The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
A Small Counterproposal to Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One of the striking aspects of the latest Trump brouhaha is that virtually none of the people objecting to what Trump said —

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, — Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.

— has offered a constructive counterproposal. Virtually nobody who says we shouldn’t do that has said we shouldn’t do that because our country’s representative have already figured out what is going on and have reforms ready to roll out.

So, let me offer a small proposal for one thing that obviously needs reform.

One thing that’s become apparent from San Bernardino is that our government’s system for assessing spousal immigrants is broken.

And it’s not just letting in the Shooter Bride. We now know that the Shooter Groom’s gun-supplying buddy Enrique Marquez was in an immigration fraud fake marriage. From the New York Times:

San Bernardino Attackers’ Friend Spoke of ‘Sleeper Cells’
By IAN LOVETT, JACK HEALY, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and JULIE TURKEWITZ DEC. 11, 2015

… On behalf of Mr. Farook, Mr. Marquez bought the two assault rifles used in the attack, the authorities say. He told investigators he had done so because Mr. Farook believed he could not pass a background check. Mr. Marquez has also described in detail how he and Mr. Farook had been planning another terrorist attack together in 2012, the authorities say. They appear to have been scared off by arrests related to a terrorism ring in Riverside County that was prosecuted in 2012, the authorities said.

… He converted to Islam and attended some of the same mosques as the Farook family. When Mr. Farook’s older brother, Raheel, married a Russian woman named Tatiana Gigliotti, Mr. Marquez was one of the witnesses. The other was Mr. Farook.

Last year, Mr. Marquez married the Russian sister of Raheel Farook’s wife. He later told a friend and people at the bar that it was a sham marriage for immigration purposes. He told bar patrons he had been paid $5,000 or $10,000 to marry Ms. Gigliotti’s sister, Mariya Chernykh. …

He told Mr. Rodriguez that he had posted photographs of himself and his wife for the sake of appearances, but that Ms. Chernykh lived at her own apartment and would not so much as kiss him.

Is the other Farook brother’s marriage to the other Russian sister real? Or is it fake too? And why didn’t the father of Mrs. Marquez’s anchor baby, Oscar Romero, marry her instead to get her a visa? Is he an illegal immigrant too?

One of my commenters said you can’t blame government immigration officials for making bad decisions about spouses because they are given so little time to investigate and ponder who to let into the country permanently. Other commenters have suggested there is a massive number of sham marriages for purposes of immigration fraud.

Okay, so here’s a proposal: let’s increase the budget. Hire more and better immigration officials and give them more time and money to do careful investigations.

How much? I don’t know, but here are few examples to put things in perspective: How much do colleges spend on their admissions departments? How much do NFL teams spend scouting who to draft? How much time is devoted by Americans to picking their Fantasy Football rosters? Something that’s clear about 21st Century organizations is that selection matters, but that lesson never seems to get applied to thinking about immigration policy, where schmaltzy sentiment reigns instead.

This reform won’t solve all the immigration problems. But it’s a more constructive proposal than seemingly anything all the people in positions of power and influence who are enraged at Donald Trump have put forward this week in response.

 
Hide 144 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. In this anything-goes era characterized by widespread acceptance of homosexual marriage, who is to judge what constitutes a “real” vs. a “fake” marriage anyway?

    Using culturally-normative clues to a genuine marriage requires that cultural norms exist in the first place.

    The floodgates are open. There is little hope of closing them now.

    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Exactly.

    Of course there has to be a balance between harrassing real couples and stopping sham marriages but it appears that it's too easy to let someone in these day.

    Btw,
    A Swedish friend moved to the US with his American wife and I clearly remember how both were annoyed by all the paperwork needed(much more than when moving in the other direction).

    As usual it looks like government knows how to make matters difficult for honest people whilst simultaneously being unable to stop the fraudsters.
  2. Recently I’ve been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What’s interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/scott-dilbert-adams-on-trumps-sales-techniques/
    , @The most deplorable one
    And yet, we find this at Scott Adams' blog:

    http://scottadams-startupreview.tumblr.com/post/119168499440/smart-vibrator-is-fitbit-for-pleasure

    As always, some people should consider if their name is appropriate for the company they are founding.

    , @anon
    Scott Adams is right.

    Trump isn't really coming from right or left he's operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes - effectively he's negotiating with the electorate.

    Those polices will be a *mixture* of left and right and in particular slowing/halting immigration will appeal across the board and bite great chunks out of the Democrat base while at the same time enthusing the white blue collar Republicans people like Romney can never reach.

    The only people opposed will be the oligarch class and people who have a desperate craving to see white people turned into a minority.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Scott whiffed on his predicted "immigration surprise" by Trump though. He blogged that Trump would propose some ridiculous amnesty plan but not call it amnesty (e.g., designate US post offices as Mexican consulates, and have illegals who set foot in them count as having gone back to Mexico before returning), and then when Trump proposed the moratorium on Muslim immigration this week, Scott tried to claim this was the immigration surprise he anticipated.

    No. Trump is an intuitively talented negotiator and communicator, but he's also someone who pays attention to events and proposes common sense policies to address them. This is so unheard of in politics that most smart observers resort to Rube Goldberg explanations for Trump's behavior.

    Scott Adams claims Trump is springing elaborate rhetorical traps. Michael Brendan Dougherty claims Trump's faking it on immigration (see below). David Frum is one of the few who groks that Trump comes up with new policy ideas when confronted with new information.
    https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/675086013186883585
  3. So wait, we have a Russian woman named Tatiana Gigliotti (which isn’t a Russian surname) and her sister Mariya Chernykh? The sisters don’t even share the surname? Something’s telling me Tatiana’s already been married before, because one of the earlier articles mentioned that Tatiana is married to Syed Raheel Farook (shooter’s older brother). So what we have here is possibly serial marriage fraud.

    Oops, there I go noticing again…

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    So wait, we have a Russian woman named Tatiana Gigliotti (which isn’t a Russian surname)
     
    It brought to mind those Russian Fiats. But those were made in Togliatti.
  4. A bunch of liberals the other day sat around and were basically kicking themselves for not being able to top Trump’s proposal, here’s the clip.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/12/11/liberal-msnbc-host-stumps-panel-cant-state-better-immigration-plan-than-trumps-283021?hvid=3Hjpe0

    I like how they’re now asking how would you even tell if people are Muslim. Weren’t they just telling us that the Obama administration would be able to screen for radical ideology? Now we can’t tell what religion people are?

    It’s amazing how the media shoots at you from all angles. When they hear an idea they don’t like, they try to convince you

    1) It’s impractical (“How will you tell people are Muslim?”)
    2) It’ll make the problem worse (“Doing the bidding of ISIS!”)
    3) It’s “contrary to our values”

    If you refute one of these arguments, they’ll start debating on a different plane. Trump refuted (1) by pointing to Operation Wetback, so they just moved on to (3).

    When I started seeing (2), it was really disheartening. “We need the help of the Muslim community, this will alienate them!” Yes to deal with the immigration problem you need the help of immigrants, which means you need more immigrants indefinitely, lest the ones we let in kill us all.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Dems can't tell what SEX someone is, how are they to be trusted to identify a terrorist ?
    , @G Pinfold

    1) It’s impractical (“How will you tell people are Muslim?”)
     
    Simple. It's called a shibboleth. You say shibboleth, I say shibbolet, let's call the whole thing off.

    Isslaam is a tell. Musslem is a tell. A friendly would say Izlam and muzlim.

    Try it. You may get a few false positives, but then again... It's probably too early to tell.
  5. OT: Turkey issues arrest warrant for dozens linked to Erdogan foe

    ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey issued arrest warrants for U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen and 66 others on Friday, state-run Anadolu Agency said, pressing President Tayyip Erdogan’s campaign to root out the influence of the former ally he accuses of trying to topple him.

    A former ruling AK Party deputy was among five people held in operations across Turkey, targeting the “parallel state” Erdogan accuses his former ally of secretly creating in police, judiciary and politics. The suspects all face accusations linked to association with a terrorist group.

    H/T: Drudge Report

  6. They can’t make proposals, because if they do, they lose.

    If they propose to “do nothing” they become responsible for all future attacks, and they make themselves look ineffectual, uncaring, and oblivious.

    If they say “do x” they are admitting that Muslim immigration is a problem and so concede the most important point in the debate. The debate then devolves into quibbling over details.

    If they start making actual proposals, they are Farooked no matter what they propose. That is why they have to drown out the debate itself.

  7. @Aristippus
    Recently I've been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What's interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.
  8. Oh come on.

    Don’t spoil the fun.

    I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.

    I will watch like Yojimbo and laugh.

    Liven up the marathons.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "Oh come on. Don’t spoil the fun. I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc."

    I'm tempted to laugh it off and agree, but Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino aren't exactly SWPL enclaves. Even the Boston Marathon bombing wasn't exactly an attack on Swippleville, since many of the participants weren't from Boston. I had two friends who ran in that marathon the year of the attack, and both were solid Republicans.

    The biggest reason working and middle class types are more likely to be opposed to Muslim immigration isn't because they are ignroant an closed-minded, but because they're the ones more often exposed to the retrogade Muslims who cause all the problems.
    , @e
    Oh come on.

    Don’t spoil the fun.

    I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.


    My first thought was let them into sociology and anthropology departments and liberal arts colleges, period.
  9. Steve the problem is that government does not WANT to screen immigrants. More voters for Dems. So the process has to be end-around government.

    Allow US citizens to sue and collect from both governments AND officials when immigrants who are let in do damages to ordinary people. There is much talk of piercing the corporate veil, to allow suing of corporate officers in various lawsuits. Oh such as, GM covering up its ignition problems leading to … death.

    The same thing has to happen here. Allowing not only the Federal Government to be sued, but also NGOs making money and critically, government officials. Even years after they leave office.

    Its one thing for a government official to think, “F- you Americans. President Obama! has ordered me to admit half the ME ESPECIALLY the terrorists because they haven’t been hugged enough get Y-T. Achmed here screaming he wants to kill Jews and Christians is going to be your next door neighbor and health inspector!” What did you expect him to do, exhibit moral super powers?

    It is another thing for him to fear, “God-damn, I could lose my house and have to live in Baltimore not some nice place in Virginia if I let in this screaming jihadi. F-you Obama! I’m keeping my house.”

    It is a matter of incentives. Demanding moral supermen is a recipe for failure. Of course pushing a piercing of the government veil will be very hard, but its a good discussion to have, as it points out the incentives to make Dem leaders happy at the expense of Joe Average shot dead at a Christmas Party.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    The problem with this sort of detournement is that you are still dependent on the system ensconced over decades by a Gramscian march to oppose you to enforce it.
    , @TomSchmidt
    An end to immunity wouldn't get passed. But an end to the presumption of immunity might. There is NO WAY that the puppet masters will give up their literal private law, privilege.
  10. How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

    That makes more sense.

    Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don't seem to be anti white.

    The problems of African American/White relations are not their fault.

    , @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive. It's the descendants of slaves that seem to be the problem. I don't know if it was some kind of unnatural selection or if so many of their minds have just been poisoned with a bad attitude of entitlement, resentment and paranoia about perpetual victimization by a horrible caste of professional minority "civil rights leaders" and community organizers.
    , @ScarletNumber
    I hate to break this to you, but black immigrants are not the problem. Ask one what they think about American-born black people.
    , @JSM
    Keep 'em all out. Immigration Moratorium Now.
  11. Gigliotti

    They don’t make Russian names like they used to.

  12. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Aristippus
    Recently I've been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What's interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.

    And yet, we find this at Scott Adams’ blog:

    https://scottadams-startupreview.tumblr.com/post/119168499440/smart-vibrator-is-fitbit-for-pleasure

    As always, some people should consider if their name is appropriate for the company they are founding.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Fast food was designed by engineers who ruined the American palate.

    Now engineers want to deconstruct and despoil American sex?


    "Note: Co-founder James Wang has an MBA from Haas Business School, Anna Lee has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, and Leo Chen a BS in Electrical Engineering, all from Berkeley."

    Wearily this is inevitably about empowerment, but - strangely - also about checking that a woman is normal:

    "But the most valuable help Smart Bod founders believe they offer is empowering women with information about their own bodies, and an opportunity to ask questions and share their experiences with a community of experts and peers. “For a lot of women, it’s a taboo topic,” said Klinger. “They want to know where they fall within the spectrum, to validate that they’re normal.”
  13. counterproposal: no immigrants at all, until we figure this out

  14. nah, just extend the immigration moratorium to everyone to make it fair

    plus deport illegals

  15. How much do colleges spend on their admissions departments? How much do NFL teams spend scouting who to draft?

    The difference is the NFL and colleges care who they pick.

    It’s seems like the people who run this country just want to flood it with as many non-white people as
    possible or they want cheap labor.

    • Replies: @Realist
    "The difference is the NFL and colleges care who they pick."

    That's just not true at all. The NFL is full of criminal psychopaths. And colleges will take anyone for money.
  16. What it actually looks like is the chain migration of a series of multi-married opportunists, all up and down. Russians, Pakistanis, Mexicans — all fulfilling the worst stereotypes — what are they doing here? As facts emerge, it could be as devastating a narrative as Haven Monahan.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    As facts emerge, it could be as devastating a narrative as Haven Monahan.

    When I last checked a few months ago, the text string "Haven Monahan" had never appeared in the New York Times.
  17. The married Muslim terrorists had a child together. It appears to have been a genuine marriage, made in hell.

  18. I agree that Scott Adams has some of the most interesting comments on trump. On this issue, his opinion is that trump is playing the odds that there will be another terrorist attack somewhere in the world before the election, and at that point no other candidate will be set up like he is to play the adult in the room. Iirc.

    I like Steve’s idea that other organizations should be the model, and think we should make it more specific. For example, “Why are the admissions policies of the US like the University of Phoenix, when they could be like Harvard’s?” Or something like that.

  19. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Aristippus
    Recently I've been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What's interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.

    Scott Adams is right.

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.

    Those polices will be a *mixture* of left and right and in particular slowing/halting immigration will appeal across the board and bite great chunks out of the Democrat base while at the same time enthusing the white blue collar Republicans people like Romney can never reach.

    The only people opposed will be the oligarch class and people who have a desperate craving to see white people turned into a minority.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

  20. One obvious truth that hasn’t received any scrutiny in America is that the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system. Someone sitting in Accra who wants to come to America not only has access to information on how to go about it, he or she now also has an accomplice (relatives, friends) in Columbus, Ohio, to grease the scheme. The consular officers at our posts must be overwhelmed. Assuming only a 2% success rate for the schemers, it is still a large number of people LEGALLY coming in every year who shouldn’t have been granted a visa in the first place.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's a general pattern that knowledge on how to scam institutions is readily available these days. Our society has invested heavily in defenses against some kinds of grifts, but not much against others, such as immigration and scamming on standardized tests.
    , @Hail

    the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system.
     
