regions intermarried with the Scotch-Irish and Welsh. Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands, with large communities in Blacksburg, Norway, Leesville, Batesburg, and Orangeburg. Lexington is in the Midlands. There was very, very little Scotch-Irish settlement in the Low Country and Midlands, with the notable exception of Williamsburg, above Charleston, founded by Ulster Scots and named for William of Orange.

    I am a South Carolinian. My father is from the Upstate, and my mother from the Low Country. I describe myself as a cross of Appalachian Hillbilly and Low Country German. My father is mostly of British origin with a lot more Scandinavian than is typical through his mother, whose line was Dutch. My mother was mostly German, and passed along a lot of Western European DNA to me. Such family names as Bloom, Fender, Kinard, Rentz, Hiers, Varn, and Wagner are still quite common in the Low Country, and they are still predominantly Germanic.

    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Chrisnonymous
    It's worse than that. Econ 101 classes usually cover "normative" and "positive", but Caplan seems not to have learned the difference.

    Does Caplan want diversity and open borders for Israel?

    If the answer is no then he’s not acting in good faith and his arguments are irrelevant.

    If the answer is no his views are based on wanting to turn the current majority into a minority because he thinks that will make his group safer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. anon says: • Disclaimer

    the SW directional slant in the south may be partly due to fighting Spanish and French in that direction

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. SPMoore8 says:
    @Lot
    Team Trump's lawyer is clearly trying to do his best, but he's out of his league.

    He's moved to damage control and trying now to just get a partial reversal of the Seattle judge's order.

    He also got caught up focusing on "standing" where all the judges are skeptical. The "President has specific Congressional authority" is the best argument.

    I still think we may pull out a near complete or complete win.

    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn’t figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem — in my view — with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was “commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States.” along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don’t think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that’s not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked “national security.” And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of “national security.” I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    Read More
    • LOL: 27 year old
    • Replies: @27 year old
    Very principled.
    , @Greenstalk

    what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this,

     

    The law specifically gives the President the power to do what Trump is doing. The law states that:

    "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    This isn't even a debatable issue or a grey area. The judicial jackasses are the ones flouting the law.
    , @AnotherDad

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began..
     
    To the contrary it is entirely unreasonable "for the courts to ensure" ... because it's simply not their job to look for "evidence" when the President is making some foreign policy decision.

    Political decisions belong in the *political* branches. Not a difficult concept. The courts have no constitutional authority--and it would be terrible if they did--nor any authority under immigration law--to sit around and judge whether the President's visa decisions were "reasonable". It's not a point of law, but a political decision. Elected branches are elected for precisely this purpose. (If a judge has an opinion about Trump's ban, let him quit the bench and run for Congress and work to change the law.)

    But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of “national security.”
     
    SP, you seem like a good guy, but when the nation separates you belong with the left utopians.

    Foreigners simply have no right to enter the United States. This is fundamental. And I very much do expect that the leader that the free men of a republic elect will have the right to close the border, to whom and to what extent he deems appropriate to protect the nation. Any other policy would be foolish.
    , @ben tillman

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that’s not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked “national security.”
     
    He already has that power, and it is absolute. It's explicitly stated in a statute: 8 USC 1182(f):

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
     

    , @ben tillman

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began.
     
    It is absolutely and unquestionably unreasonable for the court to do as you suggest. The statute authorizing what Trump did is crystal clear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @dearieme
    "Hackett’s Scots-Irish split up by genome folks into two groups": I wonder whether that started life as a Scots/English distinction.

    yes, you’d imagine people from either side of the anglo-scottish border might not have trusted each other and divided up

    a map of clusters of border surnames from that region would be interesting

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ill Week
    Received wisdom is that the border clans went back and forth sifting national identities as it suited them.

    Apparently many of the borderers remained nominally catholic as well due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Opinionator
    Imagine what this territory's genetic clusters viewed 5o hence will look like.

    A lot browner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. SPMoore8 says:
    @Lot
    What are Germania's seeds? The Amish were from the Western fringes of Germania, farmers from Alsace and Switzerland.

    The biggest wave of Germans in the mid to late 19th century were from the poorer parts of Eastern Germany and Prussia, as well as the diaspora further East. War, political instability, and cheap American gains undermined the rural German economy during this period. These same basic causes continued to cause lower but still large numbers of German immigrants into the 20th century.

    More prosperous German Catholics settled more in Midwestern cities rather than farms.

    The violence and instability of the 1848 revolutions saw liberals from across Europe, including many Germans, move to the USA.

    The German seeds were partly the small farming sects that you mention but also religious societies like the Moravians which was a German protestant community that emerged from Czech lands and then later settled in the area around Dresden-Leipzig before coming to the US in the 1700′s. They have much more to do with “Pennsylvania Dutch” than the better known Amish or Mennonites.

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That’s where the census map shows those broad areas of German “ethnicity”.

    The fact that “Pennsylvania” is a doppelgaenger for Germans is probably right and certainly fits in with the North South divide, with the heavy German presence going into Ohio and Indiana, and with the Ohio River Valley as a sort of boundary.

    But there was a lot of admixtured German too in the reddish-brown group directly beneath that, think Eisenhower, Chuck Yeager, Madison Bumgarner, and some of my own relatives.

    I read Hackett’s book but I’m not sure where I would “plug in” the German contribution: They were not New Englanders, they were not Virginia coastal snobs, they were not Mountain Men, and they were not Slaveholders. They were just farmers and businessmen who generally got on with the Indians, and generally opposed slavery. Unlike the four other groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That’s where the census map shows those broad areas of German “ethnicity”.
     
    To this day, I hear some older West Texans grumbling about how the Germans took all the good farmland.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This not a only grouping of the “Abion’s Seed” groups because it includes ancestry from later groups.

    Many areas of the Northeast have more Irish and Italian ancestry than just those from the Albion book, and all have been intermarried for several generations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Halvorson says:

    I’m apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion’s Seed and so it’s my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer’s sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If “Appalachia” is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It’s really doing more harm than good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ill Week
    Well said - many forget that a hundred years ago published profiles described the Appalachians as the home of purest Anglo Saxon stock speaking in the cadences of Elizabethan times.

    Many apparently are enthralled by the notion of Celtic heritage .
    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    Fischer makes it clear that the Scots-Irish were concentrated in the uplands and are culturally distinct from, for instance, the Virginia Tidewater elite.

    Also, the lack of discussion of non-SI groups in Appalachia is because the next biggest Appalachian group by far was not British at all but German, whereas the subtitle of the book is Four British Folkways in America. It was not intended to be a complete discussion of Appalachia. In the same way, its discussion of the Middle Colonies is incomplete because New York was heavily Dutch and therefore outside the purview of the book.

    If people misread the book, that can hardly be blamed on the book.
    , @Chris Sparkle
    And their women have since married out...

    "I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago."

    Even candidates who win the popular vote do so by a few percentage points, and that's considered a landslide. Voting patterns tend to differ by only a fraction of the population. So it's relevant what only a fraction of the population does if they are sufficiently polarized. You might as well say, African-Americans are irrelevant and we don't need to know anything about their long democratic tendencies because even at the most generous, they were only 10-20% so they can't possibly drive any results...
    , @Neil Templeton
    Scots-Irish survival strategies have been very persuasive.
    , @iffen
    Why do you have this bee in your bonnet over the Scotch-Irish?

    Did some kid named Kerr take your lunch money every day?

    President Jackson is off the twenty and the Legend of Davy Crockett is dead, get on with it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This contains more ancestry than just those from the “Albion’s Seed” book.

    Many parts of the Northeast have more Irish and Italian ancestry than those from the Albion book, and all of them have intermarried.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    Very principled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. The pocket of Portuguese in central California in map 1 is of interest. Had read for example that Journey frontman was descended from Portuguese who lived in the Stockton area. One tends to think of Portuguese being more concentrated in Rhode Island & southern Mass., but perhaps there were two waves in the 19th century, or part of the first wave headed west.
    It would be interesting to follow the path of the German population in IN/IL/WI. Perhaps it moved west as a wave from PA in the late 1800s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    What did Portuguese due in California? Grow grapes?
    , @Twinkie
    There was also a sizable Portuguese migration (as usual from Azores) to Hawaii to work in the sugarcane industry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @CrunchybutRealistCon
    The pocket of Portuguese in central California in map 1 is of interest. Had read for example that Journey frontman was descended from Portuguese who lived in the Stockton area. One tends to think of Portuguese being more concentrated in Rhode Island & southern Mass., but perhaps there were two waves in the 19th century, or part of the first wave headed west.
    It would be interesting to follow the path of the German population in IN/IL/WI. Perhaps it moved west as a wave from PA in the late 1800s.

    What did Portuguese due in California? Grow grapes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    I think the Portuguese were fishermen, for the most part. Billy Martin was one of them, and grew up in the flats in Berkeley close to the waterfront there. He went to school with one of my uncles, and was a classmate of Philip K. Dick and Ursula LeGuin at Berkeley High.
    , @Ivy
    Portuguese were also represented in the San Joaquin Valley dairy industry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this,

    The law specifically gives the President the power to do what Trump is doing. The law states that:

    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

    This isn’t even a debatable issue or a grey area. The judicial jackasses are the ones flouting the law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused, especially since Trump's attorney today admitted that there was no evidence to offer that restricting these classes of aliens "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    You can do a lot of thought experiments on this power to see how easily this power could be abused. If that's the law, and it is exercised capriciously, it will be changed.

    I don't have any problem (personally) with restricting immigration to this country. But the law implies the setting forth of arguments as to why the restriction of immigration (in general) and for these seven countries in particular "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." So let's get into the weeds and spell out: (1) What are the interests of the United States, (2) How would the allowance of entry of immigrants from A, B, C or even A-Z is "detrimental" to those interests, on what grounds may POTUS exercise this power (i.e., does he need to offer arguments, evidence, both, or neither?), and so on.

    Myself, I would oppose any POTUS having any such unquestioned entry restriction power. I mean that for the present case, or Obama, or Hillary, or what have you. I would similarly opposed any POTUS having the opposite, unrestricted and unquestioned power of sanctuary. That's just too much power.

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed 'surprise' effect of the Order.
    , @Lot

    This isn’t even a debatable issue or a grey area.
     
    I agree that Trump was acting well within his legitimate powers, but I don't agree it is as clear as just that passage.

    The quoted text is from an act of Congress. It is limited by both other acts of Congress and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. FKA Max says:

    In other words, these are the American-Americans,

    ‘Who are the Americans?’ – from 1921

    From The Family Herald, London, 1921

    https://theoldinheritance.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/who-are-the-americans-from-1921/

    By a series of elaborate calculations Mr. Rossiter arrives at the conclusion that there are “nearly fifty-five million of men, women and children of British ancestry, welded into one vast and surprisingly homogeneous element.”
    “This element,” he says “is the pillar which supports the Republic. It is the element which manages and controls the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Ill Week says:
    @anon
    yes, you'd imagine people from either side of the anglo-scottish border might not have trusted each other and divided up

    a map of clusters of border surnames from that region would be interesting

    Received wisdom is that the border clans went back and forth sifting national identities as it suited them.

    Apparently many of the borderers remained nominally catholic as well due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    I wonder. In 1641 the Irish rebels had a merry time slitting the throats of Protestant civilians in Ireland. They concentrated their efforts of those of English descent, leaving those of Scots descent alone. So they could tell the difference.
    , @dearieme
    And yet the spread of surnames across the border isn't all that conspicuous. Ker/Kerr/Carr, perhaps, and Graham I'll grant you. But many of the other names tend to stick out as either Scots or English.
    , @anon

    due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.
     
    hahaha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that’s not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked “national security.

    The POTUS has and has always had that power. Many presidents in the past have used that power. Your feelings on the topic do not constitute any sort of legal or rational argument.

    The courts have no legal or Constitutional authority to construct any “rational basis test” in which they assign to themselves the power to decide what is and what is not “rational”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Many presidents in the past have used that power.

    Who were these presidents and when did they use that power, and why, and what was the public response to the exercise of that power? Let's see how Trump's Order fits into that tradition.

    I am not saying that "feelings" are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Ill Week says:
    @Halvorson
    I'm apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion's Seed and so it's my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer's sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If "Appalachia" is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It's really doing more harm than good.

    Well said – many forget that a hundred years ago published profiles described the Appalachians as the home of purest Anglo Saxon stock speaking in the cadences of Elizabethan times.

    Many apparently are enthralled by the notion of Celtic heritage .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. SPMoore8 says:
    @Steve Sailer
    What did Portuguese due in California? Grow grapes?

    I think the Portuguese were fishermen, for the most part. Billy Martin was one of them, and grew up in the flats in Berkeley close to the waterfront there. He went to school with one of my uncles, and was a classmate of Philip K. Dick and Ursula LeGuin at Berkeley High.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Hodag says:

    This paper is a feast. And I have not had a real chance to get into it. Finns in the UP! The only people who would thrive in the UP would likely be..Finns. Doubt Spaniards would like it.

    Northwest Wisconsin being Sven and Ole country…Yet it does not show up. Maybe I am looking at the wrong maps.

    On edit: I blew it. Scandinavians totally are in NW Wisconsin. To quote The Replacements:. Sven and Ole, a great big whiskey to you, anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. @Halvorson
    I'm apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion's Seed and so it's my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer's sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If "Appalachia" is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It's really doing more harm than good.

    Fischer makes it clear that the Scots-Irish were concentrated in the uplands and are culturally distinct from, for instance, the Virginia Tidewater elite.

    Also, the lack of discussion of non-SI groups in Appalachia is because the next biggest Appalachian group by far was not British at all but German, whereas the subtitle of the book is Four British Folkways in America. It was not intended to be a complete discussion of Appalachia. In the same way, its discussion of the Middle Colonies is incomplete because New York was heavily Dutch and therefore outside the purview of the book.

    If people misread the book, that can hardly be blamed on the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Halvorson
    "Virginia tidewater elite" makes the people in question sound like elites from Virginia. But south English immigrants are the predominant white ethnicity in every Southern state.