    At the 'immigration' level, this is a very difficult problem to control, isn't it? Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it? Vastly reduce the number of visas given? End the Visa Waiver program? That still just passes the buck to consular officers to choose who gets in and who doesn't, even for Westerners and Japanese, etc.

    Relatedly: Ending birthright citizenship may be closer than you think. Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Paul are all are strong proponents of ending birthright citizenship. Jeb and Rubio are both deadset against it. Jeb seems neutralized. If Rubio is held off... (All candidates' scores)

  21. the photos from raheel’s facebook page make me think that marriage is genuine (see here). i mean, his wife even bothered to dress in traditional pakistani garb for whatever event (presumably family — a wedding?) this was.

  22. @MG
    One obvious truth that hasn't received any scrutiny in America is that the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America's immigration system. Someone sitting in Accra who wants to come to America not only has access to information on how to go about it, he or she now also has an accomplice (relatives, friends) in Columbus, Ohio, to grease the scheme. The consular officers at our posts must be overwhelmed. Assuming only a 2% success rate for the schemers, it is still a large number of people LEGALLY coming in every year who shouldn't have been granted a visa in the first place.

    It’s a general pattern that knowledge on how to scam institutions is readily available these days. Our society has invested heavily in defenses against some kinds of grifts, but not much against others, such as immigration and scamming on standardized tests.

  23. Okay, so here’s a proposal: let’s increase the budget. Hire more and better immigration officials and give them more time and money to do careful investigations.

    That is a solution tailor made to be shredded by the Paul Ryans of the GOP. It’s straight up expansion of bureaucracy, running against nearly everything conservatism has been running on since Buckley. If Trump were still a Democrat, or it was Jim Webb saying it, it would be a good idea. But it makes absolutely no sense from a conservative perspective.

    The idea of an independent board has promise, but we can’t ignore the fact that such an agency would develop a “staff officer” mentality.

    The easiest solution is an across the board moratorium for 10 years, and an abrupt ending of “family reunification” for good.

    • Replies: @gruff

    That is a solution tailor made to be shredded by the Paul Ryans of the GOP. It’s straight up expansion of bureaucracy, running against nearly everything conservatism has been running on since Buckley. If Trump were still a Democrat, or it was Jim Webb saying it, it would be a good idea. But it makes absolutely no sense from a conservative perspective.
     
    Remind me again who created the "Department of Homeland Security"?
  24. I don’t have any stats but a good Chinese-American friend (legal immigrant) tells me that one of her Chinese immigrant girl friends has twice married men from China for money. She got $60k per sham marriage, suggesting that Enrique Marquez sold himself too cheap (and that women probably demand higher prices than men). The ‘marriages’ lasted three years each, during which time I think they lived in the same dwelling; I don’t know what, if anything, USCIS did to check on them. Even if they tried, proving a negative can be tough.

  25. Frum had a good write-up on the same question/theme– our present laissez-faire system is almost ideologically anti-selective at every level of command, sort of like the Prime Directive on the old “Star Trek” series — but w/ bonus Somali content:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/

  26. @Anon
    How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

    That makes more sense.

    Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

    You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don’t seem to be anti white.

    The problems of African American/White relations are not their fault.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    The problem is that as soon as these African immigrants arrive they qualify for privileged race-based bonuses. Their kid gets preference for university admission because he's black.
    , @Anon
    "You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don’t seem to be anti white."

    Somalis are useless.

    Some immigrant parents may be appreciative but wait til their kids are raised under PC.
    And once Americanized, they'll be into rap culture and that crap.
    And they'll realize the white boy can be pushed around.
    And as African population is exploding, there will be no end to the madness.
    And the smart blacks will eventually come around to leading the blacks(like Obama does) than working with conservatives.

    The MLK actor in Selma and the negro in 12 yrs a jiver are both of African origin.

    Lots of blacks in UK seem to be in the 'anti-racist' hustle.

    Obama's black side is pure East African, but he plays the Jim Crow card.

    But regardless of the value of African immigrants, what about blacks already here?

    How are their problems solved by sending them to the back of the bus in favor of new blacks?

  27. @Aristippus
    Recently I've been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What's interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.

    Scott whiffed on his predicted “immigration surprise” by Trump though. He blogged that Trump would propose some ridiculous amnesty plan but not call it amnesty (e.g., designate US post offices as Mexican consulates, and have illegals who set foot in them count as having gone back to Mexico before returning), and then when Trump proposed the moratorium on Muslim immigration this week, Scott tried to claim this was the immigration surprise he anticipated.

    No. Trump is an intuitively talented negotiator and communicator, but he’s also someone who pays attention to events and proposes common sense policies to address them. This is so unheard of in politics that most smart observers resort to Rube Goldberg explanations for Trump’s behavior.

    Scott Adams claims Trump is springing elaborate rhetorical traps. Michael Brendan Dougherty claims Trump’s faking it on immigration (see below). David Frum is one of the few who groks that Trump comes up with new policy ideas when confronted with new information.
    https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/675086013186883585

    • Replies: @anon
    I think Scott Adams is right on the mechanism - which in fewer words is what Busby said just below - but Adams can only guess at what comes out of the mechanism because he doesn't have Trump's instincts (and thus will likely guess wrong).
  28. No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business.

    Find a niche and fill it.

    Give the customers what they want.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business.

    Find a niche and fill it.

    Give the customers what they want.

     

    That's what Scott Adams did with Dilbert. When a reporter asked him if he was a revolutionary, he said no, he was an entrepreneur. So is Trump.

    "The riches are in the niches," say the seminar lords. In the Donald's case, it's the blue ocean strategy.
  29. Rather than propose that only Muslims should be excluded, Trump should have said he would exclude Muslims and racists. That would split his opponents in two while getting them to agree that at least some people can be excluded.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Rather than propose that only Muslims should be excluded, Trump should have said he would exclude Muslims and racists. That would split his opponents in two while getting them to agree that at least some people can be excluded."

    A clever notion, but I'm not sure it'd be worth the endless caterwauling of the dominant press, to the effect that "Trump is comparing Muslims to racists!!!"
  30. Writing off the cuff.

    Any American citizen who wants to vote has to be on a voter registry. The data on these rolls is public information and gets packaged and sold by corporations. The point is that you can’t expect privacy and anonymity while simultaneously exercising your rights associated with citizenship.

    Why should immigration be a private affair? Why not create a publicly searchable database on prospective immigrants, load up all of their data, and then offer a bounty to people who a.) can invalidate any presented information and b.) add new information which would disqualify the prospective immigrant?

    These people want to “join” us so better that they get used to private info becoming public. If their right to privacy is important to them then they can exercise that right in their home country.

  31. @Anon
    Oh come on.

    Don't spoil the fun.

    I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.

    I will watch like Yojimbo and laugh.

    Liven up the marathons.

    “Oh come on. Don’t spoil the fun. I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.”

    I’m tempted to laugh it off and agree, but Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino aren’t exactly SWPL enclaves. Even the Boston Marathon bombing wasn’t exactly an attack on Swippleville, since many of the participants weren’t from Boston. I had two friends who ran in that marathon the year of the attack, and both were solid Republicans.

    The biggest reason working and middle class types are more likely to be opposed to Muslim immigration isn’t because they are ignroant an closed-minded, but because they’re the ones more often exposed to the retrogade Muslims who cause all the problems.

    • Replies: @Anon
    That's why our conditions should be SETTLE THEM IN BLUE AREAS. They claim to love them, so let them have them.

    No section-8-ing of the Mooslims.

    Force the blues to claim the Moos.
  32. @Dave Pinsen
    Scott whiffed on his predicted "immigration surprise" by Trump though. He blogged that Trump would propose some ridiculous amnesty plan but not call it amnesty (e.g., designate US post offices as Mexican consulates, and have illegals who set foot in them count as having gone back to Mexico before returning), and then when Trump proposed the moratorium on Muslim immigration this week, Scott tried to claim this was the immigration surprise he anticipated.

    No. Trump is an intuitively talented negotiator and communicator, but he's also someone who pays attention to events and proposes common sense policies to address them. This is so unheard of in politics that most smart observers resort to Rube Goldberg explanations for Trump's behavior.

    Scott Adams claims Trump is springing elaborate rhetorical traps. Michael Brendan Dougherty claims Trump's faking it on immigration (see below). David Frum is one of the few who groks that Trump comes up with new policy ideas when confronted with new information.
    https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/675086013186883585

    I think Scott Adams is right on the mechanism – which in fewer words is what Busby said just below – but Adams can only guess at what comes out of the mechanism because he doesn’t have Trump’s instincts (and thus will likely guess wrong).

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Where is this comment you are referring to?
  33. @AKAHorace
    You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don't seem to be anti white.

    The problems of African American/White relations are not their fault.

    The problem is that as soon as these African immigrants arrive they qualify for privileged race-based bonuses. Their kid gets preference for university admission because he’s black.

  34. As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

    At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.

    You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.

    At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered “I can’t believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses”.

    At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

    • Replies: @Hail

    The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.
     
    That is bizarre.
    , @International Jew

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.
     
    Which is why I don't think Steve's idea would work; it would just double the number of incompetents.

    My solution: decide on a number of immigrants we want to admit, and auction those places to the highest bidders. Willingness to pay seems like a good enough proxy for the qualities we're looking for, and requires minimal clairvoyance on our bureaucrats' part. It could raise a lot of dough too.

    , @27 year old
    you poor thing...
  35. Someone in an earlier thread was writing about expanding Harvard’s entering class to be 3 million and thus solving the education problem, well why don’t we model immigration so that it matches Yale’s Skull and Bones secret society – every prospective immigrant has to apply before ALL OF US, and each of us can black ball anyone we don’t like?

  36. @anon
    Scott Adams is right.

    Trump isn't really coming from right or left he's operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes - effectively he's negotiating with the electorate.

    Those polices will be a *mixture* of left and right and in particular slowing/halting immigration will appeal across the board and bite great chunks out of the Democrat base while at the same time enthusing the white blue collar Republicans people like Romney can never reach.

    The only people opposed will be the oligarch class and people who have a desperate craving to see white people turned into a minority.

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.

    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    • Replies: @anon

    For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.
     
    Almost every other politician is bought by the donor class and have their policy programs handed to them like an actor is handed their lines.
    , @res


    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition. Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.
     
    I think this captures the key question about Trump: what are his intentions?

    IIRC Steve blogged about this paper by Ahler and Broockman (but I can't find the link):
    http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/37528/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

    There was a fair amount of discussion during the summer about this in the context of Trump.
    This Vox article has a good overview on this and reproduces their "Figure 9: The full range of public opinion on 13 issues" which concisely captures some important points:
    http://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
    Public opinion on immigration has a clear rightward bias.
    Here is a Washington Examiner article which evaluates Trump's immigration position in the context of Ahler/Broockman:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/are-trumps-immigration-views-out-of-the-mainstream/article/2570298

    Given this, immigration is a great choice to emphasize during the Republican primary season. Outflanking the establishment candidates to the right is a winning strategy and should work fairly well in the general (perhaps with a little tacking to the center).

    The other opinion categories are also interesting. I was surprised that abortion has a center-right concentration (see the paper for details on how they chose the categories). Four categories had a hard left bias: marijuana, social security, taxes, and medicaire.

    My thinking is that Trump will start to emphasize issues where the populace leans left (and he agrees) during the general and take a fairly moderate position. However, I think his tax position is contrary to this (see tax positions below) which makes it interesting to me (with the notable exception of carried interest treatment).

    I also agree with those (like Scott Adams) who think much of Trump's current extremism is a negotiating technique.

    What does everyone else think of these ideas?

    P.S. To give a sense of the Ahler/Broockman categories here are their positions for taxes and immigration (pp. 48-49):


    Federal Taxes

    1. Establish a maximum annual income, with all income over $1,000,000 per year taxed at a rate of 100%. Decrease federal taxes on the poor and provide more services benefitting the middle class and poor.

    2. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to pre-1990s levels (over 5% above current rates). Use the savings to significantly lower taxes and provide more services to those making less and to invest in infrastructure projects.

    3. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to 1990s rates ( 5% above current rates). Use the savings to lower taxes and provide more services to those making less while also paying down the national debt.

    4. Maintain current levels of federal spending and federal income taxes on the rich, middle class, and poor.

    5. Decrease all individuals’ income tax rates, especially high earners who pay the most in taxes now, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    6. Move to a completely flat income tax system where all individuals pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    7. Move to a flat consumption tax where all individuals pay the same percentage of their purchases in taxes, banning the income tax, even if this means the poor pay more in taxes than the rich. Significantly decrease government services in the process.

    Immigration

    1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

    2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

    3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

    4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

    5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

    6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported.

    7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported immediately.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

     

    But why was Gorbachev in office in the first place? Why not another Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov?

    All the bien-pensants said it was America's leadership that was incompetent, not the USSR's. So why wasn't that changed instead?
  37. @MG
    One obvious truth that hasn't received any scrutiny in America is that the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America's immigration system. Someone sitting in Accra who wants to come to America not only has access to information on how to go about it, he or she now also has an accomplice (relatives, friends) in Columbus, Ohio, to grease the scheme. The consular officers at our posts must be overwhelmed. Assuming only a 2% success rate for the schemers, it is still a large number of people LEGALLY coming in every year who shouldn't have been granted a visa in the first place.

    the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system.

    At the ‘immigration’ level, this is a very difficult problem to control, isn’t it? Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it? Vastly reduce the number of visas given? End the Visa Waiver program? That still just passes the buck to consular officers to choose who gets in and who doesn’t, even for Westerners and Japanese, etc.

    Relatedly: Ending birthright citizenship may be closer than you think. Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Paul are all are strong proponents of ending birthright citizenship. Jeb and Rubio are both deadset against it. Jeb seems neutralized. If Rubio is held off… (All candidates’ scores)

    • Replies: @27 year old
    > Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it?

    RFID tags, predator drones
    , @Karl
    >>> Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it?

    death penalties & chain gangs.
  38. @Mike1
    As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

    At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.

    You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.

    At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered "I can't believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses".

    At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

    The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

    That is bizarre.

  39. @Hail

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Almost every other politician is bought by the donor class and have their policy programs handed to them like an actor is handed their lines.