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They're about as common as East Indians.

    http://www.tennhelp.com/phone-book/Harlan-county-KY/30directory.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. hbd chick says: • Website
    @Lot
    The dots represent areas with disproportionately high levels of one cluster.

    explanation from the paper: “…each birth location in the pedigree…is converted to the nearest coordinate on a grid, with grid points every 0.5° of latitude and longitude. Point size is scaled by number of birth location annotations in the cluster at the given location, and coloured by odds ratio (OR): the proportion of ancestral birth locations linked to cluster members at that map location over the proportion linked to non-cluster members at the same location. Points on the map with higher odds ratios indicate geographic locations that are more associated with cluster membership. Maps were generated with the maps R package using data from the Natural Earth Project (1:50 m world map, version 2.0). These data are made available in the public domain (Creative Commons CC0).”

    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14238/figures/2

    (^_^)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Halvorson
    I'm apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion's Seed and so it's my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer's sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If "Appalachia" is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It's really doing more harm than good.

    And their women have since married out…

    “I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago.”

    Even candidates who win the popular vote do so by a few percentage points, and that’s considered a landslide. Voting patterns tend to differ by only a fraction of the population. So it’s relevant what only a fraction of the population does if they are sufficiently polarized. You might as well say, African-Americans are irrelevant and we don’t need to know anything about their long democratic tendencies because even at the most generous, they were only 10-20% so they can’t possibly drive any results…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Sertorius says:

    It’s worth noting that many if not most of German immigrants in the 18th Century were a direct consequence of Louis XIV loving war too much–devastated by repeated invasion from French armies, refugees from the Palatinate made their way down the Rhine, with Queen Anne’s London being their primary way station, before they were in turn dispersed to both Ireland and the American colonies. Mostly peasants, the German Palantines suffered in comparison with the earlier wave of French Hugeunots, who had what we might call today more cultural capital, but the career of, say, a Conrad Weiser–an essential ambassador/interpreter to the Iroquois Nation–is revealing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. SPMoore8 says:
    @Greenstalk

    what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this,

     

    The law specifically gives the President the power to do what Trump is doing. The law states that:

    "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    This isn't even a debatable issue or a grey area. The judicial jackasses are the ones flouting the law.

    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused, especially since Trump’s attorney today admitted that there was no evidence to offer that restricting these classes of aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    You can do a lot of thought experiments on this power to see how easily this power could be abused. If that’s the law, and it is exercised capriciously, it will be changed.

    I don’t have any problem (personally) with restricting immigration to this country. But the law implies the setting forth of arguments as to why the restriction of immigration (in general) and for these seven countries in particular “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” So let’s get into the weeds and spell out: (1) What are the interests of the United States, (2) How would the allowance of entry of immigrants from A, B, C or even A-Z is “detrimental” to those interests, on what grounds may POTUS exercise this power (i.e., does he need to offer arguments, evidence, both, or neither?), and so on.

    Myself, I would oppose any POTUS having any such unquestioned entry restriction power. I mean that for the present case, or Obama, or Hillary, or what have you. I would similarly opposed any POTUS having the opposite, unrestricted and unquestioned power of sanctuary. That’s just too much power.

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed ‘surprise’ effect of the Order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed ‘surprise’ effect of the Order.
     
    In case it wasn't clear, I think you are full of it.

    This order has done exactly what it was intended to. Violently wrench the Overton window to the right and put lots of illegals on notice to get out of the country. It will probably also stop some percentage of the H-1B scam all by itself.

    However, when the God Emperor Trump brings in his shutdown of the H-1B scam it will be even better.
    , @Opinionator
    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused,

    Provide examples then of how it could be abused.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. SPMoore8 says:
    @Greenstalk

    when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that’s not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked “national security.
     
    The POTUS has and has always had that power. Many presidents in the past have used that power. Your feelings on the topic do not constitute any sort of legal or rational argument.

    The courts have no legal or Constitutional authority to construct any "rational basis test" in which they assign to themselves the power to decide what is and what is not "rational".

    Many presidents in the past have used that power.

    Who were these presidents and when did they use that power, and why, and what was the public response to the exercise of that power? Let’s see how Trump’s Order fits into that tradition.

    I am not saying that “feelings” are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I am not saying that “feelings” are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.
     
    Why are you using the subjunctive? The POTUS already *can* capriciously close the border whenever he wants. Whether the law should be changed is something the courts have no business even thinking about. If the 9th Circuit rules against Congress (which passed the bill), President Truman (who signed the Act into law), and President Trump (who merely did what he was duly and constitutionally authorized to do), maybe it's time for another Worcester v. Georgia moment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Sean c says:

    Looks like my Dutch and French ancestors from the 1600s in the NYC area were swamped despite having large families.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Svigor says:

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this

    Evidence for what? That he has the right? Because it’s obvious that closing the borders will improve national security.

    “There’s no evidence that putting locks on my door will improve my home security; I haven’t had a break-in since 9/11.”

    That’s your argument?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Svigor says:

    I am not saying that “feelings” are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.

    To non-citizens? No, I’m not seeing how that could be all that bad. Any examples come to mind?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Whiskey says: • Website

    Anyone expecting anything other than a full reversal on all counts of Trump’s Executive Order is deluding themselves.

    The President has that authority under the Constitution, but the Constitution is meaningless and might as well be toilet paper.

    The law is whatever Judges say it is. And Judges view, left and right, alike, that ALL peoples in the world have Civil Rights just like Americans. That the Americans inside America have no right to exclude ANY “undocumented Americans” because … Judges like power and more power and even more power.

    Without any responsibility.

    The Judges will reverse every part of Trump’s order. Indeed Trump will be very likely to stay in office even a year before a Judge orders his removal. Everyone in the world has a civil right equal to ours (that means that our civil rights are essentially meaningless and debased). According to Judges.

    This will not change until Judges face severe consequences — getting every nasty secret exposed and going to jail for things like child pr0n or whatever (Judges tend to be very corrupt and nasty people — think anti-fas who made it through Law School).

    Judges view their job to dilute American Citizenship to nothing, the way Silicon Valley oligarchs issue special shares with voting rights just to themselves, and ordinary shareholders are powerless to affect management and founders spending money on themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. SPMoore8 says:

    Evidence for what? That he has the right? Because it’s obvious that closing the borders will improve national security.

    Well, first, the Order didn’t close the borders. It closed the borders for nationals of 7 countries only. So then there should be some argument as to why individuals from those 7 countries were particularly “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Trump’s lawyer, today, offered no evidence for that. But we already know that all of the terror attacks we have experienced in the US since 9/11 were committed either by American citizens, or refugees/citizens from countries that were not on the list.

    Moreover, the Order was issued with two huge loopholes where State or DHS could make exceptions, and they took the weekend off, and then last week we began to hear various administration claims that the Order was not “meant” to apply to Green Card holders. It would have helped if that had been spelled out in the Order, but again the lack of clarity to the Order just goes to make it appear impulsive and not really backed by any solid evidence.

    I don’t think anyone is actually questioning the “right” of the president to issue such an order. However, it is manifestly unclear why the Order was issued the way it was issued, why it remains (to this day) unclear who it is supposed to cover, and so on. Again, the law gives the POTUS the right to issue such an order: Apparently, however, the law is stuck on the exercise of this right absent any evidence for exercising the right to prevent entry to persons who would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

    However, if we do go into the argument about what’s “detrimental” to the United States, that’s where we get into student visas for brainy kids we want to bring here, intellectuals and scientists we want to bring in to assist our R&D, economic and tech contacts who need to move freely to develop our economy, and so on. That’s what the various amicus briefs are all about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Well, first, the Order didn’t close the borders. It closed the borders for nationals of 7 countries only. So then there should be some argument as to why individuals from those 7 countries were particularly “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Trump’s lawyer, today, offered no evidence for that.
     
    Why would he? It's legally irrelevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Ivy says:
    @Steve Sailer
    What did Portuguese due in California? Grow grapes?

    Portuguese were also represented in the San Joaquin Valley dairy industry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. syonredux says:
    @Lord Jeff Sessions
    https://twitter.com/bryan_caplan/status/829071814093582337

    Brian Caplan: All we need to do to make immigration work is change human nature.

    Almost all social science saying, “Heterogeneity is bad” can easily be reinterpreted as “Intolerance is bad” or “Identity politics is bad.”

    More like “heterogeneity leads to intolerance and identity politics.”

    So, if you want tolerance and don’t want identity politics, homogeneity is the way to go.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @SPMoore8
    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused, especially since Trump's attorney today admitted that there was no evidence to offer that restricting these classes of aliens "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    You can do a lot of thought experiments on this power to see how easily this power could be abused. If that's the law, and it is exercised capriciously, it will be changed.

    I don't have any problem (personally) with restricting immigration to this country. But the law implies the setting forth of arguments as to why the restriction of immigration (in general) and for these seven countries in particular "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." So let's get into the weeds and spell out: (1) What are the interests of the United States, (2) How would the allowance of entry of immigrants from A, B, C or even A-Z is "detrimental" to those interests, on what grounds may POTUS exercise this power (i.e., does he need to offer arguments, evidence, both, or neither?), and so on.

    Myself, I would oppose any POTUS having any such unquestioned entry restriction power. I mean that for the present case, or Obama, or Hillary, or what have you. I would similarly opposed any POTUS having the opposite, unrestricted and unquestioned power of sanctuary. That's just too much power.

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed 'surprise' effect of the Order.

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed ‘surprise’ effect of the Order.

    In case it wasn’t clear, I think you are full of it.

    This order has done exactly what it was intended to. Violently wrench the Overton window to the right and put lots of illegals on notice to get out of the country. It will probably also stop some percentage of the H-1B scam all by itself.

    However, when the God Emperor Trump brings in his shutdown of the H-1B scam it will be even better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    This order has done exactly what it was intended to. Violently wrench the Overton window to the right and put lots of illegals on notice to get out of the country.

    While I might wish for an order that did that, the substance of this one strikes me as tame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What about the Dutch?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began..

    To the contrary it is entirely unreasonable “for the courts to ensure” … because it’s simply not their job to look for “evidence” when the President is making some foreign policy decision.

    Political decisions belong in the *political* branches. Not a difficult concept. The courts have no constitutional authority–and it would be terrible if they did–nor any authority under immigration law–to sit around and judge whether the President’s visa decisions were “reasonable”. It’s not a point of law, but a political decision. Elected branches are elected for precisely this purpose. (If a judge has an opinion about Trump’s ban, let him quit the bench and run for Congress and work to change the law.)

    But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of “national security.”

    SP, you seem like a good guy, but when the nation separates you belong with the left utopians.

    Foreigners simply have no right to enter the United States. This is fundamental. And I very much do expect that the leader that the free men of a republic elect will have the right to close the border, to whom and to what extent he deems appropriate to protect the nation. Any other policy would be foolish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Foreigners simply have no right to enter the United States.

    I agree. So don't give them visas. And the POTUS can issue such an order, it's up to the other two branches of government to see if it stands, and in what shape. It's not that complicated. For example, it's still not clear to me that the Order doesn't violate the 1965 immigration law, since the Order focuses on national origin (which violates that law) and doesn't provide any evidence why national origin from these seven countries constitutes a specific threat.

    Again, I have no problem with restricting immigration either in this instance, or in total. However, this Order was begging to be challenged, and it was. If the will of the people and the legislature is for this, it will stand. If they are not, it won't. As it is, there appears there is a legitimate question as to whether this power can be exercised without complaint when there is no evidence or arguments offered to support it. The order does seem to be popular, however.
    So maybe it will stand. If it does, I would have no problem if it were applied more broadly, and permanently. (Not sure what the results of that would be.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Whoever says:
    @Lot
    What are Germania's seeds? The Amish were from the Western fringes of Germania, farmers from Alsace and Switzerland.

    The biggest wave of Germans in the mid to late 19th century were from the poorer parts of Eastern Germany and Prussia, as well as the diaspora further East. War, political instability, and cheap American gains undermined the rural German economy during this period. These same basic causes continued to cause lower but still large numbers of German immigrants into the 20th century.

    More prosperous German Catholics settled more in Midwestern cities rather than farms.

    The violence and instability of the 1848 revolutions saw liberals from across Europe, including many Germans, move to the USA.

    The first of my German ancestors, fleeing religious persecution, came from Schwarzenau in North Rhine-Westphalia in the early years of the 18th century. Others came from Friedrichstal in Baden, where they had settled as religious refugees from Switzerland. They located first in Pennsylvania and then along the Ohio River Valley.
    They got along fine with the Indians until the Revolution and the British unleashed the Shawnee on them.
    Those leading directly to me became associated with the American Fur Company and spent decades on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and in the Pacific Northwest, then into California after the Mexican War and the Sutter’s Mill events.
    Other of my German ancestors were Volga Germans who migrated from Kosakenstadt to Kansas and then Nebraska in the middle of the 19th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Halvorson says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Fischer makes it clear that the Scots-Irish were concentrated in the uplands and are culturally distinct from, for instance, the Virginia Tidewater elite.

    Also, the lack of discussion of non-SI groups in Appalachia is because the next biggest Appalachian group by far was not British at all but German, whereas the subtitle of the book is Four British Folkways in America. It was not intended to be a complete discussion of Appalachia. In the same way, its discussion of the Middle Colonies is incomplete because New York was heavily Dutch and therefore outside the purview of the book.

    If people misread the book, that can hardly be blamed on the book.

    “Virginia tidewater elite” makes the people in question sound like elites from Virginia. But south English immigrants are the predominant white ethnicity in every Southern state.

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They’re about as common as East Indians.

    http://www.tennhelp.com/phone-book/Harlan-county-KY/30directory.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They’re about as common as East Indians.
     
    Don't forget that many Germans in America anglicized their names over the years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that’s not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked “national security.”

    He already has that power, and it is absolute. It’s explicitly stated in a statute: 8 USC 1182(f):

    (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @SPMoore8
    I will say this: anyone who had a valid visa that become invalid as of Friday afternoon 1/27/17 to Friday evening 2/4/17, and who hasn't figured out how to get into the United States in the past in 96 hours is an idiot.

    In other words, the main problem -- in my view -- with the rollout of the order has been solved by the opening of this temporary window.

    However, what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument -- I have the right to close the border for national security reasons -- is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this, and that lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of clarity in implementation, coupled with anti-Muslim declarations (including yourself last night when you said that visas issued by the previous admin need not be honored because they were issued by a president who was "commuted (sic!, committed) to demographic and religious domination of Muslims in the United States." along with POTUS public utterances and tweets, indicates that the national security argument is weak and we really are dealing with an anti-Muslim argument here. (Of course your post is not relevant to the court but I don't think a judge would be impressed with your argument.)