  40. Trump has a pretty simple strategy.

    Identify a popular issue, like immigration sanity, that no other politician is willing to champion and run with it.

    Next up, attack BLM head-on. Slam all the MSM lies about Ferguson. Quote from the DoJ report on Michael Brown. Demand that everyone involved (starting with Obama and Holder and on through NPR) apologize to Officer Wilson. Promise he will invite Officer Wilson to the White House when elected. Toss in statistics about how few blacks are shot by cops relative to the violent crime committed by blacks. Point out the increase in murders due to BLM. Add some cutting remarks about all the hate-crime hoaxes and campus silliness.

    Likely timing: begin when the first Freddie Gray officer is acquitted (maybe next week), and continue for several weeks after that (lots of different targets for bombastic attacks, so string out the attacks over time).

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    Trump is having success in two novel ways, first he's drawing in the disaffected and second he's beginning to reorder coalitions.

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don't like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don't like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.

    Trump promising to deport infiltrators who take jobs away from blacks and promising to put the screws to institutions who favor black immigrants over native blacks could do real damage to the Democrats.

    Secondly, by refocusing black victimization on how the Democrats are treating them, he defuses BLM to the relief of the rest of society and does so without directly insulting blacks.

    , @Thomas Fuller
    If he did all that, every leftist in Britain would spontaneously combust, releasing 'problematic' or even 'unacceptable' quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  41. The vast majority of mass shootings are done by white men. Why don’t we discuss deporting them? Why are Muslims held to such a high standard? The truth is that Muslims are less likely to be violent than Christians

    • Replies: @anon
    google "per capita"
    , @JSM
    So, you go ahead and move to Iran. You'll love it there, safe and sound.
  42. @penntothal
    In this anything-goes era characterized by widespread acceptance of homosexual marriage, who is to judge what constitutes a "real" vs. a "fake" marriage anyway?

    Using culturally-normative clues to a genuine marriage requires that cultural norms exist in the first place.

    The floodgates are open. There is little hope of closing them now.

    Exactly.

    Of course there has to be a balance between harrassing real couples and stopping sham marriages but it appears that it’s too easy to let someone in these day.

    Btw,
    A Swedish friend moved to the US with his American wife and I clearly remember how both were annoyed by all the paperwork needed(much more than when moving in the other direction).

    As usual it looks like government knows how to make matters difficult for honest people whilst simultaneously being unable to stop the fraudsters.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
    That's why immigrants don't become citizens.
    Too much time and paperwork.
  43. Why hire more immigration officials to ADMIT people? Definitely make them vet people much more thoroughly, and if that drastically slows down the rate of immigration, temporary or permanent, oh well. Sorrynotsorry. It’s a feature not a bug. The only people I’d be willing to spend more of my tax money on are INS agents to hunt down and deport criminals and border guards to keep illegals out.

  44. Scott Adams discuses the price of religious tolerance in clear terms

    “But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

    Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom.”

    The price of religious tolerance so far is over 3000 dead Americans. Muslim immigration ban ought to have been imposed after 9/11.

    • Replies: @SFG
    1000? I can't think of a good excuse to do anything that kills 1000 of the citizens of the country I'm in on behalf of another country, unless we were saving half of the rest of the population of the world or something.

    I mean, I'm going to go to Germany and say, 'Yeah, America just got blown up by a nuclear bomb after the war with Russia Obama started over transgender rights [hypothetical] and so we'd like you to let us in, even though with our violence rate we're going to kill 1,000 Berliners?'

    Maybe I'm just too nationalistic? I never thought so. I criticize this country all the time...

    , @Elites
    I'll go along with you 1000% if you "would accept" to be the first one killed.
  45. @anon
    I think Scott Adams is right on the mechanism - which in fewer words is what Busby said just below - but Adams can only guess at what comes out of the mechanism because he doesn't have Trump's instincts (and thus will likely guess wrong).

    Where is this comment you are referring to?

    • Replies: @anon
    The one below yours


    No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business. Find a niche and fill it. Give the customers what they want.
     
  46. @Mike1
    As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

    At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.

    You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.

    At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered "I can't believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses".

    At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

    Which is why I don’t think Steve’s idea would work; it would just double the number of incompetents.

    My solution: decide on a number of immigrants we want to admit, and auction those places to the highest bidders. Willingness to pay seems like a good enough proxy for the qualities we’re looking for, and requires minimal clairvoyance on our bureaucrats’ part. It could raise a lot of dough too.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, there's no possible way ISIS could use oil money to buy spots for terrorists.

    How about this... no immigrants except STEM grads from US universities and authentic political refugees...
  47. I am surprised that no one has suggested a simple solution to our immigration problems: institute a point system as in Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc to admit immigrants. If we admit only high quality immigrants, a lot of problems can be reduced. I haven’t heard of too many immigrant caused problems like ours in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., Where is it written that we must take “poor, wretched refuse”? (!). Why not replace that damn plaque with “rich, smart, talented and skilled” etc? Even Bill Gates may agree to pay for it.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.
    , @Mike1
    I have suggested a system like that on these pages many times and usually receive abuse for doing so. I'm surprised your post has escaped the zero immigration crowds attention.
  48. @Dave Pinsen
    Where is this comment you are referring to?

    The one below yours

    No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business. Find a niche and fill it. Give the customers what they want.

  49. @Anonymous
    The vast majority of mass shootings are done by white men. Why don't we discuss deporting them? Why are Muslims held to such a high standard? The truth is that Muslims are less likely to be violent than Christians

    google “per capita”

  50. @FactsAreImportant
    Trump has a pretty simple strategy.

    Identify a popular issue, like immigration sanity, that no other politician is willing to champion and run with it.

    Next up, attack BLM head-on. Slam all the MSM lies about Ferguson. Quote from the DoJ report on Michael Brown. Demand that everyone involved (starting with Obama and Holder and on through NPR) apologize to Officer Wilson. Promise he will invite Officer Wilson to the White House when elected. Toss in statistics about how few blacks are shot by cops relative to the violent crime committed by blacks. Point out the increase in murders due to BLM. Add some cutting remarks about all the hate-crime hoaxes and campus silliness.

    Likely timing: begin when the first Freddie Gray officer is acquitted (maybe next week), and continue for several weeks after that (lots of different targets for bombastic attacks, so string out the attacks over time).

    Trump is having success in two novel ways, first he’s drawing in the disaffected and second he’s beginning to reorder coalitions.

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don’t like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don’t like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.

    Trump promising to deport infiltrators who take jobs away from blacks and promising to put the screws to institutions who favor black immigrants over native blacks could do real damage to the Democrats.

    Secondly, by refocusing black victimization on how the Democrats are treating them, he defuses BLM to the relief of the rest of society and does so without directly insulting blacks.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don’t like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don’t like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.
     
    This is tricky, because blacks also like to take pride in successful blacks, even if they aren't traditional African Americans. Barack Obama is the most obvious example.
    , @notsaying
    You are making some important -- but usually ignored -- points here.

    The Democrats are ignoring the consequences of ignoring the people who used to vote for them.

    This will come back to haunt them big time.
  51. @SPMoore8
    What it actually looks like is the chain migration of a series of multi-married opportunists, all up and down. Russians, Pakistanis, Mexicans -- all fulfilling the worst stereotypes -- what are they doing here? As facts emerge, it could be as devastating a narrative as Haven Monahan.

    As facts emerge, it could be as devastating a narrative as Haven Monahan.

    When I last checked a few months ago, the text string “Haven Monahan” had never appeared in the New York Times.

  52. @epebble
    I am surprised that no one has suggested a simple solution to our immigration problems: institute a point system as in Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc to admit immigrants. If we admit only high quality immigrants, a lot of problems can be reduced. I haven't heard of too many immigrant caused problems like ours in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., Where is it written that we must take "poor, wretched refuse"? (!). Why not replace that damn plaque with "rich, smart, talented and skilled" etc? Even Bill Gates may agree to pay for it.

    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

     

    We could also require intact foreskins.

    Sorry if that cost anyone his midnight snack, but it has the additional feature of diverting any Jews to Israel.
    , @TangoMan
    Homeland Security can license the code from Hot or Not and port it into a .gov website and allow people to rate the aspiring immigrants.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Ann Coulter has floated a similar idea, thought I don't think she'd limit it to women.
    , @SFG
    Remember how she radicalized him in the San Bernadino shootings? You're acting like a beta guy (I'm one too, I just know this is a common male weakness and try to work around it).

    You could just have everyone eat a piece of ham. Or have a drink if the Jewish guys on here complain too much (I'll eat it--Prosciutto di Parma, please).
    , @Bill B.
    Dr. Strangelove had much the same idea: 90% hot women:

    http://youtu.be/c8L8NopVwdg
  53. @Maj. Kong

    Okay, so here’s a proposal: let’s increase the budget. Hire more and better immigration officials and give them more time and money to do careful investigations.
     
    That is a solution tailor made to be shredded by the Paul Ryans of the GOP. It's straight up expansion of bureaucracy, running against nearly everything conservatism has been running on since Buckley. If Trump were still a Democrat, or it was Jim Webb saying it, it would be a good idea. But it makes absolutely no sense from a conservative perspective.

    The idea of an independent board has promise, but we can't ignore the fact that such an agency would develop a "staff officer" mentality.

    The easiest solution is an across the board moratorium for 10 years, and an abrupt ending of "family reunification" for good.

    That is a solution tailor made to be shredded by the Paul Ryans of the GOP. It’s straight up expansion of bureaucracy, running against nearly everything conservatism has been running on since Buckley. If Trump were still a Democrat, or it was Jim Webb saying it, it would be a good idea. But it makes absolutely no sense from a conservative perspective.

    Remind me again who created the “Department of Homeland Security”?

  54. @Mark Eugenikos
    So wait, we have a Russian woman named Tatiana Gigliotti (which isn't a Russian surname) and her sister Mariya Chernykh? The sisters don't even share the surname? Something's telling me Tatiana's already been married before, because one of the earlier articles mentioned that Tatiana is married to Syed Raheel Farook (shooter's older brother). So what we have here is possibly serial marriage fraud.

    Oops, there I go noticing again...

    So wait, we have a Russian woman named Tatiana Gigliotti (which isn’t a Russian surname)

    It brought to mind those Russian Fiats. But those were made in Togliatti.

  55. @Busby
    No mystery. He's following two of the most basic rules in business.

    Find a niche and fill it.

    Give the customers what they want.

    No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business.

    Find a niche and fill it.

    Give the customers what they want.

    That’s what Scott Adams did with Dilbert. When a reporter asked him if he was a revolutionary, he said no, he was an entrepreneur. So is Trump.

    “The riches are in the niches,” say the seminar lords. In the Donald’s case, it’s the blue ocean strategy.

  56. @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    We could also require intact foreskins.

    Sorry if that cost anyone his midnight snack, but it has the additional feature of diverting any Jews to Israel.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I don't think we have lots of Jews trying to come in anymore.

    I'm pretty sure that one will never pass, though. ;)
  57. Hey Steve, reminds me of your (cover?) article in NR way back in the day. Marriage visa investigations sounds like a great job for black women filling up the civil service. Heh-heh. You want a K-1 visa for your Russian, Eastern European, or Middle Eastern significant other? Simple, convince Raasheyyna Brown at the DMV, er State Dept, your marriage is legitimate. In addition to the in-person interview, she will be spending many an hour surfing Faceborg and Flickerest to decide if your vacation pics and wedding color ensemble is the real deal.

    Ya know, now that I write it out, I gotta say, it’s pretty good idea. I bet the Raasheyyna’s of the world would be very tough to snow-job on something like that. The black community with some patriotic skin in the game could only help matters as well.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Ya know, now that I write it out, I gotta say, it’s pretty good idea."

    I think so.

    It reminds me of when white guys think about trying to cheat on affirmative action by claiming to be black. But when they think through what it would take, they usually come to an impasse in their imaginations where they get face to face with 250 pound bureaucrat Raasheyyna Brown and she says, "Oh no you didn't." And they they realize they don't have what it would take to bluster past her.

  58. @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    Homeland Security can license the code from Hot or Not and port it into a .gov website and allow people to rate the aspiring immigrants.

  59. @Portlander
    Hey Steve, reminds me of your (cover?) article in NR way back in the day. Marriage visa investigations sounds like a great job for black women filling up the civil service. Heh-heh. You want a K-1 visa for your Russian, Eastern European, or Middle Eastern significant other? Simple, convince Raasheyyna Brown at the DMV, er State Dept, your marriage is legitimate. In addition to the in-person interview, she will be spending many an hour surfing Faceborg and Flickerest to decide if your vacation pics and wedding color ensemble is the real deal.

    Ya know, now that I write it out, I gotta say, it's pretty good idea. I bet the Raasheyyna's of the world would be very tough to snow-job on something like that. The black community with some patriotic skin in the game could only help matters as well.

    “Ya know, now that I write it out, I gotta say, it’s pretty good idea.”

    I think so.

    It reminds me of when white guys think about trying to cheat on affirmative action by claiming to be black. But when they think through what it would take, they usually come to an impasse in their imaginations where they get face to face with 250 pound bureaucrat Raasheyyna Brown and she says, “Oh no you didn’t.” And they they realize they don’t have what it would take to bluster past her.

  60. President Carter had the balls to ban immigration from Iran and deport all Iranian students during the hostage crisis. and he was not regarded as strong leader, nor was he seen as a racist.

    “the Secretary of State and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas” -Jimmy Carter during televised speech , April 7, 1980.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-11/watch-jimmy-carter-ban-iran-immigrants-and-deport-students-during-hostage-crisis

    if Carter could do it , Trump can do it better.

    • Replies: @epebble
    That was based on nationality; so it was considered OK. The moment Trump uttered religion, people stopped thinking with cerebrum and use the medulla in a reflex. That is why 'weak' Carter won where a 'strong' Trump may lose. If Trump had been more careful and used a phrase like "North Africans/Middle Easterners/South Asians from violent countries" or something like that, that would have put enough constructive pressure that there might even be a legislation by now (as with visa waiver changes). But no, instead of doing something useful, he went on a publicity seeking rant and poisoned the atmosphere.
  61. The procedure is already rigorous if ICE and the embassy do as they should. I have heard stories of interviews where the embassy people were so tough on Colombian girls they cried. You need to take elaborate stuff with you, hard copies of messenger chat sessions, tickets, receipts, pictures and be prepared for a grilling.