    Put another way, when POTUS starts issuing travel bans because he has the authority to close the border, but presents no evidence as to why the border should be closed, while simultaneously hinting that the reason involves a religious test, that's not good. Upholding the order as it stands would hypothetically give POTUS the right to close the borders to whoever he wanted whenever he liked, so long as he invoked "national security." And that is also unsat.

    I would expect that it wouldn't be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order -- i.e., an actual hearing on the subject -- concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began. If they choose to uphold the ban in whole or in part while that hearing is in preparation, I think that would satisfy most parties. But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of "national security." I would have objected to this under any president, this has nothing to do with Trump.

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began.

    It is absolutely and unquestionably unreasonable for the court to do as you suggest. The statute authorizing what Trump did is crystal clear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. SPMoore8 says:
    @AnotherDad

    I would expect that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the courts to ensure that there was indeed evidence for this order — i.e., an actual hearing on the subject — concurrent with the process of vetting and reorganization that the order began..
     
    To the contrary it is entirely unreasonable "for the courts to ensure" ... because it's simply not their job to look for "evidence" when the President is making some foreign policy decision.

    Political decisions belong in the *political* branches. Not a difficult concept. The courts have no constitutional authority--and it would be terrible if they did--nor any authority under immigration law--to sit around and judge whether the President's visa decisions were "reasonable". It's not a point of law, but a political decision. Elected branches are elected for precisely this purpose. (If a judge has an opinion about Trump's ban, let him quit the bench and run for Congress and work to change the law.)

    But personally I would not accept a ruling that the POTUS has a right to close the border at his whim under the cloak of “national security.”
     
    SP, you seem like a good guy, but when the nation separates you belong with the left utopians.

    Foreigners simply have no right to enter the United States. This is fundamental. And I very much do expect that the leader that the free men of a republic elect will have the right to close the border, to whom and to what extent he deems appropriate to protect the nation. Any other policy would be foolish.

    Foreigners simply have no right to enter the United States.

    I agree. So don’t give them visas. And the POTUS can issue such an order, it’s up to the other two branches of government to see if it stands, and in what shape. It’s not that complicated. For example, it’s still not clear to me that the Order doesn’t violate the 1965 immigration law, since the Order focuses on national origin (which violates that law) and doesn’t provide any evidence why national origin from these seven countries constitutes a specific threat.

    Again, I have no problem with restricting immigration either in this instance, or in total. However, this Order was begging to be challenged, and it was. If the will of the people and the legislature is for this, it will stand. If they are not, it won’t. As it is, there appears there is a legitimate question as to whether this power can be exercised without complaint when there is no evidence or arguments offered to support it. The order does seem to be popular, however.
    So maybe it will stand. If it does, I would have no problem if it were applied more broadly, and permanently. (Not sure what the results of that would be.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @SPMoore8
    Many presidents in the past have used that power.

    Who were these presidents and when did they use that power, and why, and what was the public response to the exercise of that power? Let's see how Trump's Order fits into that tradition.

    I am not saying that "feelings" are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.

    I am not saying that “feelings” are a legal argument. They are a rational argument. Closing the border is serious business. If any POTUS could capriciously close the border whenever he wanted for any reason that could be seriously disruptive in many ways. Surely you can see that.

    Why are you using the subjunctive? The POTUS already *can* capriciously close the border whenever he wants. Whether the law should be changed is something the courts have no business even thinking about. If the 9th Circuit rules against Congress (which passed the bill), President Truman (who signed the Act into law), and President Trump (who merely did what he was duly and constitutionally authorized to do), maybe it’s time for another Worcester v. Georgia moment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Lot says:
    @Greenstalk

    what does seem clear from the proceedings is that Trump argument — I have the right to close the border for national security reasons — is relatively weak since there is essentially no evidence for this,

     

    The law specifically gives the President the power to do what Trump is doing. The law states that:

    "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    This isn't even a debatable issue or a grey area. The judicial jackasses are the ones flouting the law.

    This isn’t even a debatable issue or a grey area.

    I agree that Trump was acting well within his legitimate powers, but I don’t agree it is as clear as just that passage.

    The quoted text is from an act of Congress. It is limited by both other acts of Congress and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Boomstick says:
    @Lot
    I am listening to the 9th Circuit hearing on CNN.com right now.

    It is not going well at all.

    Team Trump wrote good briefs, much better than Washington but their lawyer is stuttering and often incoherent. The one Republican judge is asking him direct hostile questions and getting frustrated at the lack of direct answers.

    The young Obama judge is a lot more articulate.

    http://go.cnn.com/?stream=cnn%3Fsr

    I’ve heard the DoJ lawyer presenting was inserted at the last moment when the lawyers who developed the brief had to recuse themselves due to some prior entanglement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Their former law firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of the two states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @SPMoore8
    Evidence for what? That he has the right? Because it’s obvious that closing the borders will improve national security.

    Well, first, the Order didn't close the borders. It closed the borders for nationals of 7 countries only. So then there should be some argument as to why individuals from those 7 countries were particularly "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Trump's lawyer, today, offered no evidence for that. But we already know that all of the terror attacks we have experienced in the US since 9/11 were committed either by American citizens, or refugees/citizens from countries that were not on the list.

    Moreover, the Order was issued with two huge loopholes where State or DHS could make exceptions, and they took the weekend off, and then last week we began to hear various administration claims that the Order was not "meant" to apply to Green Card holders. It would have helped if that had been spelled out in the Order, but again the lack of clarity to the Order just goes to make it appear impulsive and not really backed by any solid evidence.

    I don't think anyone is actually questioning the "right" of the president to issue such an order. However, it is manifestly unclear why the Order was issued the way it was issued, why it remains (to this day) unclear who it is supposed to cover, and so on. Again, the law gives the POTUS the right to issue such an order: Apparently, however, the law is stuck on the exercise of this right absent any evidence for exercising the right to prevent entry to persons who would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    However, if we do go into the argument about what's "detrimental" to the United States, that's where we get into student visas for brainy kids we want to bring here, intellectuals and scientists we want to bring in to assist our R&D, economic and tech contacts who need to move freely to develop our economy, and so on. That's what the various amicus briefs are all about.

    Well, first, the Order didn’t close the borders. It closed the borders for nationals of 7 countries only. So then there should be some argument as to why individuals from those 7 countries were particularly “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Trump’s lawyer, today, offered no evidence for that.

    Why would he? It’s legally irrelevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Halvorson
    I'm apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion's Seed and so it's my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer's sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If "Appalachia" is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It's really doing more harm than good.

    Scots-Irish survival strategies have been very persuasive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Twinkie says:
    @Lot

    largely English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and German in origin and mixing for hundreds of years.
     
    These groups were also mixing for two thousands years in Europe.

    These groups were also mixing for two thousands years in Europe.

    Where in Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Twinkie says:
    @SPMoore8
    The German seeds were partly the small farming sects that you mention but also religious societies like the Moravians which was a German protestant community that emerged from Czech lands and then later settled in the area around Dresden-Leipzig before coming to the US in the 1700's. They have much more to do with "Pennsylvania Dutch" than the better known Amish or Mennonites.

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That's where the census map shows those broad areas of German "ethnicity".

    The fact that "Pennsylvania" is a doppelgaenger for Germans is probably right and certainly fits in with the North South divide, with the heavy German presence going into Ohio and Indiana, and with the Ohio River Valley as a sort of boundary.

    But there was a lot of admixtured German too in the reddish-brown group directly beneath that, think Eisenhower, Chuck Yeager, Madison Bumgarner, and some of my own relatives.

    I read Hackett's book but I'm not sure where I would "plug in" the German contribution: They were not New Englanders, they were not Virginia coastal snobs, they were not Mountain Men, and they were not Slaveholders. They were just farmers and businessmen who generally got on with the Indians, and generally opposed slavery. Unlike the four other groups.

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That’s where the census map shows those broad areas of German “ethnicity”.

    To this day, I hear some older West Texans grumbling about how the Germans took all the good farmland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Germans settled the good farmland areas of Missouri (north and river valleys) and the Scotch-Irish took the bad farmland areas (Ozarks) for running cattle and timber.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Twinkie says:
    @CrunchybutRealistCon
    The pocket of Portuguese in central California in map 1 is of interest. Had read for example that Journey frontman was descended from Portuguese who lived in the Stockton area. One tends to think of Portuguese being more concentrated in Rhode Island & southern Mass., but perhaps there were two waves in the 19th century, or part of the first wave headed west.
    It would be interesting to follow the path of the German population in IN/IL/WI. Perhaps it moved west as a wave from PA in the late 1800s.

    There was also a sizable Portuguese migration (as usual from Azores) to Hawaii to work in the sugarcane industry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “For both lowland and upland South groups, there will be little German admixture.”

    I suspect it’s the other way around. The “Kentucky Long Rifle”, for instance, is actually the Swiss-German long rifle for hunting in the Alps. The early German settlers usually got along pretty well with Scots-Irish and other frontier types.

    Not always, in particular with later German immigrants, for instance, see the Hoodoo War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “largely English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and German in origin and mixing for hundreds of years.”

    Beowulf, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, the North Sea…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “To this day, I hear some older West Texans grumbling about how the Germans took all the good farmland.”

    Adelsverein:

    “…The Adelsverein was organized on April 20, 1842, by twenty-one German noblemen at Biebrich on the Rhine…

    …The society represented a significant effort to establish a new Germany on Texas soil through organized mass emigration. The land for the emigrants was to be purchased by the Adelsverein or secured through land grants from the Republic of Texas.”

    One reason for “the prettiest girls you ever seen”.

    A solid block of the German counties in Texas voted against joining the Confederacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Maj says:

    Core Mormondom confirmed as basically New-New England.

    This is the main reason, btw, why so many Utahns voted against Trump, despite their strong Republican registration advantage. Genetically, they are Puritans. An odd mix with a conservative patriarchal religion, but there you go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Utah dweller
    The Mormons in Utah voted very solidly for Trump. Not many were fooled by Egg McMuffin. The Utahans who voted against Trump are mostly former Californians. Like other western states, Utah has been swamped by Californians fleeing the failed policies and demographics of their own state and demanding that their new homes enact the same policies. Californian is practically a vulgar epithet in the parts of the state that are still majority Mormon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. […] the Unz Review, on the iSteve blog, a post containing links and excerpts from a study on ‘IBD’, or […]

    Read More
  80. @SPMoore8
    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused, especially since Trump's attorney today admitted that there was no evidence to offer that restricting these classes of aliens "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

    You can do a lot of thought experiments on this power to see how easily this power could be abused. If that's the law, and it is exercised capriciously, it will be changed.

    I don't have any problem (personally) with restricting immigration to this country. But the law implies the setting forth of arguments as to why the restriction of immigration (in general) and for these seven countries in particular "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States." So let's get into the weeds and spell out: (1) What are the interests of the United States, (2) How would the allowance of entry of immigrants from A, B, C or even A-Z is "detrimental" to those interests, on what grounds may POTUS exercise this power (i.e., does he need to offer arguments, evidence, both, or neither?), and so on.

    Myself, I would oppose any POTUS having any such unquestioned entry restriction power. I mean that for the present case, or Obama, or Hillary, or what have you. I would similarly opposed any POTUS having the opposite, unrestricted and unquestioned power of sanctuary. That's just too much power.

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed 'surprise' effect of the Order.

    Yes, the law is there as written, and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see how such a power could be abused,

    Provide examples then of how it could be abused.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Boomstick
    I've heard the DoJ lawyer presenting was inserted at the last moment when the lawyers who developed the brief had to recuse themselves due to some prior entanglement.

    Their former law firm filed an amicus brief on behalf of the two states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @The most deplorable one

    In this case, I think the POTUS would have been better off to have signed the order and then provided a grace period of a couple three weeks for the various agencies involved (and critics) to come to a consensus as to the meaning of the document because of the huge exceptions that the Order delegated to State and DHS to decide, and its general vagueness. This way at least the process of vetting could have been started without the all-too-predictable judicial interference and temporary lifting of the Order, which by itself has completely undone the supposed ‘surprise’ effect of the Order.
     
    In case it wasn't clear, I think you are full of it.

    This order has done exactly what it was intended to. Violently wrench the Overton window to the right and put lots of illegals on notice to get out of the country. It will probably also stop some percentage of the H-1B scam all by itself.

    However, when the God Emperor Trump brings in his shutdown of the H-1B scam it will be even better.

    This order has done exactly what it was intended to. Violently wrench the Overton window to the right and put lots of illegals on notice to get out of the country.

    While I might wish for an order that did that, the substance of this one strikes me as tame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Twinkie says:
    @Halvorson
    "Virginia tidewater elite" makes the people in question sound like elites from Virginia. But south English immigrants are the predominant white ethnicity in every Southern state.

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They're about as common as East Indians.

    http://www.tennhelp.com/phone-book/Harlan-county-KY/30directory.html

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They’re about as common as East Indians.

    Don’t forget that many Germans in America anglicized their names over the years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OFWHAP
    Exactly. How many Müllers and Schmidts became Millers and Smiths?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Maj
    Core Mormondom confirmed as basically New-New England.

    This is the main reason, btw, why so many Utahns voted against Trump, despite their strong Republican registration advantage. Genetically, they are Puritans. An odd mix with a conservative patriarchal religion, but there you go.

    The Mormons in Utah voted very solidly for Trump. Not many were fooled by Egg McMuffin. The Utahans who voted against Trump are mostly former Californians. Like other western states, Utah has been swamped by Californians fleeing the failed policies and demographics of their own state and demanding that their new homes enact the same policies. Californian is practically a vulgar epithet in the parts of the state that are still majority Mormon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. dearieme says:
    @Ill Week
    Received wisdom is that the border clans went back and forth sifting national identities as it suited them.

    Apparently many of the borderers remained nominally catholic as well due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.

    I wonder. In 1641 the Irish rebels had a merry time slitting the throats of Protestant civilians in Ireland. They concentrated their efforts of those of English descent, leaving those of Scots descent alone. So they could tell the difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. dearieme says:
    @Ill Week
    Received wisdom is that the border clans went back and forth sifting national identities as it suited them.

    Apparently many of the borderers remained nominally catholic as well due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.