    If you clamp down and add steps on the whole process you mess with people who generally are doing the right thing. I know this is sort of a variation on the Not All Muslims Are Like That. But this is kind of like the whole nobody had rules that said don’t fly airplanes into buildings because nobody flew airplanes into buildings before.

    Single women coming to marry someone are about the least immigration threat ever. Even if there is a Russian girl that gets a beta to marry her for a green card, then you get one more hot Russian girl in the US and that in my opinion is OK, especially when ugly fat Central American kids can just stumble across the border and get taken care of.

    But Latin American women coming through K visa process have high rates of sticking in the Marriage. Only DR had women with divorce rates approaching US divorce rates. In a way, the whole process is a vetting of the seriousness of both parties, lots of forms, requirements, time, BS. The bad side of it is that feminists screaming has led to more scrutiny about the US male then the foreign female.

    To me, adding more complexity and vetting for K visas is like adding airport security crap to search grandmothers when obviously it is Arab men that are the risk.

    I say screw em, cut off K visas to Arab countries. Kills a whole bunch of birds with one stone, eliminates Jahidi girls, cousin marriage, slows down a rapidly growing the muslim population, and even providing a disincentive to Muslim men to come here if they can’t bring a woman in to marry.

    Let them go to Germany or someplace.

    Then create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females from non-muslim countries wanting into the US.

    And they just pull back the rope and let all the hot ones come right on in.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @notsaying
    Are you hoping to get one of the "hot girls" after their divorce -- or are you just joking around here?

    Seriously, though, given that these brides can be expected to put their parents, brothers and sisters down for a green card and that the whole family will probably end up costing us millions of dollars in tax money even if they do work, I'd rather spend the time and money to look closer, investigate some questionable marriages and deny more visas.

    We just don't need more people and we sure don't need more people to spend money on.
    , @Jonathan Silber
    ...create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females...

    ...and charge a stiff cover with a two-drink minimum--except on Tuesdays which is Ladies Night, when attractive women immigrate for free.

  62. @Anon
    How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

    That makes more sense.

    Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive. It’s the descendants of slaves that seem to be the problem. I don’t know if it was some kind of unnatural selection or if so many of their minds have just been poisoned with a bad attitude of entitlement, resentment and paranoia about perpetual victimization by a horrible caste of professional minority “civil rights leaders” and community organizers.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Probably both. You've got ghetto guys with six baby mommas (imagine the selective implications of that), and Jesse Jackson et al.

    Most of the Africans I've known have been all right, actually. How they're going to keep their kids out of ghetto culture, I don't know--it's pretty seductive in your teenage years.
    , @nglaer
    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive.

    Mine too. I don't think Africans sold their smartest people into slavery. I've been wondering if it would be considered racist or offensive to ask someone (like the super smart Nigerian guy at my golf club) whether he is part of that super-smart tribe which some at the Unz site write about.
  63. @epebble
    I am surprised that no one has suggested a simple solution to our immigration problems: institute a point system as in Canada/Australia/New Zealand etc to admit immigrants. If we admit only high quality immigrants, a lot of problems can be reduced. I haven't heard of too many immigrant caused problems like ours in Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc., Where is it written that we must take "poor, wretched refuse"? (!). Why not replace that damn plaque with "rich, smart, talented and skilled" etc? Even Bill Gates may agree to pay for it.

    I have suggested a system like that on these pages many times and usually receive abuse for doing so. I’m surprised your post has escaped the zero immigration crowds attention.

  64. “This reform won’t solve all the immigration problems. But it’s a more constructive proposal than seemingly anything all the people in positions of power and influence who are enraged at Donald Trump have put forward this week in response.”

    What will solve the immigration problem is eliminating all immigration from everywhere.

  65. @Ttjy

    How much do colleges spend on their admissions departments? How much do NFL teams spend scouting who to draft?
     
    The difference is the NFL and colleges care who they pick.

    It's seems like the people who run this country just want to flood it with as many non-white people as
    possible or they want cheap labor.

    “The difference is the NFL and colleges care who they pick.”

    That’s just not true at all. The NFL is full of criminal psychopaths. And colleges will take anyone for money.

  66. @TangoMan
    Trump is having success in two novel ways, first he's drawing in the disaffected and second he's beginning to reorder coalitions.

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don't like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don't like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.

    Trump promising to deport infiltrators who take jobs away from blacks and promising to put the screws to institutions who favor black immigrants over native blacks could do real damage to the Democrats.

    Secondly, by refocusing black victimization on how the Democrats are treating them, he defuses BLM to the relief of the rest of society and does so without directly insulting blacks.

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don’t like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don’t like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.

    This is tricky, because blacks also like to take pride in successful blacks, even if they aren’t traditional African Americans. Barack Obama is the most obvious example.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    I don't see it being too difficult to pull off. Trump points to immigrant blacks being 66% of the Harvard class and drives home the point that this results in American blacks having opportunity denied to them. Coulter makes the same argument about this and Trump's read Coulter.

    This tactic pits black immigrants against American blacks - the immigrants stealing what is supposed to be a benefit for American blacks. There is a strong sense of blacks always being shoved to the back of the bus - immigrants arrive and do better than blacks. That burns.

    All of these racial coalitions under the Democratic tent need to be splintered. Immigration is a great vehicle to use as the magnifying glass to focus on the grievances which exist within these racial coalitions.

    Don't overlook the fact that Trump comes out looking like a champion for American blacks and this puts the Democrats on the defensive of having to justify why a FOB African immigrant deserves Affirmative Action and quota jobs which end up pushing American blacks to the end of the line.
  67. @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    Ann Coulter has floated a similar idea, thought I don’t think she’d limit it to women.

  68. @Dave Pinsen

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don’t like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don’t like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.
     
    This is tricky, because blacks also like to take pride in successful blacks, even if they aren't traditional African Americans. Barack Obama is the most obvious example.

    I don’t see it being too difficult to pull off. Trump points to immigrant blacks being 66% of the Harvard class and drives home the point that this results in American blacks having opportunity denied to them. Coulter makes the same argument about this and Trump’s read Coulter.

    This tactic pits black immigrants against American blacks – the immigrants stealing what is supposed to be a benefit for American blacks. There is a strong sense of blacks always being shoved to the back of the bus – immigrants arrive and do better than blacks. That burns.

    All of these racial coalitions under the Democratic tent need to be splintered. Immigration is a great vehicle to use as the magnifying glass to focus on the grievances which exist within these racial coalitions.

    Don’t overlook the fact that Trump comes out looking like a champion for American blacks and this puts the Democrats on the defensive of having to justify why a FOB African immigrant deserves Affirmative Action and quota jobs which end up pushing American blacks to the end of the line.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    That's much too subtle and complex an argument for nearly all native-born blacks (remember, avg. IQ 85). Hell, it's too complicated for the average white to grok easily. Plus, outside the Talented Tenth, blacks don't even want to go to college at all. And the TT don't care because they can get plum positions even without a degree from the most elite schools.
    , @Steve Sailer
    It's not like American blacks like Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Derek Jeter hate Trump and everything he stands for.
  69. @FactsAreImportant
    Trump has a pretty simple strategy.

    Identify a popular issue, like immigration sanity, that no other politician is willing to champion and run with it.

    Next up, attack BLM head-on. Slam all the MSM lies about Ferguson. Quote from the DoJ report on Michael Brown. Demand that everyone involved (starting with Obama and Holder and on through NPR) apologize to Officer Wilson. Promise he will invite Officer Wilson to the White House when elected. Toss in statistics about how few blacks are shot by cops relative to the violent crime committed by blacks. Point out the increase in murders due to BLM. Add some cutting remarks about all the hate-crime hoaxes and campus silliness.

    Likely timing: begin when the first Freddie Gray officer is acquitted (maybe next week), and continue for several weeks after that (lots of different targets for bombastic attacks, so string out the attacks over time).

    If he did all that, every leftist in Britain would spontaneously combust, releasing ‘problematic’ or even ‘unacceptable’ quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

  70. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    One has to understand that there are two basic types of visas: nonimmigrant visas, and immigrant visas. Nonimmigrant visas are the ones that are adjudicated very quickly (two minutes), but the important part is that the applicant has no right to enter the USA – he has to prove to the consular officer that he’d be a good tourist, business meeting attendee, etc. Rejection of his application is not reviewable by a court; it’s the end of the line.

    Immigrant visas, such as K-visas (fiancee visas) are processed totally differently. They start at USCIS, a component of DHS, which reviews all the materials, etc., and then they are sent to an embassy or consulate for a consular officer to conduct an interview. The vetting is pretty extensive, HOWEVER, the real issue is this: the American citizen basically has a right to get his immigrant fiancee (or spouse, or parent, etc) admitted, and either USCIS or the consular officer has to surmount a pretty high hurdle in order to keep someone out. Rejection of an application can end up in court, and petitioning relatives also often ask their congressman to weigh in on their behalf. There’s a lot of institutional pressure to admit these people.

    In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted; immigrant visa applicants come in with an assumption of admissibility and the government has to prove that they _shouldn’t_ be admitted. It’s hard to prove a negative.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted"

    They seem to prove it rather easily these days.

    And once they come as non-immigrants, they overstay and are protected in sanctuary cities. They become defacto immigrants.
  71. @TangoMan
    I don't see it being too difficult to pull off. Trump points to immigrant blacks being 66% of the Harvard class and drives home the point that this results in American blacks having opportunity denied to them. Coulter makes the same argument about this and Trump's read Coulter.

    This tactic pits black immigrants against American blacks - the immigrants stealing what is supposed to be a benefit for American blacks. There is a strong sense of blacks always being shoved to the back of the bus - immigrants arrive and do better than blacks. That burns.

    All of these racial coalitions under the Democratic tent need to be splintered. Immigration is a great vehicle to use as the magnifying glass to focus on the grievances which exist within these racial coalitions.

    Don't overlook the fact that Trump comes out looking like a champion for American blacks and this puts the Democrats on the defensive of having to justify why a FOB African immigrant deserves Affirmative Action and quota jobs which end up pushing American blacks to the end of the line.

    That’s much too subtle and complex an argument for nearly all native-born blacks (remember, avg. IQ 85). Hell, it’s too complicated for the average white to grok easily. Plus, outside the Talented Tenth, blacks don’t even want to go to college at all. And the TT don’t care because they can get plum positions even without a degree from the most elite schools.

  72. @TangoMan
    I don't see it being too difficult to pull off. Trump points to immigrant blacks being 66% of the Harvard class and drives home the point that this results in American blacks having opportunity denied to them. Coulter makes the same argument about this and Trump's read Coulter.

    This tactic pits black immigrants against American blacks - the immigrants stealing what is supposed to be a benefit for American blacks. There is a strong sense of blacks always being shoved to the back of the bus - immigrants arrive and do better than blacks. That burns.

    All of these racial coalitions under the Democratic tent need to be splintered. Immigration is a great vehicle to use as the magnifying glass to focus on the grievances which exist within these racial coalitions.

    Don't overlook the fact that Trump comes out looking like a champion for American blacks and this puts the Democrats on the defensive of having to justify why a FOB African immigrant deserves Affirmative Action and quota jobs which end up pushing American blacks to the end of the line.

    It’s not like American blacks like Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Derek Jeter hate Trump and everything he stands for.

    • Replies: @Travis
    Diamond and Lace are Stumping for Trump to help him get the Black vote.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOaEGQzFaPg

    Trump will get twice the Black vote of any other Republican candidate

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOaEGQzFaPg" frameborder
    , @FactsAreImportant
    I bet Trump could get a lot more black votes than other Republicans by framing it this way:

    "Yes, many WEAK BLACKS will not like what I say because they can't succeed without the patronizing excuses and handouts of liberals. WEAK BLACKS will always vote for the Democrats, and I can't change that. But, STRONG SMART BLACKS who don't need handouts and excuses are STRONG enough to vote for me. STRONG, SMART BLACKS find liberal attitudes patronizing and demeaning. I welcome their votes."

    Telling blacks tender lies hasn't helped previous Republicans (e.g., Bush 43 and Kemp), so why not appeal to black pride instead?

  73. Having been through the spousal immigration process myself, it always surprises me to hear tales of straight up immigration fraud to be honest.

    I am a white 30 year old Brit with a similarly aged white American wife, and in order to have the conditions removed on my 2-year initial green card (i.e. become an unconditional legal permanent resident), I need to comply with an extensive list of requirements. I need to show continuous two-year evidence (i.e., since coming to the US) of joint bank accounts; joint health insurance policies/putting my wife’s name on my work policy; joint tax filings for two years; joint auto insurance; utility bills under our names emailed to the same address, and so forth. Failure to provide these can be interpreted as ‘lack of evidence’ and the permanent green card denied on this basis.

    Additionally, I am told that for many of these turd world shitheads (as opposed to cases like mine where it is unlikely to be a fraudulent marriage based on both of our demographic info (same race, level of attractiveness, educational levels, religion etc) they require additional interviews (in addition to the initial K-1 or CR-1 visa interview which can be hard in itself for said turd-worlders). A few friends of mine from China and elsewhere (legitimate marriages, I don’t personally know any frauds) have reported tales of intimate sexual questions, and questions about the interior of the bedroom, amongst other things.

    It strikes me that one would need to be either extremely dedicated to criminal enterprise, or to luck out with some extremely incompetent USCIS officials in order to pull off a scam like this. As such, when I hear tales of immigration ‘fraud’, I usually take it to mean ‘Filipina marrying fat ass American beta loser who thinks she actually likes him’ or ‘swarthy Jordanian Mohammedan marrying lard-arsed white milk-maid from upstate New York/inland California’. I.e. a marriage which is superficially ‘legitimate’ (and pretty much impossible to prove otherwise), but where the beneficiary spouse intends to divorce as soon as a citizen/unconditional resident (or perhaps just give up all interest in the marriage and force the issue that way). As opposed to a straight-up criminal fraud involving the changing of hands of money in return for criminal services.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Have you considered that maybe the government, or parts of it at least, just don't want more white people coming to the US?
  74. @Stan
    Scott Adams discuses the price of religious tolerance in clear terms

    "But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

    Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom."

    The price of religious tolerance so far is over 3000 dead Americans. Muslim immigration ban ought to have been imposed after 9/11.

    1000? I can’t think of a good excuse to do anything that kills 1000 of the citizens of the country I’m in on behalf of another country, unless we were saving half of the rest of the population of the world or something.

    I mean, I’m going to go to Germany and say, ‘Yeah, America just got blown up by a nuclear bomb after the war with Russia Obama started over transgender rights [hypothetical] and so we’d like you to let us in, even though with our violence rate we’re going to kill 1,000 Berliners?’

    Maybe I’m just too nationalistic? I never thought so. I criticize this country all the time…

  75. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive. It's the descendants of slaves that seem to be the problem. I don't know if it was some kind of unnatural selection or if so many of their minds have just been poisoned with a bad attitude of entitlement, resentment and paranoia about perpetual victimization by a horrible caste of professional minority "civil rights leaders" and community organizers.

    Probably both. You’ve got ghetto guys with six baby mommas (imagine the selective implications of that), and Jesse Jackson et al.

    Most of the Africans I’ve known have been all right, actually. How they’re going to keep their kids out of ghetto culture, I don’t know–it’s pretty seductive in your teenage years.

  76. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AKAHorace
    You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don't seem to be anti white.

    The problems of African American/White relations are not their fault.

    “You mean blacks from Africa ? Are you sure about this ? A lot of immigrants from Black Africa are well educated, perhaps I have met an unrepresentative fraction of them but they seem better immigrants than most. And they don’t seem to be anti white.”

    Somalis are useless.

    Some immigrant parents may be appreciative but wait til their kids are raised under PC.
    And once Americanized, they’ll be into rap culture and that crap.
    And they’ll realize the white boy can be pushed around.
    And as African population is exploding, there will be no end to the madness.
    And the smart blacks will eventually come around to leading the blacks(like Obama does) than working with conservatives.

    The MLK actor in Selma and the negro in 12 yrs a jiver are both of African origin.

    Lots of blacks in UK seem to be in the ‘anti-racist’ hustle.

    Obama’s black side is pure East African, but he plays the Jim Crow card.

    But regardless of the value of African immigrants, what about blacks already here?

    How are their problems solved by sending them to the back of the bus in favor of new blacks?

  77. @Reg Cæsar


    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

     

    We could also require intact foreskins.

    Sorry if that cost anyone his midnight snack, but it has the additional feature of diverting any Jews to Israel.

    I don’t think we have lots of Jews trying to come in anymore.

    I’m pretty sure that one will never pass, though. 😉

  78. @Wilkey
    "Oh come on. Don’t spoil the fun. I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc."

    I'm tempted to laugh it off and agree, but Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, and San Bernardino aren't exactly SWPL enclaves. Even the Boston Marathon bombing wasn't exactly an attack on Swippleville, since many of the participants weren't from Boston. I had two friends who ran in that marathon the year of the attack, and both were solid Republicans.

    The biggest reason working and middle class types are more likely to be opposed to Muslim immigration isn't because they are ignroant an closed-minded, but because they're the ones more often exposed to the retrogade Muslims who cause all the problems.

    That’s why our conditions should be SETTLE THEM IN BLUE AREAS. They claim to love them, so let them have them.

    No section-8-ing of the Mooslims.

    Force the blues to claim the Moos.

  79. @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    Remember how she radicalized him in the San Bernadino shootings? You’re acting like a beta guy (I’m one too, I just know this is a common male weakness and try to work around it).

    You could just have everyone eat a piece of ham. Or have a drink if the Jewish guys on here complain too much (I’ll eat it–Prosciutto di Parma, please).

  80. @Mike1
    As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.

    At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.

    You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.

    At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered "I can't believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses".

    At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.

    you poor thing…

  81. @Hail

    the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system.
     
    At the 'immigration' level, this is a very difficult problem to control, isn't it? Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it? Vastly reduce the number of visas given? End the Visa Waiver program? That still just passes the buck to consular officers to choose who gets in and who doesn't, even for Westerners and Japanese, etc.

    Relatedly: Ending birthright citizenship may be closer than you think. Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Paul are all are strong proponents of ending birthright citizenship. Jeb and Rubio are both deadset against it. Jeb seems neutralized. If Rubio is held off... (All candidates' scores)

    > Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it?

    RFID tags, predator drones

  82. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    All this WELCOME TO AMERICA rhetoric assumes that other nations suck.

    If all nations are wonderful, why would people there need to ‘escape’ to America and see their own nations as prisons and their own people as prison wardens/guards one must run from?

    We need to ask the immigrants, esp non-whites, about their ‘auto-racism’?

    We need to ask…

    Do you despise your people so much that you permanently want to leave them and live in a different nation where you are a racial and cultural minority?
    Do you despise your identity so much that you want to abandon it and turn your children into globo-American consumers with no memory who will race-mix into oblivion?
    Do you despise your nation so much that you don’t want to lead its people or serve its elites?
    Do you despise your ancestors so much that you want to permanently depart from the land in which they are buried and forget all about them?
    Do you despise your values and abilities so much that you don’t believe that your own kind can fix their own nations, make progress, and enact reforms?

    Why are you such self-loathing ‘auto-racists’?

    Surely, worse than white Americans saying ‘we don’t want to live with you and accept you’ is your kind saying ‘we don’t want to live with our own kind; we want to reject our own race, culture, and power in our own nation and come live under white rule and assimilate to globo-Americanism.’

    Why must white Americans accept you when you reject your own kind and your own nation?

    Old imperialism was premised on the notion that whites should rule other lands cuz people there are inferior and unfit to rule themselves.

    New globalism is premised on the notion that non-whites in other nations are unfit to rule themselves and come to the West to live under superior beneficent whites.

    Hey, African Negroes, you’re unfit to take care of your selves and raise your own chillun, so let us adopt and raise the whole lot of you.

    ————-

    Btw, when COMING APART says so many poor whites are hurting, why ignore them in favor of foreigners?

  83. @Steve Sailer
    It's not like American blacks like Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Derek Jeter hate Trump and everything he stands for.

    Diamond and Lace are Stumping for Trump to help him get the Black vote.

    Trump will get twice the Black vote of any other Republican candidate

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOaEGQzFaPg&quot; frameborder

    • Replies: @Doorway
    Actually, its good to see things like this- it gives you some relief that there is a contingent of the black populace that still has its head on straight as far as the issues go. More power to these two. Give 'em and Trump a thumbs up.
    , @Anonymous
    "It's cheaper to de-port than to sup-port." "Uh huh."
  84. @International Jew

    My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.
     
    Which is why I don't think Steve's idea would work; it would just double the number of incompetents.

    My solution: decide on a number of immigrants we want to admit, and auction those places to the highest bidders. Willingness to pay seems like a good enough proxy for the qualities we're looking for, and requires minimal clairvoyance on our bureaucrats' part. It could raise a lot of dough too.

    Yeah, there’s no possible way ISIS could use oil money to buy spots for terrorists.

    How about this… no immigrants except STEM grads from US universities and authentic political refugees…

    • Replies: @JSM
    How about this: No immigrants, period.
  85. @The most deplorable one
    And yet, we find this at Scott Adams' blog:

    http://scottadams-startupreview.tumblr.com/post/119168499440/smart-vibrator-is-fitbit-for-pleasure

    As always, some people should consider if their name is appropriate for the company they are founding.

    Fast food was designed by engineers who ruined the American palate.

    Now engineers want to deconstruct and despoil American sex?

    “Note: Co-founder James Wang has an MBA from Haas Business School, Anna Lee has a BS in Mechanical Engineering, and Leo Chen a BS in Electrical Engineering, all from Berkeley.”

    Wearily this is inevitably about empowerment, but – strangely – also about checking that a woman is normal:

    “But the most valuable help Smart Bod founders believe they offer is empowering women with information about their own bodies, and an opportunity to ask questions and share their experiences with a community of experts and peers. “For a lot of women, it’s a taboo topic,” said Klinger. “They want to know where they fall within the spectrum, to validate that they’re normal.”

  86. I don’t know how to link to a specific “tweet”–maybe someone can tell me– but this Muslim sounding lady (Shi’ite, I think, and an academic in London) is praising Trump’s tweet attacking Saudi money influencing US elections. She says “awesome.” That Trump, he be smart.

  87. How much? I don’t know, but here are few examples to put things in perspective: How much do colleges spend on their admissions departments? How much do NFL teams spend scouting who to draft? How much time is devoted by Americans to picking their Fantasy Football rosters? Something that’s clear about 21st Century organizations is that selection matters, but that lesson never seems to get applied to thinking about immigration policy, where schmaltzy sentiment reigns instead.

    If the handling of immigration were a for-profit endeavor like the NFL is, yes, I imagine it would be better and more efficient. Things become very efficient and productive when money is on the line.

  88. BTW, that reminds me. Back in the 90’s I worked with someone who knew and saw a bit of Trump. Once he came back from a lunch at Trump’s and began mimicking Mike Tyson’s super deferential demeanor around him: “Missuh Trump, Missuh Trump”. I didn’t make much of it at that time, but it seems kind of interesting.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    The Mike Tyson impersonator on Imus in the Morning used to do the exact same thing.
  89. @Prof. Woland
    Rather than propose that only Muslims should be excluded, Trump should have said he would exclude Muslims and racists. That would split his opponents in two while getting them to agree that at least some people can be excluded.

    “Rather than propose that only Muslims should be excluded, Trump should have said he would exclude Muslims and racists. That would split his opponents in two while getting them to agree that at least some people can be excluded.”

    A clever notion, but I’m not sure it’d be worth the endless caterwauling of the dominant press, to the effect that “Trump is comparing Muslims to racists!!!

  90. @Prof. Woland
    We could establish a point system and allow only single women between the ages of 18-26 who have a rating of 9 or better. That would also be an effective way to exclude Muslims.

    Dr. Strangelove had much the same idea: 90% hot women:

    http://youtu.be/c8L8NopVwdg

  91. @Travis
    President Carter had the balls to ban immigration from Iran and deport all Iranian students during the hostage crisis. and he was not regarded as strong leader, nor was he seen as a racist.


    "the Secretary of State and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas" -Jimmy Carter during televised speech , April 7, 1980.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-11/watch-jimmy-carter-ban-iran-immigrants-and-deport-students-during-hostage-crisis

    if Carter could do it , Trump can do it better.

    That was based on nationality; so it was considered OK. The moment Trump uttered religion, people stopped thinking with cerebrum and use the medulla in a reflex. That is why ‘weak’ Carter won where a ‘strong’ Trump may lose. If Trump had been more careful and used a phrase like “North Africans/Middle Easterners/South Asians from violent countries” or something like that, that would have put enough constructive pressure that there might even be a legislation by now (as with visa waiver changes). But no, instead of doing something useful, he went on a publicity seeking rant and poisoned the atmosphere.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    discrimination on the basis of national origin is just as doubleplus ungood as discrimination on the basis of religion.
  92. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive. It's the descendants of slaves that seem to be the problem. I don't know if it was some kind of unnatural selection or if so many of their minds have just been poisoned with a bad attitude of entitlement, resentment and paranoia about perpetual victimization by a horrible caste of professional minority "civil rights leaders" and community organizers.

    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive.

    Mine too. I don’t think Africans sold their smartest people into slavery. I’ve been wondering if it would be considered racist or offensive to ask someone (like the super smart Nigerian guy at my golf club) whether he is part of that super-smart tribe which some at the Unz site write about.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    When I subscribed to the Economist in the 1980s, I tried to keep track of which tribe Nigerians said was the smartest tribe in Nigeria. But nobody in Nigeria seemed to agree. I think most Nigerians believe they personally belong to the second smartest tribe.
  93. @Hail

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.

    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition. Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    I think this captures the key question about Trump: what are his intentions?

    IIRC Steve blogged about this paper by Ahler and Broockman (but I can’t find the link):
    http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/37528/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

    There was a fair amount of discussion during the summer about this in the context of Trump.
    This Vox article has a good overview on this and reproduces their “Figure 9: The full range of public opinion on 13 issues” which concisely captures some important points:
    http://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
    Public opinion on immigration has a clear rightward bias.
    Here is a Washington Examiner article which evaluates Trump’s immigration position in the context of Ahler/Broockman:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/are-trumps-immigration-views-out-of-the-mainstream/article/2570298

    Given this, immigration is a great choice to emphasize during the Republican primary season. Outflanking the establishment candidates to the right is a winning strategy and should work fairly well in the general (perhaps with a little tacking to the center).

    The other opinion categories are also interesting. I was surprised that abortion has a center-right concentration (see the paper for details on how they chose the categories). Four categories had a hard left bias: marijuana, social security, taxes, and medicaire.

    My thinking is that Trump will start to emphasize issues where the populace leans left (and he agrees) during the general and take a fairly moderate position. However, I think his tax position is contrary to this (see tax positions below) which makes it interesting to me (with the notable exception of carried interest treatment).

    I also agree with those (like Scott Adams) who think much of Trump’s current extremism is a negotiating technique.

    What does everyone else think of these ideas?

    P.S. To give a sense of the Ahler/Broockman categories here are their positions for taxes and immigration (pp. 48-49):

    [MORE]

    Federal Taxes

    1. Establish a maximum annual income, with all income over $1,000,000 per year taxed at a rate of 100%. Decrease federal taxes on the poor and provide more services benefitting the middle class and poor.

    2. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to pre-1990s levels (over 5% above current rates). Use the savings to significantly lower taxes and provide more services to those making less and to invest in infrastructure projects.

    3. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to 1990s rates ( 5% above current rates). Use the savings to lower taxes and provide more services to those making less while also paying down the national debt.

    4. Maintain current levels of federal spending and federal income taxes on the rich, middle class, and poor.

    5. Decrease all individuals’ income tax rates, especially high earners who pay the most in taxes now, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    6. Move to a completely flat income tax system where all individuals pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    7. Move to a flat consumption tax where all individuals pay the same percentage of their purchases in taxes, banning the income tax, even if this means the poor pay more in taxes than the rich. Significantly decrease government services in the process.

    Immigration

    1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

    2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

    3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

    4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

    5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

    6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported.

    7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported immediately.

    • Replies: @anon
    Yes, I think he'll pick optimal positions regardless of whether they are usually considered left or right.
  94. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
  95. @Anon
    Oh come on.

    Don't spoil the fun.

    I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.

    I will watch like Yojimbo and laugh.

    Liven up the marathons.

    Oh come on.

    Don’t spoil the fun.

    I say bring more Muslims from Jihadistans and set them loose in NY, SF, Boston, etc.

    My first thought was let them into sociology and anthropology departments and liberal arts colleges, period.

  96. This is a good vid from Molyneux. The Brits want to ban Trump from UK because he is dangerous because he wants to ban Muslims from America because they are dangerous.

    • Replies: @Doorway
    Sad to see it happening in the country that produced Orwell of all people, but England's gone further down the commode than the US. The police are actually investigating Tyson Fury for his benign comments as 'hate speech'. As long as they keep up ridiculous nonsense like this, I have no interest in visiting there myself.
  97. @Stan
    Scott Adams discuses the price of religious tolerance in clear terms

    "But if the risk is more than tiny, can you put a price on your love of religious tolerance? In other words, how many dead Americans are you willing to accept? I’ll go first.

    Personally, I would accept up to 1,000 dead Americans, over a ten-year period, to allow Muslim non-citizens to enter this country. My calculation assumes we are better off accepting some degree of tragedy in the name of freedom. That is often the case with freedom."

    The price of religious tolerance so far is over 3000 dead Americans. Muslim immigration ban ought to have been imposed after 9/11.

    I’ll go along with you 1000% if you “would accept” to be the first one killed.

  98. @Anon
    One has to understand that there are two basic types of visas: nonimmigrant visas, and immigrant visas. Nonimmigrant visas are the ones that are adjudicated very quickly (two minutes), but the important part is that the applicant has no right to enter the USA - he has to prove to the consular officer that he'd be a good tourist, business meeting attendee, etc. Rejection of his application is not reviewable by a court; it's the end of the line.

    Immigrant visas, such as K-visas (fiancee visas) are processed totally differently. They start at USCIS, a component of DHS, which reviews all the materials, etc., and then they are sent to an embassy or consulate for a consular officer to conduct an interview. The vetting is pretty extensive, HOWEVER, the real issue is this: the American citizen basically has a right to get his immigrant fiancee (or spouse, or parent, etc) admitted, and either USCIS or the consular officer has to surmount a pretty high hurdle in order to keep someone out. Rejection of an application can end up in court, and petitioning relatives also often ask their congressman to weigh in on their behalf. There's a lot of institutional pressure to admit these people.

    In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted; immigrant visa applicants come in with an assumption of admissibility and the government has to prove that they _shouldn't_ be admitted. It's hard to prove a negative.

    “In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted”

    They seem to prove it rather easily these days.

    And once they come as non-immigrants, they overstay and are protected in sanctuary cities. They become defacto immigrants.

  99. Trump wants to ban Muslims because they’re dangerous;
    they blow things up and shoot people.

    England wants to ban Trump because he’s dangerous;
    he points out the obvious.

  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I’m all for whatever budget is required so long as we aren’t doing counterproductive budgeting at the same time ala the last Comprehensive monstrosity giving $$$ to ACORN-style “immigrant advocacy” or “processing facilitation” groups.

    As with immigration policy itself, it does no good to talk about enforcement, resources while facilitating subversion.

  101. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Jean-Jacques
    Having been through the spousal immigration process myself, it always surprises me to hear tales of straight up immigration fraud to be honest.

    I am a white 30 year old Brit with a similarly aged white American wife, and in order to have the conditions removed on my 2-year initial green card (i.e. become an unconditional legal permanent resident), I need to comply with an extensive list of requirements. I need to show continuous two-year evidence (i.e., since coming to the US) of joint bank accounts; joint health insurance policies/putting my wife's name on my work policy; joint tax filings for two years; joint auto insurance; utility bills under our names emailed to the same address, and so forth. Failure to provide these can be interpreted as 'lack of evidence' and the permanent green card denied on this basis.

    Additionally, I am told that for many of these turd world shitheads (as opposed to cases like mine where it is unlikely to be a fraudulent marriage based on both of our demographic info (same race, level of attractiveness, educational levels, religion etc) they require additional interviews (in addition to the initial K-1 or CR-1 visa interview which can be hard in itself for said turd-worlders). A few friends of mine from China and elsewhere (legitimate marriages, I don't personally know any frauds) have reported tales of intimate sexual questions, and questions about the interior of the bedroom, amongst other things.

    It strikes me that one would need to be either extremely dedicated to criminal enterprise, or to luck out with some extremely incompetent USCIS officials in order to pull off a scam like this. As such, when I hear tales of immigration 'fraud', I usually take it to mean 'Filipina marrying fat ass American beta loser who thinks she actually likes him' or 'swarthy Jordanian Mohammedan marrying lard-arsed white milk-maid from upstate New York/inland California'. I.e. a marriage which is superficially 'legitimate' (and pretty much impossible to prove otherwise), but where the beneficiary spouse intends to divorce as soon as a citizen/unconditional resident (or perhaps just give up all interest in the marriage and force the issue that way). As opposed to a straight-up criminal fraud involving the changing of hands of money in return for criminal services.

    Have you considered that maybe the government, or parts of it at least, just don’t want more white people coming to the US?

    • Replies: @Jean-Jacques
    Yes, that thought has crossed my mind many times. On the basis that they make it as unpleasant as possible for the kind of people who, based on any sort of sensible statistical analysis, are really extremely unlikely to try to scam their way into the US (white collar employed, educated, white British/Australian etc) because they have too much to lose (imagine the stigma caused by being unable to travel to/through the US because you have been classified as an immigration fraudster) and aren't in any case standing on the end of a burning bridge (going back to North London isn't a life ruining disaster).

    While conversely, the incentives for turd worlders are huge, and the disincentives are tiny; worst case is you get sent back to the Islamic/Aztec shithole from whence you came, and get to try again. You also aren't likely to find yourself in a six-figure position in a corporate job, and find your background subject to the kind of scrutiny that could see something like a sham marriage end your career.

    The whole process is configured to encourage the most useless categories of human life to move to the USA, and to make the kind of people who, by any sensible analysis, you would want to come here to think twice. That suggests extreme incompetence, or ideological choice.

  102. @Anon
    How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

    That makes more sense.

    Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

    I hate to break this to you, but black immigrants are not the problem. Ask one what they think about American-born black people.

    • Replies: @G Pinfold
    I hate to break it to you, but African-Americans are about par for the course. Selective immigration of a few medicos from Madagascar or svengalis from Zanzibar does not change the harsh reality.
  103. Actually for typical spousal visas, it can be arduous and expensive, often requiring lawyers, thousands of dollars in fees, form after form after form of paper work, driving here and there and everywhere (sometimes hundreds of miles away, depending on where you live) for various governmental requirements- like meetings with governmental agents to assess the authenticity of the marriage, biometric analyses, etc) and months to years of waiting with fingers crossed. And that’s when both spouses have a solid background of a good education, middle class work history, and no criminal record.

    Apparently this is just another layer of the recent government efforts to turn a blind eye to problems with brown immigrants. How else to explain how so often unemployed/underemployed males from recent third world origins (esp. hispanic or muslim), and people with shady dangerous backgrounds can so easily get their spouses through the system?

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Yes. Increasing red tape without actually hardening the rules plays onto the hands of those wishing to game the system.

    Ultimately the red tape performance becomes the point of the system rather being a way of filtering out undesirables and makeweights. Indeed the tricksters frequently become allies of the bureaucrats in acting out the rituals.

    For any system to work it needs officials who have a sincere desire to reject fakes and fraudsters and the initiative to do so.

    So I support the employment of 250 pounds ladies of colour whose ancestors were brought here under rather different rules as officials, as proposed on this site. Instant bullshit detectors.
  104. @nglaer
    BTW, that reminds me. Back in the 90's I worked with someone who knew and saw a bit of Trump. Once he came back from a lunch at Trump's and began mimicking Mike Tyson's super deferential demeanor around him: "Missuh Trump, Missuh Trump". I didn't make much of it at that time, but it seems kind of interesting.

    The Mike Tyson impersonator on Imus in the Morning used to do the exact same thing.

  105. @Travis
    Diamond and Lace are Stumping for Trump to help him get the Black vote.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOaEGQzFaPg

    Trump will get twice the Black vote of any other Republican candidate

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOaEGQzFaPg" frameborder

    Actually, its good to see things like this- it gives you some relief that there is a contingent of the black populace that still has its head on straight as far as the issues go. More power to these two. Give ’em and Trump a thumbs up.

  106. @Elites
    This is a good vid from Molyneux. The Brits want to ban Trump from UK because he is dangerous because he wants to ban Muslims from America because they are dangerous.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sukLbPDUAUY

    Sad to see it happening in the country that produced Orwell of all people, but England’s gone further down the commode than the US. The police are actually investigating Tyson Fury for his benign comments as ‘hate speech’. As long as they keep up ridiculous nonsense like this, I have no interest in visiting there myself.

  107. @Steve Sailer
    It's not like American blacks like Jay-Z, Beyonce, and Derek Jeter hate Trump and everything he stands for.

    I bet Trump could get a lot more black votes than other Republicans by framing it this way:

    “Yes, many WEAK BLACKS will not like what I say because they can’t succeed without the patronizing excuses and handouts of liberals. WEAK BLACKS will always vote for the Democrats, and I can’t change that. But, STRONG SMART BLACKS who don’t need handouts and excuses are STRONG enough to vote for me. STRONG, SMART BLACKS find liberal attitudes patronizing and demeaning. I welcome their votes.”

    Telling blacks tender lies hasn’t helped previous Republicans (e.g., Bush 43 and Kemp), so why not appeal to black pride instead?

  108. Something that’s clear about 21st Century organizations is that selection matters, but that lesson never seems to get applied to thinking about immigration policy, where schmaltzy sentiment reigns instead.

    This must be faux naivete. The reason that selection is problematic lies in its statistical character in a context where the use of statistics leads to inequities that affect the status of Americans. For example, a policy that gives negative points to countries from which threats originate affronts citizens who are from those countries – and not for purely sentimental reasons. It not only lowers their status, but it militates against these individuals through encouraging rational discrimination against them based on statistical categorization. If Muslims are deemed threatening by the state, one rationally will take more precautions against (in fact, completely innocent) Muslims. [More hypothetically, discrimination against low-skill migrants will – rationally – be opposed by Americans with low skill.]

    These aren’t mere sentiments. They’re vital interests. You can’t ignore them in your demands (which only cede still more power to the ruling class). But the masses might be united against the elites for a program including a total moratorium on all migration.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    [More hypothetically, discrimination against low-skill migrants will - rationally - be opposed by Americans with low skill.]

    Yes, hypothetically, except that low skill people don't very effectively do anything (but eat and reproduce.)
    , @Steve Sailer
    "For example, a policy that gives negative points to countries from which threats originate affronts citizens who are from those countries – and not for purely sentimental reasons. It not only lowers their status, but it militates against these individuals through encouraging rational discrimination against them based on statistical categorization."

    Of course, rational discrimination exists for rational reasons -- i.e., their behavior. Thus, the War on Noticing that attempts to make the rest of us less rational.

    The best way to minimize rational discrimination against immigrants who behavior is rationally objectionable is to let fewer of them into the country.
  109. @Mark Minter
    The procedure is already rigorous if ICE and the embassy do as they should. I have heard stories of interviews where the embassy people were so tough on Colombian girls they cried. You need to take elaborate stuff with you, hard copies of messenger chat sessions, tickets, receipts, pictures and be prepared for a grilling.

    If you clamp down and add steps on the whole process you mess with people who generally are doing the right thing. I know this is sort of a variation on the Not All Muslims Are Like That. But this is kind of like the whole nobody had rules that said don't fly airplanes into buildings because nobody flew airplanes into buildings before.

    Single women coming to marry someone are about the least immigration threat ever. Even if there is a Russian girl that gets a beta to marry her for a green card, then you get one more hot Russian girl in the US and that in my opinion is OK, especially when ugly fat Central American kids can just stumble across the border and get taken care of.

    But Latin American women coming through K visa process have high rates of sticking in the Marriage. Only DR had women with divorce rates approaching US divorce rates. In a way, the whole process is a vetting of the seriousness of both parties, lots of forms, requirements, time, BS. The bad side of it is that feminists screaming has led to more scrutiny about the US male then the foreign female.

    To me, adding more complexity and vetting for K visas is like adding airport security crap to search grandmothers when obviously it is Arab men that are the risk.

    I say screw em, cut off K visas to Arab countries. Kills a whole bunch of birds with one stone, eliminates Jahidi girls, cousin marriage, slows down a rapidly growing the muslim population, and even providing a disincentive to Muslim men to come here if they can't bring a woman in to marry.

    Let them go to Germany or someplace.

    Then create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females from non-muslim countries wanting into the US.

    And they just pull back the rope and let all the hot ones come right on in.

    Are you hoping to get one of the “hot girls” after their divorce — or are you just joking around here?

    Seriously, though, given that these brides can be expected to put their parents, brothers and sisters down for a green card and that the whole family will probably end up costing us millions of dollars in tax money even if they do work, I’d rather spend the time and money to look closer, investigate some questionable marriages and deny more visas.

    We just don’t need more people and we sure don’t need more people to spend money on.

    • Replies: @Bert
    Mark Minter is a notorious troll, so don't pay him any mind.
  110. @epebble
    That was based on nationality; so it was considered OK. The moment Trump uttered religion, people stopped thinking with cerebrum and use the medulla in a reflex. That is why 'weak' Carter won where a 'strong' Trump may lose. If Trump had been more careful and used a phrase like "North Africans/Middle Easterners/South Asians from violent countries" or something like that, that would have put enough constructive pressure that there might even be a legislation by now (as with visa waiver changes). But no, instead of doing something useful, he went on a publicity seeking rant and poisoned the atmosphere.

    discrimination on the basis of national origin is just as doubleplus ungood as discrimination on the basis of religion.

  111. @TangoMan
    Trump is having success in two novel ways, first he's drawing in the disaffected and second he's beginning to reorder coalitions.

    With blacks he should target the insanity of granting affirmative action and other racial goodies to African immigrants at the EXPENSE of blacks whose families have long histories in the US. This drives a wedge into the black coalition that the Democrats have, which I might add, does come at the expense of American blacks. Blacks love being the victim, see BLM and they also don't like seeing black immigrants outperforming them and they really don't like seeing Harvard favoring black immigrants with admission which they feel is supposed to go to them, thus depriving them of a better life.

    Trump promising to deport infiltrators who take jobs away from blacks and promising to put the screws to institutions who favor black immigrants over native blacks could do real damage to the Democrats.

    Secondly, by refocusing black victimization on how the Democrats are treating them, he defuses BLM to the relief of the rest of society and does so without directly insulting blacks.

    You are making some important — but usually ignored — points here.

    The Democrats are ignoring the consequences of ignoring the people who used to vote for them.

    This will come back to haunt them big time.

  112. @Hail

    the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system.
     
    At the 'immigration' level, this is a very difficult problem to control, isn't it? Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it? Vastly reduce the number of visas given? End the Visa Waiver program? That still just passes the buck to consular officers to choose who gets in and who doesn't, even for Westerners and Japanese, etc.

    Relatedly: Ending birthright citizenship may be closer than you think. Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Paul are all are strong proponents of ending birthright citizenship. Jeb and Rubio are both deadset against it. Jeb seems neutralized. If Rubio is held off... (All candidates' scores)

    >>> Take the Visa Overstayer problem. How does one actually solve it?

    death penalties & chain gangs.

  113. @Fredrik
    Exactly.

    Of course there has to be a balance between harrassing real couples and stopping sham marriages but it appears that it's too easy to let someone in these day.

    Btw,
    A Swedish friend moved to the US with his American wife and I clearly remember how both were annoyed by all the paperwork needed(much more than when moving in the other direction).

    As usual it looks like government knows how to make matters difficult for honest people whilst simultaneously being unable to stop the fraudsters.

    That’s why immigrants don’t become citizens.
    Too much time and paperwork.

  114. @Hepp
    A bunch of liberals the other day sat around and were basically kicking themselves for not being able to top Trump's proposal, here's the clip.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/12/11/liberal-msnbc-host-stumps-panel-cant-state-better-immigration-plan-than-trumps-283021?hvid=3Hjpe0

    I like how they're now asking how would you even tell if people are Muslim. Weren't they just telling us that the Obama administration would be able to screen for radical ideology? Now we can't tell what religion people are?

    It's amazing how the media shoots at you from all angles. When they hear an idea they don't like, they try to convince you

    1) It's impractical ("How will you tell people are Muslim?")
    2) It'll make the problem worse ("Doing the bidding of ISIS!")
    3) It's "contrary to our values"

    If you refute one of these arguments, they'll start debating on a different plane. Trump refuted (1) by pointing to Operation Wetback, so they just moved on to (3).

    When I started seeing (2), it was really disheartening. "We need the help of the Muslim community, this will alienate them!" Yes to deal with the immigration problem you need the help of immigrants, which means you need more immigrants indefinitely, lest the ones we let in kill us all.

    Dems can’t tell what SEX someone is, how are they to be trusted to identify a terrorist ?

  115. @Whiskey
    Steve the problem is that government does not WANT to screen immigrants. More voters for Dems. So the process has to be end-around government.

    Allow US citizens to sue and collect from both governments AND officials when immigrants who are let in do damages to ordinary people. There is much talk of piercing the corporate veil, to allow suing of corporate officers in various lawsuits. Oh such as, GM covering up its ignition problems leading to ... death.

    The same thing has to happen here. Allowing not only the Federal Government to be sued, but also NGOs making money and critically, government officials. Even years after they leave office.

    Its one thing for a government official to think, "F- you Americans. President Obama! has ordered me to admit half the ME ESPECIALLY the terrorists because they haven't been hugged enough get Y-T. Achmed here screaming he wants to kill Jews and Christians is going to be your next door neighbor and health inspector!" What did you expect him to do, exhibit moral super powers?

    It is another thing for him to fear, "God-damn, I could lose my house and have to live in Baltimore not some nice place in Virginia if I let in this screaming jihadi. F-you Obama! I'm keeping my house."

    It is a matter of incentives. Demanding moral supermen is a recipe for failure. Of course pushing a piercing of the government veil will be very hard, but its a good discussion to have, as it points out the incentives to make Dem leaders happy at the expense of Joe Average shot dead at a Christmas Party.

    The problem with this sort of detournement is that you are still dependent on the system ensconced over decades by a Gramscian march to oppose you to enforce it.

  116. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Something that’s clear about 21st Century organizations is that selection matters, but that lesson never seems to get applied to thinking about immigration policy, where schmaltzy sentiment reigns instead.
     
    This must be faux naivete. The reason that selection is problematic lies in its statistical character in a context where the use of statistics leads to inequities that affect the status of Americans. For example, a policy that gives negative points to countries from which threats originate affronts citizens who are from those countries - and not for purely sentimental reasons. It not only lowers their status, but it militates against these individuals through encouraging rational discrimination against them based on statistical categorization. If Muslims are deemed threatening by the state, one rationally will take more precautions against (in fact, completely innocent) Muslims. [More hypothetically, discrimination against low-skill migrants will - rationally - be opposed by Americans with low skill.]

    These aren't mere sentiments. They're vital interests. You can't ignore them in your demands (which only cede still more power to the ruling class). But the masses might be united against the elites for a program including a total moratorium on all migration.

    [More hypothetically, discrimination against low-skill migrants will – rationally – be opposed by Americans with low skill.]

    Yes, hypothetically, except that low skill people don’t very effectively do anything (but eat and reproduce.)

  117. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    one recent poll has cruz up 10 points on trump, yet trump has pulled way ahead in the national polls and in polls in NH and So Carolina. Look for the media to hype this latest iowa poll with great glee.

    The establishment is going to push cruz into a win in IA and then then the media has a week to hype cruz as a winner before the NH primary, which trump will take. But the establishment is putting all its chips on cruz to win in iowa. Be prepared for a media hype blitz for the ages.

    Why did the GOP and Dem parties (and the establishment that controls them) put Iowa as the first primary? Iowa is certainly not representative of america. It is a rich state that holds perhaps the richest farmland in the world. And it is favored by huge government agricultural subsidies. Plus, Iowa is part of the Iowa-Minnesota Nice axis. These are religious, polite people. Germans, Swedes. Not like the Scots-Irish of the south and much of the area near the south. And there are few nonwhites in Iowa.

    Iowans are fat, dumb and happy, almost living in a world separate from the South. Why would they vote for a fire breather like trump that would bring true change? They don’t want change.

    The South however has never really recovered from the 2008 recession, and they are angry.

    Iowa certainly has done well, at least in part thanks to government largess of subsidies.

    Another factor–recall that the housing and stock markets crashed AFTER the 2008 primaries, once the corporate-chosen candidates were already in place. They won’t let the crash happen until after the primaries this time, either.

    I still think trump will win the nomination, but it will be tough. There are only two large states that have winner take all in the GOP primary–FL and OH. If he can win the south and the near-south, along with FL and OH, he gets the nomination. But he may have to promise another candidate the VP slot, and VP slot on trump’s ticket will be worth something, given his age and lack of buff physical nature.

    Trump can also take texas and NY, I think, and possibly CA. Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest. If trump can take FL and OH, he takes it all.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest.

    This is the mirror image of Obama, who was more popular with whites who lived in states with few blacks and relied on the Cosby Show and Oprah for their window into black America.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Why did the GOP and Dem parties (and the establishment that controls them) put Iowa as the first primary?
     
    Iowa has the first caucus. I don't think Iowa has a primary at all. But Minnesota has both; the caucus is in March, and the primary is in September. No one pays attention to the latter.

    At any rate, Iowans themselves set the date, not the parties.
  118. What if we had an immigration policy for an express purpose, and set priorities for immigration on the basis of those purposes?

    I don’t think comes from a culture where God believes wife beating, slavery, polygamy and raping female captives taken in warfare is okay will get you a high score on the test, whatever they come up with. . .

    This is also actually where feminism and gay rights could actually come in handy, since only affluent over-educated people from “historically European Christian” countries actually share these values.

    Only let people in from Countries that don’t have sexist and homophobic laws, so we don’t end up importing hate. (We are working so hard to eliminate it domestically after all.)

    See, isn’t that the opposite of racist?

  119. @notsaying
    Are you hoping to get one of the "hot girls" after their divorce -- or are you just joking around here?

    Seriously, though, given that these brides can be expected to put their parents, brothers and sisters down for a green card and that the whole family will probably end up costing us millions of dollars in tax money even if they do work, I'd rather spend the time and money to look closer, investigate some questionable marriages and deny more visas.

    We just don't need more people and we sure don't need more people to spend money on.

    Mark Minter is a notorious troll, so don’t pay him any mind.

  120. @Doorway
    Actually for typical spousal visas, it can be arduous and expensive, often requiring lawyers, thousands of dollars in fees, form after form after form of paper work, driving here and there and everywhere (sometimes hundreds of miles away, depending on where you live) for various governmental requirements- like meetings with governmental agents to assess the authenticity of the marriage, biometric analyses, etc) and months to years of waiting with fingers crossed. And that's when both spouses have a solid background of a good education, middle class work history, and no criminal record.

    Apparently this is just another layer of the recent government efforts to turn a blind eye to problems with brown immigrants. How else to explain how so often unemployed/underemployed males from recent third world origins (esp. hispanic or muslim), and people with shady dangerous backgrounds can so easily get their spouses through the system?

    Yes. Increasing red tape without actually hardening the rules plays onto the hands of those wishing to game the system.

    Ultimately the red tape performance becomes the point of the system rather being a way of filtering out undesirables and makeweights. Indeed the tricksters frequently become allies of the bureaucrats in acting out the rituals.

    For any system to work it needs officials who have a sincere desire to reject fakes and fraudsters and the initiative to do so.

    So I support the employment of 250 pounds ladies of colour whose ancestors were brought here under rather different rules as officials, as proposed on this site. Instant bullshit detectors.

  121. @res


    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition. Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.
     
    I think this captures the key question about Trump: what are his intentions?

    IIRC Steve blogged about this paper by Ahler and Broockman (but I can't find the link):
    http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/37528/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

    There was a fair amount of discussion during the summer about this in the context of Trump.
    This Vox article has a good overview on this and reproduces their "Figure 9: The full range of public opinion on 13 issues" which concisely captures some important points:
    http://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
    Public opinion on immigration has a clear rightward bias.
    Here is a Washington Examiner article which evaluates Trump's immigration position in the context of Ahler/Broockman:
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/are-trumps-immigration-views-out-of-the-mainstream/article/2570298

    Given this, immigration is a great choice to emphasize during the Republican primary season. Outflanking the establishment candidates to the right is a winning strategy and should work fairly well in the general (perhaps with a little tacking to the center).

    The other opinion categories are also interesting. I was surprised that abortion has a center-right concentration (see the paper for details on how they chose the categories). Four categories had a hard left bias: marijuana, social security, taxes, and medicaire.

    My thinking is that Trump will start to emphasize issues where the populace leans left (and he agrees) during the general and take a fairly moderate position. However, I think his tax position is contrary to this (see tax positions below) which makes it interesting to me (with the notable exception of carried interest treatment).

    I also agree with those (like Scott Adams) who think much of Trump's current extremism is a negotiating technique.

    What does everyone else think of these ideas?

    P.S. To give a sense of the Ahler/Broockman categories here are their positions for taxes and immigration (pp. 48-49):


    Federal Taxes

    1. Establish a maximum annual income, with all income over $1,000,000 per year taxed at a rate of 100%. Decrease federal taxes on the poor and provide more services benefitting the middle class and poor.

    2. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to pre-1990s levels (over 5% above current rates). Use the savings to significantly lower taxes and provide more services to those making less and to invest in infrastructure projects.

    3. Increase federal income taxes on those making over $250,000 per year to 1990s rates ( 5% above current rates). Use the savings to lower taxes and provide more services to those making less while also paying down the national debt.

    4. Maintain current levels of federal spending and federal income taxes on the rich, middle class, and poor.

    5. Decrease all individuals’ income tax rates, especially high earners who pay the most in taxes now, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    6. Move to a completely flat income tax system where all individuals pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, accomplished by decreasing government services.

    7. Move to a flat consumption tax where all individuals pay the same percentage of their purchases in taxes, banning the income tax, even if this means the poor pay more in taxes than the rich. Significantly decrease government services in the process.

    Immigration

    1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.

    2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.

    3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.

    4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.

    5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.

    6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported.

    7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the US should be deported immediately.

    Yes, I think he’ll pick optimal positions regardless of whether they are usually considered left or right.

  122. What we need to do is to levy a “Security Tax” on all Moslems, foreign and domestic. The reason we have this vast and expensive internal security system is to protect our loved ones from crazed moslems. Since we have toll roads so that drivers can help finance the roads they travel on, we can have moslems pay for our security system.
    I propose a tax of $10,000 per year. If you have a wife and child, this will cost you $30,000 a year. New immigrants will be charged an extra $10,000. Those who disagree with this are free to leave the country.
    Those who refuse to pay will be separated from their families and by gender and confined to camps. These camps will be built in Alaska somewhere.
    This is a nicer alternative to what Trump wants.

  123. @Hail

    Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
     
    I think this is the wrong view to take. For one thing, it is also true of most every other mainstream politician, almost by definition.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    Trump is more like Gorbachev. Both men were established members of their own elite who secretly hated the system for all its injustices and wanted it overturned. When the time was right, both let their true views be known.

    But why was Gorbachev in office in the first place? Why not another Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov?

    All the bien-pensants said it was America’s leadership that was incompetent, not the USSR’s. So why wasn’t that changed instead?

  124. @Travis
    Diamond and Lace are Stumping for Trump to help him get the Black vote.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOaEGQzFaPg

    Trump will get twice the Black vote of any other Republican candidate

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOaEGQzFaPg" frameborder

    “It’s cheaper to de-port than to sup-port.” “Uh huh.”

  125. @Leftist conservative
    one recent poll has cruz up 10 points on trump, yet trump has pulled way ahead in the national polls and in polls in NH and So Carolina. Look for the media to hype this latest iowa poll with great glee.


    The establishment is going to push cruz into a win in IA and then then the media has a week to hype cruz as a winner before the NH primary, which trump will take. But the establishment is putting all its chips on cruz to win in iowa. Be prepared for a media hype blitz for the ages.

    Why did the GOP and Dem parties (and the establishment that controls them) put Iowa as the first primary? Iowa is certainly not representative of america. It is a rich state that holds perhaps the richest farmland in the world. And it is favored by huge government agricultural subsidies. Plus, Iowa is part of the Iowa-Minnesota Nice axis. These are religious, polite people. Germans, Swedes. Not like the Scots-Irish of the south and much of the area near the south. And there are few nonwhites in Iowa.

    Iowans are fat, dumb and happy, almost living in a world separate from the South. Why would they vote for a fire breather like trump that would bring true change? They don't want change.

    The South however has never really recovered from the 2008 recession, and they are angry.

    Iowa certainly has done well, at least in part thanks to government largess of subsidies.

    Another factor--recall that the housing and stock markets crashed AFTER the 2008 primaries, once the corporate-chosen candidates were already in place. They won't let the crash happen until after the primaries this time, either.

    I still think trump will win the nomination, but it will be tough. There are only two large states that have winner take all in the GOP primary--FL and OH. If he can win the south and the near-south, along with FL and OH, he gets the nomination. But he may have to promise another candidate the VP slot, and VP slot on trump's ticket will be worth something, given his age and lack of buff physical nature.

    Trump can also take texas and NY, I think, and possibly CA. Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest. If trump can take FL and OH, he takes it all.

    Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest.

    This is the mirror image of Obama, who was more popular with whites who lived in states with few blacks and relied on the Cosby Show and Oprah for their window into black America.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    This is the mirror image of Obama…
     
    Thus he's the Hillary of the GOP. (Yuck. I wish I didn't say that. But it fits.)

    Lawrence Auster was actually rooting for her for awhile, in 2008, for this reason. I disagreed. Race and politics aside, the Clintons are scumbuckets, high-IQ trash, and it's best for the country to remove such types from positions of power and influence.
  126. @Mark Minter
    The procedure is already rigorous if ICE and the embassy do as they should. I have heard stories of interviews where the embassy people were so tough on Colombian girls they cried. You need to take elaborate stuff with you, hard copies of messenger chat sessions, tickets, receipts, pictures and be prepared for a grilling.

    If you clamp down and add steps on the whole process you mess with people who generally are doing the right thing. I know this is sort of a variation on the Not All Muslims Are Like That. But this is kind of like the whole nobody had rules that said don't fly airplanes into buildings because nobody flew airplanes into buildings before.

    Single women coming to marry someone are about the least immigration threat ever. Even if there is a Russian girl that gets a beta to marry her for a green card, then you get one more hot Russian girl in the US and that in my opinion is OK, especially when ugly fat Central American kids can just stumble across the border and get taken care of.

    But Latin American women coming through K visa process have high rates of sticking in the Marriage. Only DR had women with divorce rates approaching US divorce rates. In a way, the whole process is a vetting of the seriousness of both parties, lots of forms, requirements, time, BS. The bad side of it is that feminists screaming has led to more scrutiny about the US male then the foreign female.

    To me, adding more complexity and vetting for K visas is like adding airport security crap to search grandmothers when obviously it is Arab men that are the risk.

    I say screw em, cut off K visas to Arab countries. Kills a whole bunch of birds with one stone, eliminates Jahidi girls, cousin marriage, slows down a rapidly growing the muslim population, and even providing a disincentive to Muslim men to come here if they can't bring a woman in to marry.

    Let them go to Germany or someplace.

    Then create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females from non-muslim countries wanting into the US.

    And they just pull back the rope and let all the hot ones come right on in.

    …create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females…

    …and charge a stiff cover with a two-drink minimum–except on Tuesdays which is Ladies Night, when attractive women immigrate for free.

  127. @Leftist conservative
    one recent poll has cruz up 10 points on trump, yet trump has pulled way ahead in the national polls and in polls in NH and So Carolina. Look for the media to hype this latest iowa poll with great glee.


    The establishment is going to push cruz into a win in IA and then then the media has a week to hype cruz as a winner before the NH primary, which trump will take. But the establishment is putting all its chips on cruz to win in iowa. Be prepared for a media hype blitz for the ages.

    Why did the GOP and Dem parties (and the establishment that controls them) put Iowa as the first primary? Iowa is certainly not representative of america. It is a rich state that holds perhaps the richest farmland in the world. And it is favored by huge government agricultural subsidies. Plus, Iowa is part of the Iowa-Minnesota Nice axis. These are religious, polite people. Germans, Swedes. Not like the Scots-Irish of the south and much of the area near the south. And there are few nonwhites in Iowa.

    Iowans are fat, dumb and happy, almost living in a world separate from the South. Why would they vote for a fire breather like trump that would bring true change? They don't want change.

    The South however has never really recovered from the 2008 recession, and they are angry.

    Iowa certainly has done well, at least in part thanks to government largess of subsidies.

    Another factor--recall that the housing and stock markets crashed AFTER the 2008 primaries, once the corporate-chosen candidates were already in place. They won't let the crash happen until after the primaries this time, either.

    I still think trump will win the nomination, but it will be tough. There are only two large states that have winner take all in the GOP primary--FL and OH. If he can win the south and the near-south, along with FL and OH, he gets the nomination. But he may have to promise another candidate the VP slot, and VP slot on trump's ticket will be worth something, given his age and lack of buff physical nature.

    Trump can also take texas and NY, I think, and possibly CA. Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest. If trump can take FL and OH, he takes it all.

    Why did the GOP and Dem parties (and the establishment that controls them) put Iowa as the first primary?

    Iowa has the first caucus. I don’t think Iowa has a primary at all. But Minnesota has both; the caucus is in March, and the primary is in September. No one pays attention to the latter.

    At any rate, Iowans themselves set the date, not the parties.

  128. @TangoMan
    Trump is much more popular with whites where there are large numbers of nonwhites as opposed to the states where there are few nonwhites, which is where trump is weakest.

    This is the mirror image of Obama, who was more popular with whites who lived in states with few blacks and relied on the Cosby Show and Oprah for their window into black America.

    This is the mirror image of Obama…

    Thus he’s the Hillary of the GOP. (Yuck. I wish I didn’t say that. But it fits.)

    Lawrence Auster was actually rooting for her for awhile, in 2008, for this reason. I disagreed. Race and politics aside, the Clintons are scumbuckets, high-IQ trash, and it’s best for the country to remove such types from positions of power and influence.

  129. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Something that’s clear about 21st Century organizations is that selection matters, but that lesson never seems to get applied to thinking about immigration policy, where schmaltzy sentiment reigns instead.
     
    This must be faux naivete. The reason that selection is problematic lies in its statistical character in a context where the use of statistics leads to inequities that affect the status of Americans. For example, a policy that gives negative points to countries from which threats originate affronts citizens who are from those countries - and not for purely sentimental reasons. It not only lowers their status, but it militates against these individuals through encouraging rational discrimination against them based on statistical categorization. If Muslims are deemed threatening by the state, one rationally will take more precautions against (in fact, completely innocent) Muslims. [More hypothetically, discrimination against low-skill migrants will - rationally - be opposed by Americans with low skill.]

    These aren't mere sentiments. They're vital interests. You can't ignore them in your demands (which only cede still more power to the ruling class). But the masses might be united against the elites for a program including a total moratorium on all migration.

    “For example, a policy that gives negative points to countries from which threats originate affronts citizens who are from those countries – and not for purely sentimental reasons. It not only lowers their status, but it militates against these individuals through encouraging rational discrimination against them based on statistical categorization.”

    Of course, rational discrimination exists for rational reasons — i.e., their behavior. Thus, the War on Noticing that attempts to make the rest of us less rational.

    The best way to minimize rational discrimination against immigrants who behavior is rationally objectionable is to let fewer of them into the country.

  130. @nglaer
    My experiences with immigrants from west Africa have been pretty positive.

    Mine too. I don't think Africans sold their smartest people into slavery. I've been wondering if it would be considered racist or offensive to ask someone (like the super smart Nigerian guy at my golf club) whether he is part of that super-smart tribe which some at the Unz site write about.

    When I subscribed to the Economist in the 1980s, I tried to keep track of which tribe Nigerians said was the smartest tribe in Nigeria. But nobody in Nigeria seemed to agree. I think most Nigerians believe they personally belong to the second smartest tribe.

    • Replies: @Benjaminl
    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/

    But what about all this, on the Igbo?
  131. @The most deplorable one
    Have you considered that maybe the government, or parts of it at least, just don't want more white people coming to the US?

    Yes, that thought has crossed my mind many times. On the basis that they make it as unpleasant as possible for the kind of people who, based on any sort of sensible statistical analysis, are really extremely unlikely to try to scam their way into the US (white collar employed, educated, white British/Australian etc) because they have too much to lose (imagine the stigma caused by being unable to travel to/through the US because you have been classified as an immigration fraudster) and aren’t in any case standing on the end of a burning bridge (going back to North London isn’t a life ruining disaster).

    While conversely, the incentives for turd worlders are huge, and the disincentives are tiny; worst case is you get sent back to the Islamic/Aztec shithole from whence you came, and get to try again. You also aren’t likely to find yourself in a six-figure position in a corporate job, and find your background subject to the kind of scrutiny that could see something like a sham marriage end your career.

    The whole process is configured to encourage the most useless categories of human life to move to the USA, and to make the kind of people who, by any sensible analysis, you would want to come here to think twice. That suggests extreme incompetence, or ideological choice.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  132. @Whiskey
    Steve the problem is that government does not WANT to screen immigrants. More voters for Dems. So the process has to be end-around government.

    Allow US citizens to sue and collect from both governments AND officials when immigrants who are let in do damages to ordinary people. There is much talk of piercing the corporate veil, to allow suing of corporate officers in various lawsuits. Oh such as, GM covering up its ignition problems leading to ... death.

    The same thing has to happen here. Allowing not only the Federal Government to be sued, but also NGOs making money and critically, government officials. Even years after they leave office.

    Its one thing for a government official to think, "F- you Americans. President Obama! has ordered me to admit half the ME ESPECIALLY the terrorists because they haven't been hugged enough get Y-T. Achmed here screaming he wants to kill Jews and Christians is going to be your next door neighbor and health inspector!" What did you expect him to do, exhibit moral super powers?

    It is another thing for him to fear, "God-damn, I could lose my house and have to live in Baltimore not some nice place in Virginia if I let in this screaming jihadi. F-you Obama! I'm keeping my house."

    It is a matter of incentives. Demanding moral supermen is a recipe for failure. Of course pushing a piercing of the government veil will be very hard, but its a good discussion to have, as it points out the incentives to make Dem leaders happy at the expense of Joe Average shot dead at a Christmas Party.

    An end to immunity wouldn’t get passed. But an end to the presumption of immunity might. There is NO WAY that the puppet masters will give up their literal private law, privilege.

  133. @Steve Sailer
    When I subscribed to the Economist in the 1980s, I tried to keep track of which tribe Nigerians said was the smartest tribe in Nigeria. But nobody in Nigeria seemed to agree. I think most Nigerians believe they personally belong to the second smartest tribe.

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/the-jews-of-west-africa/

    But what about all this, on the Igbo?

  134. @Anon
    How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?

    That makes more sense.

    Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.

    Keep ’em all out. Immigration Moratorium Now.

    • Replies: @anon
    That sounds like a better idea - give it 50 years or so until the consequences of excessive immigration since 1965 has been fixed.
  135. @Anonymous
    The vast majority of mass shootings are done by white men. Why don't we discuss deporting them? Why are Muslims held to such a high standard? The truth is that Muslims are less likely to be violent than Christians

    So, you go ahead and move to Iran. You’ll love it there, safe and sound.

  136. @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, there's no possible way ISIS could use oil money to buy spots for terrorists.

    How about this... no immigrants except STEM grads from US universities and authentic political refugees...

    How about this: No immigrants, period.

  137. @JSM
    Keep 'em all out. Immigration Moratorium Now.

    That sounds like a better idea – give it 50 years or so until the consequences of excessive immigration since 1965 has been fixed.

  138. @Hepp
    A bunch of liberals the other day sat around and were basically kicking themselves for not being able to top Trump's proposal, here's the clip.

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/12/11/liberal-msnbc-host-stumps-panel-cant-state-better-immigration-plan-than-trumps-283021?hvid=3Hjpe0

    I like how they're now asking how would you even tell if people are Muslim. Weren't they just telling us that the Obama administration would be able to screen for radical ideology? Now we can't tell what religion people are?

    It's amazing how the media shoots at you from all angles. When they hear an idea they don't like, they try to convince you

    1) It's impractical ("How will you tell people are Muslim?")
    2) It'll make the problem worse ("Doing the bidding of ISIS!")
    3) It's "contrary to our values"

    If you refute one of these arguments, they'll start debating on a different plane. Trump refuted (1) by pointing to Operation Wetback, so they just moved on to (3).

    When I started seeing (2), it was really disheartening. "We need the help of the Muslim community, this will alienate them!" Yes to deal with the immigration problem you need the help of immigrants, which means you need more immigrants indefinitely, lest the ones we let in kill us all.

    1) It’s impractical (“How will you tell people are Muslim?”)

    Simple. It’s called a shibboleth. You say shibboleth, I say shibbolet, let’s call the whole thing off.

    Isslaam is a tell. Musslem is a tell. A friendly would say Izlam and muzlim.

    Try it. You may get a few false positives, but then again… It’s probably too early to tell.

  139. Rand Paul, in a recent interview, said he would tweak Trump’s proposal to make it based more on where the prospective immigrant was from, rather than specifically on religion. He may have a point. After all, Sirhan Sirhn was a Palestinian Christian.

  140. @ScarletNumber
    I hate to break this to you, but black immigrants are not the problem. Ask one what they think about American-born black people.

    I hate to break it to you, but African-Americans are about par for the course. Selective immigration of a few medicos from Madagascar or svengalis from Zanzibar does not change the harsh reality.

  141. “Why can’t we use the DHS bureaucracy to follow this sensible proposal and use good judgement?”

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

    This is why. It is nearly impossible to fire anyone, many government bureaucrats are ideologically committed to Not Noticing.

    The only policies with a realistic chance of achieving goals are ones that are highly visible to the public, like banning all immigration from Country X, Y and Z.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    That secret policy is emblematic of the rise of a new Estate. Where the world once had nobility, clergy and such, then an irresponsible press and now an entrenched bureaucracy. This country needs an estate sale to unload the non-transparent aspects, like Journolisters, Cabalisters and their fellow travelers in the won't do a lick of definable work and can't be fired class. Where is more sunlight to disinfect those dark corners?
  142. @Discordiax
    "Why can't we use the DHS bureaucracy to follow this sensible proposal and use good judgement?"

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/secret-us-policy-blocks-agents-social-media-visa/story?id=35749325

    This is why. It is nearly impossible to fire anyone, many government bureaucrats are ideologically committed to Not Noticing.

    The only policies with a realistic chance of achieving goals are ones that are highly visible to the public, like banning all immigration from Country X, Y and Z.

    That secret policy is emblematic of the rise of a new Estate. Where the world once had nobility, clergy and such, then an irresponsible press and now an entrenched bureaucracy. This country needs an estate sale to unload the non-transparent aspects, like Journolisters, Cabalisters and their fellow travelers in the won’t do a lick of definable work and can’t be fired class. Where is more sunlight to disinfect those dark corners?

  143. One of my commenters said you can’t blame government immigration officials for making bad decisions about spouses because they are given so little time to investigate and ponder who to let into the country permanently. Other commenters have suggested there is a massive number of sham marriages for purposes of immigration fraud.

    Okay, so here’s a proposal: let’s increase the budget. Hire more and better immigration officials and give them more time and money to do careful investigations.

    No, here’s a proposal: slow down the immigration process to the point where the officials we have can do their job properly. Better yet, stop immigration altogether, fire all the officials, and give the money saved back to the taxpayers.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2