    And yet the spread of surnames across the border isn’t all that conspicuous. Ker/Kerr/Carr, perhaps, and Graham I’ll grant you. But many of the other names tend to stick out as either Scots or English.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ill Week
    The border clans were often described as "Scottish when they will and English at their pleasure" or some variation on same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Jack Highlands
    I'd guess that German-Americans are the main contributors to the 'Pennsylvania' group and descendants of Catholic Irish immigrants from the 1800's and 1900's are submerged in the 'Northeast and Utah' group; they wouldn't form much of the 'Appalachia' and 'Upland South' groups.

    Not necessarily. When considering these groups one has to differentiate the waves of immigration. There were quite a lot of Rhineland Germans who immigrated to the US during the same period as the great Scotch-Irish immigration, and tended to settle in the same regions. When we think of the settlement of the Appalachian mountain and piedmont regions from PA south to GA, we tend to view the population as Scotch-Irish. In fact about a third of these settlers were German, and another significant portion were Welsh, though the Scotch-Irish were the majority.

    From 1780 to 1860 there was very little immigration to the South at all.

    Later German settlers came to the US along with the Famine Irish, and settled with the Irish in the large cities of the Northeastern US. There were also significant population centers of Highland Scots in NC.

    The Scotch-Irish, known to the rest of the world as Ulster Scots, were mostly descendants of people from the Border region of England and Scotland, and were more Anglo-Saxon-Dane than Celtic Scots in origin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Lot
    The Albion's seeds did not just go straight west, they went Southwest first then West, with the exception of the "Pennsylvania" group. It looks like it was weather based, as you need to move South at first to account for losing the moderating influence of the coast on winters. Perhaps also topographical, as the Appalachians and their valleys run in the same direction.

    Michigan was settled by many people from VA. IL and OH also had many settlers from the Southeast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Svigor says:

    Well, first, the Order didn’t close the borders. It closed the borders for nationals of 7 countries only. So then there should be some argument as to why individuals from those 7 countries were particularly “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Trump’s lawyer, today, offered no evidence for that. But we already know that all of the terror attacks we have experienced in the US since 9/11 were committed either by American citizens, or refugees/citizens from countries that were not on the list.

    It’s obvious that shutting the borders to only those 7 countries would improve national security, the way bad locks are better than no locks, even if worse than good locks.

    But we already know that all of the terror attacks we have experienced in the US since 9/11 were committed either by American citizens, or refugees/citizens from countries that were not on the list.

    So “since 9/11″ really is your argument. The rest of your reply did not get to the meat of the issue. You can dance around the political and legal theater, but we aren’t in a courtroom here.

    SP, you seem like a good guy, but when the nation separates you belong with the left utopians.

    Yep. I noticed this before the elections, and at the time I wondered what took me so long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @iffen
    There was extensive German immigration to NC and SC. They were swamped and assimilated by the Scotch-Irish, just like in PA.

    One of the originals, Congaree Township, was renamed in 1735 to Saxe-Gotha Township and first settled by German Lutherans in that year. It was located on the south side of the Congaree River comprising the southeastern third of what is present-day Lexington County, South Carolina. The name was chosen to honor the spouse of a member of the British Royal Family, who was born in an area of Germany known as Saxe Gotha.
     

    The Germans who settled the Appalachian and Piedmont regions intermarried with the Scotch-Irish and Welsh. Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands, with large communities in Blacksburg, Norway, Leesville, Batesburg, and Orangeburg. Lexington is in the Midlands. There was very, very little Scotch-Irish settlement in the Low Country and Midlands, with the notable exception of Williamsburg, above Charleston, founded by Ulster Scots and named for William of Orange.

    I am a South Carolinian. My father is from the Upstate, and my mother from the Low Country. I describe myself as a cross of Appalachian Hillbilly and Low Country German. My father is mostly of British origin with a lot more Scandinavian than is typical through his mother, whose line was Dutch. My mother was mostly German, and passed along a lot of Western European DNA to me. Such family names as Bloom, Fender, Kinard, Rentz, Hiers, Varn, and Wagner are still quite common in the Low Country, and they are still predominantly Germanic.

    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.

    Very interesting. I have Rhineland Germans on both sides, one from PA > NC and the other from SC Piedmont. I default to Scotch-Irish on some names because several come from counties known to have been settled by the Scotch-Irish so it is a good bet. There must be some English in there, but as far as I know, no separation can be made on names like Smith, Green, Wilson, etc.

    Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands

    Are you referencing an actual population count and comparison?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Flip says:
    @Twinkie

    The big German migrations from later in the 19th Century came from all over the German speaking world, including Russia, but they, along with a lot of Scandinavians and Czechs, mostly settled in the Great Plains (including Texas) and the Far West. That’s where the census map shows those broad areas of German “ethnicity”.
     
    To this day, I hear some older West Texans grumbling about how the Germans took all the good farmland.

    Germans settled the good farmland areas of Missouri (north and river valleys) and the Scotch-Irish took the bad farmland areas (Ozarks) for running cattle and timber.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. iffen says:
    @Halvorson
    I'm apparently the only guy on the Internet who really hates Albion's Seed and so it's my sacred duty to fight back against it at every opportunity.

    Hackett Fischer goes through a huge number of pages on the Scotch Irish before giving his readers any sense of just how many of them there are in the South. Most readers in the isteve comment section walk away from the book thinking Appalachia or even the entire South is predominantly SI. This is an urban legend. If you dig through Fischer's sources on Scotch Irish numbers the one study he gives most credence to is a colonial surname analysis done by Purvis. Here are his results:

    https://ibb.co/n8BDFa

    The South was only about 15% Scotch Irish in 1790. Even in the home state of Andrew Jackson and Edward Rutledge they did not crack 20. If "Appalachia" is given a very, very narrow definition it is possible they could have made up a plurality of residents in 1790. But not today.

    I really dislike the lazy way so many people in this corner of the Internet think they can forego learning anything about modern voting patterns because they read this book 10 years ago. It's really doing more harm than good.

    Why do you have this bee in your bonnet over the Scotch-Irish?

    Did some kid named Kerr take your lunch money every day?

    President Jackson is off the twenty and the Legend of Davy Crockett is dead, get on with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. OFWHAP says:
    @Twinkie

    I dug through this Harlan, KY phonebook and of 300 listed surnames I counted eight Germans. They’re about as common as East Indians.
     
    Don't forget that many Germans in America anglicized their names over the years.

    Exactly. How many Müllers and Schmidts became Millers and Smiths?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Exactly. How many Müllers and Schmidts became Millers and Smiths?
     
    And that even happened on the other side of the Atlantic, e.g. Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha = Windsor and Battenberg = Mountbatten.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ill Week
    Received wisdom is that the border clans went back and forth sifting national identities as it suited them.

    Apparently many of the borderers remained nominally catholic as well due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.

    due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.

    hahaha

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ill Week
    I first came across this idea in the writing of Robert Bell, but your insightful comment will spur further research on my part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Twinkie

    These groups were also mixing for two thousands years in Europe.
     
    Where in Europe?

    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.
     
    Recent genetic studies have shown that Germanic intermixture in Britain is considerably lower than previously assumed based on popular history. Those Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (and later Danes and Norwegians and still later Normans) came as mercenaries, raiders, and conquerors, and their populations were quite small and mostly male. They have had a very small genetic footprint on the larger population of Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Twinkie says:
    @OFWHAP
    Exactly. How many Müllers and Schmidts became Millers and Smiths?

    Exactly. How many Müllers and Schmidts became Millers and Smiths?

    And that even happened on the other side of the Atlantic, e.g. Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha = Windsor and Battenberg = Mountbatten.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Ill Week says:
    @dearieme
    And yet the spread of surnames across the border isn't all that conspicuous. Ker/Kerr/Carr, perhaps, and Graham I'll grant you. But many of the other names tend to stick out as either Scots or English.

    The border clans were often described as “Scottish when they will and English at their pleasure” or some variation on same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Twinkie says:
    @PV van der Byl
    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.

    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.

    Recent genetic studies have shown that Germanic intermixture in Britain is considerably lower than previously assumed based on popular history. Those Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (and later Danes and Norwegians and still later Normans) came as mercenaries, raiders, and conquerors, and their populations were quite small and mostly male. They have had a very small genetic footprint on the larger population of Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Recent genetic studies have shown that Germanic intermixture in Britain is considerably lower than previously assumed based on popular history. Those Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (and later Danes and Norwegians and still later Normans) came as mercenaries, raiders, and conquerors, and their populations were quite small and mostly male. They have had a very small genetic footprint on the larger population of Britain.
     
    Guardian summary of an Oxford paper: Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Ill Week says:
    @anon

    due to a reluctance of Reformed clergy to enter the area.
     
    hahaha

    I first came across this idea in the writing of Robert Bell, but your insightful comment will spur further research on my part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. iffen says:
    @RebelWriter
    The Germans who settled the Appalachian and Piedmont regions intermarried with the Scotch-Irish and Welsh. Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands, with large communities in Blacksburg, Norway, Leesville, Batesburg, and Orangeburg. Lexington is in the Midlands. There was very, very little Scotch-Irish settlement in the Low Country and Midlands, with the notable exception of Williamsburg, above Charleston, founded by Ulster Scots and named for William of Orange.

    I am a South Carolinian. My father is from the Upstate, and my mother from the Low Country. I describe myself as a cross of Appalachian Hillbilly and Low Country German. My father is mostly of British origin with a lot more Scandinavian than is typical through his mother, whose line was Dutch. My mother was mostly German, and passed along a lot of Western European DNA to me. Such family names as Bloom, Fender, Kinard, Rentz, Hiers, Varn, and Wagner are still quite common in the Low Country, and they are still predominantly Germanic.

    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.

    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.

    Very interesting. I have Rhineland Germans on both sides, one from PA > NC and the other from SC Piedmont. I default to Scotch-Irish on some names because several come from counties known to have been settled by the Scotch-Irish so it is a good bet. There must be some English in there, but as far as I know, no separation can be made on names like Smith, Green, Wilson, etc.

    Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands

    Are you referencing an actual population count and comparison?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    "Are you referencing an actual population count and comparison?"

    If one has been done, I'm not aware of it. I go by two things; known patterns of migration and settlement, and many, many hours spent reviewing census records.

    South Carolina was settled from the coast up, and from the mountains down. The so-called Scotch-Irish settlement was from PA down the Old Wagon Road to Salisbury, NC, from where it spread out to both sides of the Appalachians, and further South. This settlement rarely reached further toward the coast than the Western Piedmont.

    From the coast, settlement moved up as land became scarcer, and met the upland settlements in the Piedmont at places like Ninety Six and Newberry. The coastal settlements were quite diverse, with English, Scots, Irish (true Irish), Welsh, Germans, French Huguenots, Sephardic Jews, many different ethnicities of Africans, and several times as many tribes of Native Americans as the Back Country, or Upstate.

    German names are far more common in the Low Country than in the Upstate, probably by a factor of three to five. I'm referring here to census records prior to 1870, and not considering the ethnic distribution today. BMW brought a lot of modern Germans to the Upstate.

    The most common surname origins, historically, in the Upstate, listed in order of magnitude would be; Scots and English (close to a tie), Welsh, German, Irish, and a smattering of French. Of course gauging origins by surnames alone is less than precise, and some can't be guessed; Smiths, for instance. My own surname is typically considered English, as it's Norman-French in origin, but my line originated in the Scottish Lowlands, and the family spent several generations in Northern Ireland before coming to America in 1740.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Twinkie

    England and the British Isles, more generally. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were proto-Germans.
     
    Recent genetic studies have shown that Germanic intermixture in Britain is considerably lower than previously assumed based on popular history. Those Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (and later Danes and Norwegians and still later Normans) came as mercenaries, raiders, and conquerors, and their populations were quite small and mostly male. They have had a very small genetic footprint on the larger population of Britain.

    Recent genetic studies have shown that Germanic intermixture in Britain is considerably lower than previously assumed based on popular history. Those Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (and later Danes and Norwegians and still later Normans) came as mercenaries, raiders, and conquerors, and their populations were quite small and mostly male. They have had a very small genetic footprint on the larger population of Britain.

    Guardian summary of an Oxford paper: Genetic study reveals 30% of white British DNA has German ancestry

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @iffen
    What is notable is that most of these Low Country families are from Eastern Germany, and some of the lines are from areas that are, or once were, Czech. The Germans who settled along with the Scotch Irish in Appalachia were mostly Rhineland Germans.

    Very interesting. I have Rhineland Germans on both sides, one from PA > NC and the other from SC Piedmont. I default to Scotch-Irish on some names because several come from counties known to have been settled by the Scotch-Irish so it is a good bet. There must be some English in there, but as far as I know, no separation can be made on names like Smith, Green, Wilson, etc.

    Yet there were many more Germans in the Low Country and Midlands

    Are you referencing an actual population count and comparison?

    “Are you referencing an actual population count and comparison?”

    If one has been done, I’m not aware of it. I go by two things; known patterns of migration and settlement, and many, many hours spent reviewing census records.

    South Carolina was settled from the coast up, and from the mountains down. The so-called Scotch-Irish settlement was from PA down the Old Wagon Road to Salisbury, NC, from where it spread out to both sides of the Appalachians, and further South. This settlement rarely reached further toward the coast than the Western Piedmont.

    From the coast, settlement moved up as land became scarcer, and met the upland settlements in the Piedmont at places like Ninety Six and Newberry. The coastal settlements were quite diverse, with English, Scots, Irish (true Irish), Welsh, Germans, French Huguenots, Sephardic Jews, many different ethnicities of Africans, and several times as many tribes of Native Americans as the Back Country, or Upstate.

    German names are far more common in the Low Country than in the Upstate, probably by a factor of three to five. I’m referring here to census records prior to 1870, and not considering the ethnic distribution today. BMW brought a lot of modern Germans to the Upstate.

    The most common surname origins, historically, in the Upstate, listed in order of magnitude would be; Scots and English (close to a tie), Welsh, German, Irish, and a smattering of French. Of course gauging origins by surnames alone is less than precise, and some can’t be guessed; Smiths, for instance. My own surname is typically considered English, as it’s Norman-French in origin, but my line originated in the Scottish Lowlands, and the family spent several generations in Northern Ireland before coming to America in 1740.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Svigor says:

    But we already know that all of the terror attacks we have experienced in the US since 9/11 were committed either by American citizens, or refugees/citizens from countries that were not on the list.

    Looks like we don’t know that after all:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

    I’m shocked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. […] The Old Inheritance and Steve Sailer, here is The Family Herald from London, 1921 with a spirited defense of WASP […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation