RSS
The Gallup Poll reports based on surveying 452,000 people in 151 countries in 2009-2011:
150 Million Adults Worldwide Would Migrate to the U.S.
Potential migrants most likely to be Chinese, Nigerian, and Indian
by Jon Clifton
WASHINGTON, D.C. — About 13% of the world’s adults — or more than 640 million people — say they would like to leave their country permanently.
Of course, 640 million adults wanting to emigrate does not included their dependent children and dependent elders. So, that’s more like a billion or so.
Roughly 150 million of them say they would like to move to the U.S. — giving it the undisputed title as the world’s most desired destination for potential migrants since Gallup started tracking these patterns in 2007.
We’re Number One! We’re Number One!
Keep in mind that America is the first choice of 150 million adults, but, presumably, an Open Borders policy in the U.S. unmatched by other Anglosphere countries would also lure in many of the 113 million whose first choices are UK, Canada, and Australia.
Of course, not all these people would show up, since life in America would get increasingly crummy the more the tens of millions of Third Worlders move in, so a balance would be reached where life in America isn’t better than back home in the Third World long before all potential immigrants arrive.
In addition to the nearly one in 30 adults worldwide who would like to permanently relocate to the U.S., large numbers are attracted to the United Kingdom (45 million), Canada (42 million), France (32 million), and Saudi Arabia (31 million).
Gallup’s latest findings on adults’ desire to move to other countries are based on a rolling average of interviews with 452,199 adults in 151 countries between 2009 and 2011. The 151 countries represent more than 97% of the world’s adult population.
Who Wants to Move to the U.S.?
Potential migrants who say they would like to move to the U.S. are most likely to come from populous countries such as China (22 million), Nigeria (15 million), India (10 million), Bangladesh (8 million), or Brazil (7 million).
… Gallup found that more than three in 10 adults in Liberia (37%) and Sierra Leone (30%) would move permanently to the U.S. if they had the opportunity. More than 20% of adults in the Dominican Republic (26%), Haiti (24%), and Cambodia (22%) also say the same.
In reality, that’s just the first wave. With Open Borders, there’s no limit to how many would come over time.* For example, something like 2/3rds of Puerto Ricans now live in the 50 states despite lavish subsidies intended to keep them at home.
* Except that the Third Worldification of the First World receiving country would eventually set a limit be reducing the receiving country to the level of the Third World sending country.
Temperature seems to be a factor here with only Canada being a favored nation among the cold countries (Russia, Switzerland, and Sweden are very low, with Saudi Arabia unnaturally high).
Not bad choices all in all.
What moral can be inferred from this, I do not know.
Breitbart shouts out iSteve:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/study-482-extra-murder-victims-amid-obamas-anti-cop-campaign/
"That’s 241 times as many African-Americans as were killed in Ferguson, Mo., on March 7, 2014, when Michael Brown was killed while attacking a police officer."
He was shot August 9.
“But it’s an act of love.” — Jeb!
If Canada ever announces it will give out free heating oil to immigrants they will be swamped. Somalis will always take the winter freeze vs welfare bennie trade-off. Toronto area is full of them and in Canada they don’t have to worry about native born blacks who hate their guts. Which is what happens in America……. hmmmm could be why so many are in Maine. The whiter the better for Somalis.
I wonder if those choosing Saudi Arabia do so out of piety (i.e. Moslems wishing to live near Mecca) or out of a desire to live with their family members working there (i.e. Filipinos and subcontinentals).
Disambiguation-of-Life Protocol
GAME THEORY: Non-Cooperative
“When everyone is playing their best move to everyone ELSE’s best move then no one is going to move.”
Here’s a campaign on the road to ruin!
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/8/9270211/zoltan-istvan-presidential-campaign
“Adam Smith needs revision, if we all go for the blonde then we block each other and not a single one of us is going to get her. So, then we go for her friends but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. But what if no one goes for the blonde? We don’t get in each other’s way and we don’t insult the other girls and soon we’ll win. That’s the only way we all get laid. Adam Smith said, the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what is best for oneself. That is incomplete because the best result will come from everyone in the group doing what’s best for themselves, AND, for the group.” — John Forbes Nash character explaining Game Theory/Governing Dynamics to his friends in a bar.
US might be the number one choice only because nobody likes to be the second choice. We’re number six, we try harder.
I knew a guy from India who considers himself sort of a white nationalist. He said white people are the only people who created a decent country to live in.
He said the wrong people are having children in the US, and he meant black people.
There won’t be any truly white countries left. There will only be a moderate percentage of white people in former white countries and that is the best case scenario.
I can’t figure out why these 3rd world people who already came here want more of their own people to come to the US. It would become just like the place they left. Maybe they don’t understand genetics and HBD.
A White Indian is an oxymoron.
Things don't have to make sense if they appease the ego.
Maybe we could all just switch places. Wouldn’t that resolve everything in the fairest way possible?
(No switching back)
I am surprised South Africa and Russia are so high on the list of countries 3rd world Nonwhites want to immigrate to, when they do not have extremely generous welfare benefits for underclass Nonwhite people.
Russia has Minnesota’s con of brutally cold icebox winters but not Minnesota’s pro of generous welfare checks, nice section 8 apartments, and food stamps.
Also that poll was before Merkel said everyone was welcome.
It’ll be 2-3 billion now.
They thought so too in Owatonna and Rochester, Minnesota. Didn’t work out– they stick out too much. They’re better off with a handful of native blacks to hide behind.
Now that Ramadan occurs in summer, I’d like to know how they and other Mohammedans cope in Finland and other high latitudes. Do they only have a couple hours to eat? Or do they cheat, as Razib explains, and go by Mecca time?
How have those cities not worked out for Somalis? Are they complaining about racial discrimination?
Who knew the world had so many natural conservatives? Karl Rove and Fred Barnes must be ecstatic.
Incidentally, Toronto has a large Caribbean black population.
This is getting a little absurd. Economic migration, whether between countries, within regions of a country, from rural to cities etc. all have one thing in common — the migrant’s destination is usually *increasing* in per capita GDP. If your imagined doomsday scenario violates this constraint, it is probably totally unrealistic.
In theory, if the only constraint on migration was whether it’d improve the migrant’s own economic situation, you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region. But that doesn’t seem to happen, even when there are no barriers preventing migration. I’m not sure why but there it is.
This doesn’t rule out migration scenarios with lots of negative consequences for the native population but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.
Self evident, axiomatic rubbish.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker - unless you run an 'extractive state'. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce - and hence per capita wealth of the nation.
Something most of us learnt in grade school, whilst we were first coming to terms with the concepts of 'division' and 'averages'.
Go on, quibble, quibble and quibble - call me stupid and invoke all the pompous sounding economism guff and catchphrases that you want. Sorry, but you cannot change this axiomatic fact any more than you can change the mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
Most people have come to understand that the unemployment figure is bogus because it leaves out those who are no longer collecting unemployment compensation, but have not found jobs--the so-called "discouraged workers." It also leaves out self-employed people like myself who don't qualify for unemployment compensation even if they are no longer getting work.
The inflation figure (CPI) has been cooked for decades.
The Gross Domestic Product figure is artificially boosted by the low official inflation figure, as inflation is deducted from GDP. Each percentage point that inflation is understated equals a full percentage point that GDP is overstated.
Other bizarre accounting practices have been used to boost GDP, such as "imputations." The largest of the imputations is the value that home owners receive by not having to pay themselves rent. Another is the benefit you receive from the free checking provided by your bank, which is imputed to have a value because if it weren’t free, then you’d have to pay for it. These two imputations alone add over a trillion dollars to the GDP.
The Peak Prosperity podcasts (available on YouTube) discuss a bizarre accounting trick called "hedonics," in which a perceived improvement in value of an item, such as a computer, is added to the GDP even if the price remains the same. (On the other hand, perceived reduction in the value of an item is not subtracted from GDP.) Hedonics add more than two trillion dollars to the GDP.
The following is from the Peak Prosperity podcasts:My conclusion is that discussion of GDP is largely meaningless.
A sugary soft drink company has been promoting open borders for White 1st world countries since 1971. They were quite ahead of their time in a bad way.
It’s quite an enjoyable catchy jingle on the surface, but it’s hidden message is dark and sinister.
Even though this came out in 1971, even by 2015 standards it would still qualify as a very vibrantly diverse television ad. If you watch American TV ads from the 1970s on Youtube, the vast majority of them were very White and it was quite rare to see ads as vibrantly diverse as “I Want To Buy The World A Coke”.
This is what a typical 1970s U.S television commercial looked like from a racial standpoint. This 1970s ad would be considered a racist microaggression today because it features such a large group of people and they are all White.
It was a cute, effective commercial jingle. Rewritten to remove the brand references, it actually made the Top 10.
You can certainly argue that all sorts of commercial and government entities have been pushing multiculturalism for a very long time, but that commercial is hardly proof of it.
This isn’t really a big problem. We have the best military in history to defend our borders.
In the words of the French ambassador, Daniel Bernard, "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country."
Counting South Africa– you can assume these people want the English-speaking neighborhoods, not Soweto or Orania, just as those headed for Canada want Vancouver, not Trois-Rivières– that’s 271 million people lusting for Anglophony.
For some reason, that number appears too small. Perhaps reports of race riots, gay marriage, and other First World oddities are depressing it?
“They thought so too in Owatonna and Rochester, Minnesota. Didn’t work out– they stick out too much. They’re better off with a handful of native blacks to hide behind.”
How have those cities not worked out for Somalis? Are they complaining about racial discrimination?
Lutheran (!) Social Services dumped a load of refugees there. Of course, it's the kids who grew up here and haven't experienced the homeland who make the complaints. (They're assimilating! To our culture of complaint!) The parents are just relieved to be here.
In these cases, I refuse to blame either side. The place in hell belongs to the fools who brought them together.
The sweet spot for Somalis is 5-15% American black in a metro area. Less, and they're the freaks; more, and their kids get sucked into ghetto culture. Also, state capitals seem to be preferred.
For some reason, that number appears too small. Perhaps reports of race riots, gay marriage, and other First World oddities are depressing it?
“For some reason, that number appears too small. Perhaps reports of race riots, gay marriage, and other First World oddities are depressing it?”
Why would Africans be afraid of American race riots when it is their fellow racial Blacks doing the rioting and not them evil racist Honkies. Africans would be perfectly fine in a American race riot, as no Black thugs would violently attack them. American race riots are only dangerous for White people and Asians caught in the crossfires.
Wars are never fought over immigration, right? Immigration will lead to a more peaceful world in which we are all one, right?
Football War:
Somalis are prone to Jihadism, general stupidity, thuggery and indolence. IOW they are a bad fit anywhere outside of a Islamic state.
and the media, the government, and business lobbies want every single one of them right now.
The media/govt/business are licking their lips over the possibility of importing 150 million more workers and consumers. Lower wages! More sales! More profits!
Growth!
Don’t blame them. I live in a largeish city in flyoverland. Its a nice place. So nice that lots of other people want to live here too. Good if you are the landlord. If you pay rent, it is getting barely livable.
BTW- I’ll take honest illegal immigrants over “act of love” chars.
Italian American Republican from Colorado Tom Tancredo told Jeanine Pirro that he is offically endorsing Donald Trump for president.
I saw a Al Jazeera report about Syrian Muslim refugees who were sent to live in Sao Paulo. The Syrian Muslim refugees were complaining that life in Sao Paulo is financially hard because Brazil does not offer a generous welfare system/safety nest like North America and Western Europe does.
They also complained that there is not a large Muslim community in Sao Paulo like there is in big European cities like Paris and London, so they are feeling cultural isolation. They also complained that the Portuguese language is hard to learn.
Sao Paulo has a large Arab community, but the vast majority of them are Christian Arabs. So Muslim Arabs will still feel like a fish out of water in Sao Paulo.
This one looks just like the Assad guy in Syria:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_KassabThe current mayor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_HaddadAlso Brazil's most famous Hospital is called the syrian-lebanese hospital located in São Paulo. It's famous across the country it's always where presidents or celebrities go. It´s like Mount Sinai Beth Israel in NY. So if they dropped the muslim fixation, they could do quite well in São Paulo. But these people are just looking for free handouts. It's pathetic no one calls them out for it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_S%C3%ADrio-Liban%C3%AAs
I don't know if it's still true, but that was also the case of the "Arabs" living in the Detroit/Flint area of Michigan. That dates back to the early part of the 20th century when Henry Ford brought in a number of Lebanese to work in his car factories. In fact, Spencer Abraham who served one term as Senator from Michigan and later as Secretary of Energy under G.W. Bush was of the Eastern Orthodox religion.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/12/study-482-extra-murder-victims-amid-obamas-anti-cop-campaign/
Can’t post on breitbart, but tell ’em to get an editor/fact checker.
“That’s 241 times as many African-Americans as were killed in Ferguson, Mo., on March 7, 2014, when Michael Brown was killed while attacking a police officer.”
He was shot August 9.
Jared Taylor debates with a Wigger rapper named The Rugged Man.
The Rugged Man is Italian. But culturally he is way more Black Lives Matter than he is The Fonz or Tony from “Who’s The Boss”. He is the Italian Shaun King.
If Britain were to house another 45 million people, the upper classes would have to sell most of their land. Perhaps the new ultra-leftist leader of the Labour party is planning on nationalising all the remaining country estates and putting housing estates on them. I’m sure the royal family will be happy to hand over a couple of their largely unused estates.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/642788935530344448
Hilarious tweet that I agree with 100%! Trump says he understands why Ron Paul was popular but Rand didn’t inherit that gene.
And this is coning from a huge Ron Paul supporter, but I am going with Trump all of the eay this time.
“But they’re helpless refugees!!!”
Brazil? That’s embarrassing. Brazil is a large New World nation with immense resources, including the largest source of fresh water in the world. Brazil should be a top destination for the people of the world wanting to move. Instead there is a sizable number of Brazilians wanting to emigrate. If this is the best that Latin American can produce, then G-d help us. I bet if Brazil had been settled by the English, it would be on par with the USA.
And they wouldn't have been that stupid, would they?
In fairness, the factual content of this poll is nil, because Gallup has no capacity to sample ojectively in poor countries.
The last two mayors of São Paulo have been of Arab descent. Being mayor of San Paulo is no small feat, it’s the equivalent of being the mayor of New York City down here. Everybody in Brazil knows who they are and they’re very influential. For syrians to claim that they don’t have opportunity in Brazil really are full of it.
This one looks just like the Assad guy in Syria:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Kassab
The current mayor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Haddad
Also Brazil’s most famous Hospital is called the syrian-lebanese hospital located in São Paulo. It’s famous across the country it’s always where presidents or celebrities go. It´s like Mount Sinai Beth Israel in NY. So if they dropped the muslim fixation, they could do quite well in São Paulo. But these people are just looking for free handouts. It’s pathetic no one calls them out for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_S%C3%ADrio-Liban%C3%AAs
Christian Arabs have been in Latin American nations and doing well for themselves for at least 110 yearsDollars to donuts Christian Arab founded. Many of whom are (Maronite) Catholics so are naturally going to immigrate to Catholic Latin American nations such as Brazil.
“I knew a guy from India who considers himself sort of a white nationalist.”
A White Indian is an oxymoron.
One angle on the migrant waves I haven’t seen covered is – what will happen in regards to robots replacing people’s jobs? If immigrants mostly work lower skilled jobs and their kids do too, then what happens when lower skilled workers like taxi drivers are replaced by Google’s self-driving cars?
It's how you know all the people pushing economic arguments for mass immigration are lying.
Steve,
Of course you’re stating the stark staring obvious here. But nevertheless, the vast bulk of ‘academic economists’ would dismiss your contention – that eventually living standards in the host and sending countries will converge to some horrific level near to the sender’s center of gravity – out of hand.
‘Lump of labor!’ ‘Lump of labor!’ ‘Squawk’, ‘Squawk’ ‘Pretty Polly!’ – is their shrill parrot cry, screeched at any attempt to state the bleeding obvious.
As if ‘lump of labor’, to their tiny little minds, actually means anything.
The very first thing Jeremy Corbyn MP did after being overwhelmingly elected as Labour Party leader was to star in some horrible pro ‘refugee’ rally in London, appearing on stage between the bosoms of telegenic, shouty, blacks and browns.
Shown on BBC TV news.
All I can say is that I and millions of others like me were instantly dismayed. And he’s only just got his feet under the table.
You must be new here. Steve points that out all the time.
Not bad choices all in all.
As long as dumb whitey keeps the welfare spigot open, inclement weather, let alone extreme cold weather seems to be very little deterrent in dissuading the mass immigration of tropically adapted humans.
What moral can be inferred from this, I do not know.
In theory, if the only constraint on migration was whether it'd improve the migrant's own economic situation, you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region. But that doesn't seem to happen, even when there are no barriers preventing migration. I'm not sure why but there it is.
This doesn't rule out migration scenarios with lots of negative consequences for the native population but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.
You’re talking rubbish.
Self evident, axiomatic rubbish.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker – unless you run an ‘extractive state’. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce – and hence per capita wealth of the nation.
Something most of us learnt in grade school, whilst we were first coming to terms with the concepts of ‘division’ and ‘averages’.
Go on, quibble, quibble and quibble – call me stupid and invoke all the pompous sounding economism guff and catchphrases that you want. Sorry, but you cannot change this axiomatic fact any more than you can change the mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
Yes, that makes complete sense and is exactly what you would expect. The problem is that all the real world data seems to show that not happening. For example, Hong Kong doubled its population in 20 years (1950-1970) with a couple of million migrants from a desperately poor China. It'd be perfectly logical to expect Hong Kong in 1970 to be poorer *per capita* in 1970, than in 1950 but that simply wasn't the case.
"Call me stupid"
You simply seem confused. You're assuming I'm advancing some fancy theory of how migrants make a country richer. Nope, I'm completely in agreement with you as to what you'd expect to happen using basic common sense. I'm simply pointing out that the data doesn't bear out the common sense predictions. I don't claim to understand *why*.
If the innate maximum possible productivity of a population is higher than the productivity of the receiving economy at a particular point in time - even if the emigrating population is nowhere near realizing its maximum possible productivity level when it emigrates (just as white Americans were nowhere near theirs in 1870) - then per capita income for the receiving economy will not decline. So even though you can quite reasonably argue that the maximum possible productivity of white Americans is greater than the maximum possible productivity of Mexicans, if America is yet to reach its maximum possible productivity then receiving Mexican immigrants will not necessarily lower per capita production in America. (Although it may, and probably does/will, slow down its rate of increase.)
There will be some exceptions to the rule e.g. Chinese under communism had productivity levels below their natural level but in general it will be true.
People making bogus economic arguments ought to need to prove in advance that any particular group of immigrants will do this but the media never ask them so they get away with it.
In the FT, Simon Kuper makes the “pragmatic” case for Europe welcoming Arab migrants:
This Kuper is a sportswriter trying hard to become a pundit, like Charles Pierce or Keith Olbermann.
If it was a pragmatic case, he would not be lying that they were refugees. So it can’t be worth reading.
This Kuper is a sportswriter trying hard to become a pundit, like Charles Pierce or Keith Olbermann.
Kuper, by the way, was born in Uganda.
“Sao Paulo has a large Arab community, but the vast majority of them are Christian Arabs.”
I don’t know if it’s still true, but that was also the case of the “Arabs” living in the Detroit/Flint area of Michigan. That dates back to the early part of the 20th century when Henry Ford brought in a number of Lebanese to work in his car factories. In fact, Spencer Abraham who served one term as Senator from Michigan and later as Secretary of Energy under G.W. Bush was of the Eastern Orthodox religion.
I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said about 50 years ago—or maybe he was repeating someone else’s line—that “Brazil is the country of the future–and always will be.” I would note that Brazil had a population of 52 million in 1950 and today has a population of 204 million.
It’s called magical economics. First, you export all the jobs, and then you import more people to fill all the jobs that left.
In theory, if the only constraint on migration was whether it'd improve the migrant's own economic situation, you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region. But that doesn't seem to happen, even when there are no barriers preventing migration. I'm not sure why but there it is.
This doesn't rule out migration scenarios with lots of negative consequences for the native population but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.
you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region
Real wages for the working class in the U.S. has declined in recent decades; largely from the effects of our experiment with massive immigration.
Per capita GDP would have been even higher sans immigration. You are being fooled here by the skewed nature of income growth.
And such a numbers game doesn’t capture the quality of life degradation one gets with all this “diversity”.
What will become of the First-World nations of the West when they exhaust the supply of Third-World, ghetto-dwelling, unemployed welfare recipients who keep a modern high-tech economy humming?
This one looks just like the Assad guy in Syria:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_KassabThe current mayor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_HaddadAlso Brazil's most famous Hospital is called the syrian-lebanese hospital located in São Paulo. It's famous across the country it's always where presidents or celebrities go. It´s like Mount Sinai Beth Israel in NY. So if they dropped the muslim fixation, they could do quite well in São Paulo. But these people are just looking for free handouts. It's pathetic no one calls them out for it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital_S%C3%ADrio-Liban%C3%AAs
Wake up! Those two are Christian Arabs not Muslim Arabs. One of them confirmed>>> Fernando Haddad (born 25 January 1963) is a Brazilian academic and politician of Lebanese Orthodox Christian origin.
Christian Arabs have been in Latin American nations and doing well for themselves for at least 110 years
Dollars to donuts Christian Arab founded. Many of whom are (Maronite) Catholics so are naturally going to immigrate to Catholic Latin American nations such as Brazil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yla1zxRLfl8
It's quite an enjoyable catchy jingle on the surface, but it's hidden message is dark and sinister.
Even though this came out in 1971, even by 2015 standards it would still qualify as a very vibrantly diverse television ad. If you watch American TV ads from the 1970s on Youtube, the vast majority of them were very White and it was quite rare to see ads as vibrantly diverse as "I Want To Buy The World A Coke".
This is what a typical 1970s U.S television commercial looked like from a racial standpoint. This 1970s ad would be considered a racist microaggression today because it features such a large group of people and they are all White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sjry1piMzw
In the Dr.Pepper commercial, a black guy appears on the left at 0:25 and stays till 0:38, when another one shows in the right door.
“Brazil is the country of the future . . . and always will be.” Wasn’t that de Gaulle?
If by “best military” you mean U.S. and if by “our borders” you mean Israel. For the past two decades the U.S. military and intelligence networks have divided, attacked and destroyed for the security of Israel. Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now the great threat is Iran. Lindsey Graham recently said that Iran was behind 9/11. Why not try it? It seems to have worked against Saddam and Iraq. Two of the instigators of the Iraq war were Jeffrey Golberg and David Brooks. The first served in the IDF, while the latter’s son is serving in the IDF.
In the words of the French ambassador, Daniel Bernard, “All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country.”
Does this include whites in SoCal who want to retire to Colorado?
"That’s 241 times as many African-Americans as were killed in Ferguson, Mo., on March 7, 2014, when Michael Brown was killed while attacking a police officer."
He was shot August 9.
I noted your correction in a comment to the Breitbart article.
No one mentions the environmental angle? At university, we had leftist professors devoting their career to protecting the environment, who stressed:
– We are already over carrying capacity as-is.
– Developed people consumer far more resources than primitive subsistence tribal cultures. We are no where near being able to support the global population at developed world consumption levels.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
The caveat is that people said this decades ago and were totally wrong.
The Dutch made a serious play for it, but the wrong part, Recife in the hot north. The Dutch or the English would be bunched up in the south and the higher interior. The jungle would be even more so today, unless, of course, they imported labor from equatorial climes.
And they wouldn’t have been that stupid, would they?
They’re taught (and so are we) that the reason those countries are so backward is because of European colonialism and its oppressive legacy. So they’re just getting their own back by back-colonizing the First World.
Things don’t have to make sense if they appease the ego.
This Kuper is a sportswriter trying hard to become a pundit, like Charles Pierce or Keith Olbermann.
His wife, however, wrote a most fascinating book, Bringing Up Bébé, about Parisian child rearing. Mind blowing, really, if true. (Do they really send kindergarteners away for a week at camp? On the train, no less?)
Kuper, by the way, was born in Uganda.
In theory, if the only constraint on migration was whether it'd improve the migrant's own economic situation, you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region. But that doesn't seem to happen, even when there are no barriers preventing migration. I'm not sure why but there it is.
This doesn't rule out migration scenarios with lots of negative consequences for the native population but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.
You have to understand that the figures government puts out on unemployment, inflation, the national debt, and GDP serve political purposes and are utterly unreliable.
Most people have come to understand that the unemployment figure is bogus because it leaves out those who are no longer collecting unemployment compensation, but have not found jobs–the so-called “discouraged workers.” It also leaves out self-employed people like myself who don’t qualify for unemployment compensation even if they are no longer getting work.
The inflation figure (CPI) has been cooked for decades.
The Gross Domestic Product figure is artificially boosted by the low official inflation figure, as inflation is deducted from GDP. Each percentage point that inflation is understated equals a full percentage point that GDP is overstated.
Other bizarre accounting practices have been used to boost GDP, such as “imputations.” The largest of the imputations is the value that home owners receive by not having to pay themselves rent. Another is the benefit you receive from the free checking provided by your bank, which is imputed to have a value because if it weren’t free, then you’d have to pay for it. These two imputations alone add over a trillion dollars to the GDP.
The Peak Prosperity podcasts (available on YouTube) discuss a bizarre accounting trick called “hedonics,” in which a perceived improvement in value of an item, such as a computer, is added to the GDP even if the price remains the same. (On the other hand, perceived reduction in the value of an item is not subtracted from GDP.) Hedonics add more than two trillion dollars to the GDP.
The following is from the Peak Prosperity podcasts:
My conclusion is that discussion of GDP is largely meaningless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yla1zxRLfl8
It's quite an enjoyable catchy jingle on the surface, but it's hidden message is dark and sinister.
Even though this came out in 1971, even by 2015 standards it would still qualify as a very vibrantly diverse television ad. If you watch American TV ads from the 1970s on Youtube, the vast majority of them were very White and it was quite rare to see ads as vibrantly diverse as "I Want To Buy The World A Coke".
This is what a typical 1970s U.S television commercial looked like from a racial standpoint. This 1970s ad would be considered a racist microaggression today because it features such a large group of people and they are all White.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sjry1piMzw
Nonsense. The jingle was called “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,” not “I’d Like to Teach the Western World to Sing,” and all the singers are in native regalia, suggesting they still live in their native countries.
It was a cute, effective commercial jingle. Rewritten to remove the brand references, it actually made the Top 10.
You can certainly argue that all sorts of commercial and government entities have been pushing multiculturalism for a very long time, but that commercial is hardly proof of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV315xqbRK8
I forwarded your email to my German-American friend who is married to a guy I have known for more than 25+ years. She just replied “this is scary” and said she was going to forward it to her mother who lives in Germany to get her reaction. She had replied to an earlier email asking for her and her mother’s reaction to the invasion of the “Syrian” refugees, and her response indicated that neither she nor her mother was particularly upset. In fact, her mother felt, because of her own horrible experience near the end of WWII when she was a child, that Germany had a “moral obligation” to take in these “poor refugees.” These incredibly corrupt politicians in both Europe and here are playing on the people’s emotions rather than using their superior intellects to make proper hard-headed decisions for their people.
Not necessarily, because the migrants’ home counties may well deteriorate more quickly, Paul Collier gives as detailed discussion of a closely related point, although note he does not accept HBD, which would add considerable force to his argument*.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/opinion/migration-hurts-the-homeland.html
Self evident, axiomatic rubbish.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker - unless you run an 'extractive state'. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce - and hence per capita wealth of the nation.
Something most of us learnt in grade school, whilst we were first coming to terms with the concepts of 'division' and 'averages'.
Go on, quibble, quibble and quibble - call me stupid and invoke all the pompous sounding economism guff and catchphrases that you want. Sorry, but you cannot change this axiomatic fact any more than you can change the mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker – unless you run an ‘extractive state’. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce – and hence per capita wealth of the nation”
Yes, that makes complete sense and is exactly what you would expect. The problem is that all the real world data seems to show that not happening. For example, Hong Kong doubled its population in 20 years (1950-1970) with a couple of million migrants from a desperately poor China. It’d be perfectly logical to expect Hong Kong in 1970 to be poorer *per capita* in 1970, than in 1950 but that simply wasn’t the case.
“Call me stupid”
You simply seem confused. You’re assuming I’m advancing some fancy theory of how migrants make a country richer. Nope, I’m completely in agreement with you as to what you’d expect to happen using basic common sense. I’m simply pointing out that the data doesn’t bear out the common sense predictions. I don’t claim to understand *why*.
Canada is practically being swamped right now mostly through high amounts of legal immigration. There’s an election and currently the three main parties are arguing who can take in the most Syrian refugees. The Conservative party has brought in more immigrants than even the Liberal party did during their tenure in the late 90’s and early 2000’s.
That belief doesn’t make him any sort of white nationalist, nor is the belief strictly true.
It doesn’t become just like the place they left. Nowhere in America is as bad as the Mexican average; nowhere in Britain is as bad as the Pakistani average; nowhere in Germany is as bad as the Turkish average; nowhere in France is as bad as the Algerian average; nowhere in New Jersey is as bad as Sicily.
Not understanding HBD has little do with it. I regard myself as having a fairly good grasp of basic HBD implications, but if Japan were ever foolish enough to allow my kind (southeastern europe) to immigrate there, I would never stop wanting more of my people there. I would completely disregard the possibility that it may “take down” Japan. I’d be in it for my kind and the Japanese can go to hell would be my attitude. Not pretty, I know, and I don’t mean to insult any Japanese who may be reading this. To them I’d simply say: for your own good, don’t allow people like me into your country!
I did bring up the fact that Japan created a decent place to live.
I've been to Sicily, Sicily ain't so bad. I'd prefer to live there than in New Jersey.
Most people have come to understand that the unemployment figure is bogus because it leaves out those who are no longer collecting unemployment compensation, but have not found jobs--the so-called "discouraged workers." It also leaves out self-employed people like myself who don't qualify for unemployment compensation even if they are no longer getting work.
The inflation figure (CPI) has been cooked for decades.
The Gross Domestic Product figure is artificially boosted by the low official inflation figure, as inflation is deducted from GDP. Each percentage point that inflation is understated equals a full percentage point that GDP is overstated.
Other bizarre accounting practices have been used to boost GDP, such as "imputations." The largest of the imputations is the value that home owners receive by not having to pay themselves rent. Another is the benefit you receive from the free checking provided by your bank, which is imputed to have a value because if it weren’t free, then you’d have to pay for it. These two imputations alone add over a trillion dollars to the GDP.
The Peak Prosperity podcasts (available on YouTube) discuss a bizarre accounting trick called "hedonics," in which a perceived improvement in value of an item, such as a computer, is added to the GDP even if the price remains the same. (On the other hand, perceived reduction in the value of an item is not subtracted from GDP.) Hedonics add more than two trillion dollars to the GDP.
The following is from the Peak Prosperity podcasts:My conclusion is that discussion of GDP is largely meaningless.
Harry, please stop spouting nonsense. I don’t care if you embarrass yourself, but I hate it that you’re embarrassing the rest of the blog.
Self evident, axiomatic rubbish.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker - unless you run an 'extractive state'. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce - and hence per capita wealth of the nation.
Something most of us learnt in grade school, whilst we were first coming to terms with the concepts of 'division' and 'averages'.
Go on, quibble, quibble and quibble - call me stupid and invoke all the pompous sounding economism guff and catchphrases that you want. Sorry, but you cannot change this axiomatic fact any more than you can change the mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
True, but we don’t actually know what the maximum possible productivity any population group is. Consider white Americans. The productivity of white Americans in 1870 was nowhere near what it was in 1970, so we can say that the maximum possible productivity of white Americans in 1870 was vastly greater than the productivity actually manifested by white Americans in 1870. We could say something similar about white Americans in 1970, and probably of white Americans today. Quite simply, we don’t know what the innate maximum possible productivity of white Americans is.
If the innate maximum possible productivity of a population is higher than the productivity of the receiving economy at a particular point in time – even if the emigrating population is nowhere near realizing its maximum possible productivity level when it emigrates (just as white Americans were nowhere near theirs in 1870) – then per capita income for the receiving economy will not decline. So even though you can quite reasonably argue that the maximum possible productivity of white Americans is greater than the maximum possible productivity of Mexicans, if America is yet to reach its maximum possible productivity then receiving Mexican immigrants will not necessarily lower per capita production in America. (Although it may, and probably does/will, slow down its rate of increase.)
Swedes decided to open their borders because they became bored with each other’s company. I’ve spent a lot of time with Syrian immigrants to Sweden. Maybe the crowd I’ve met are a select group. Mostly a warm bunch. Well-mannered and well-behaved. I’ve witnessed a few who have not adhered to the Swedish script and it’s been very unpleasant to witness the usually even-tempered Swedes become apoplectic. Hard lessons.
The Europeans enjoy attempting to colonize the immigrants souls the way they would have once enjoyed colonizing their countries. The lazy imperialists.
“…but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.”
What planet are you calling in from?
“Has L.A.’s economy come back?”, Jim Newton, Los Angeles Times. 1-Sep-2014:
Economists need to learn to think about real people. People who are individuals. Not just some sort of “average” that doesn’t exist. It’s hard to see how economists who make things worse for real people, while talking about how they are making things better, are not doing evil.
I agree entirely with this post’s message but I’m afraid it understates the magnitude of the problem. I’d bet way more than 13% of the world’s adults, given the opportunity, would move to rich countries, as your example of Puerto Rico, nirvana compared with most of Africa and the Middle East and much of Asia, shows. Entire villages in Italy or China eventually empty out after their first emigrants to the U.S. provide those left behind with the information, boat or plane fare, and helping hand in the new land required to make the move less daunting. Why would Gallup’s results be biased down? Perhaps because people in many of these countries aren’t used to revealing their true opinions to even their own families, much less to a stranger (of different ethnicity? I don’t know Gallup’s hiring practices).
I also think you underestimate how crummy life in the third world is–the population of the U.S. could easily double or triple before life here became as bad as in Bangladesh (depending on where the additional immigrants come from–certainly not all from Bangladesh, simultaneously improving life there!), never mind the Congo. That’s why open borders advocates like Ezra Klein are so dangerous–they’re right that we could admit much bigger numbers of very poor people and still have better lives than third worlders do now. I still personally don’t favor more immigration (or even the levels we have now, truth be told) both because I’m selfish (mainly for my kids, any changes won’t affect my remaining years much) and because the other big problem of this century, global warming, will be much harder to fight with more people in high-carbon countries and no incentive for low-carbon countries, which will bear the brunt of a warmer earth, to reduce their population growth.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
Done it.
This is not logically possible. According to trustworthy sources, the life of an immigrant in the US is one of unrelenting oppression. Nobody could possibly want to come here.
In theory, if the only constraint on migration was whether it'd improve the migrant's own economic situation, you should see plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region. But that doesn't seem to happen, even when there are no barriers preventing migration. I'm not sure why but there it is.
This doesn't rule out migration scenarios with lots of negative consequences for the native population but it does rule out third world hordes turning a rich nation poor or even poorer.
Your confused prose is consistent with your addled brain. Which is it — “all” or “usually”?
Wrong. You wouldn’t expect to see “plenty of examples of poor people moving to affluent regions and improving their own economic situation but bringing down the per capita income of the region”.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn’t good enough. Thus, if immigration were followed by a decrease in per capita income, that wouldn’t prove it caused it. By the same token, rising GDP desn’t mean that immigrants aren’t keeping the increase to a rate lower than it otherwise would be.
We know that the immigrants to White nations both (1) are less productive per capita and (2) decrease cooperation and synthesis that make the whole greater than the sum of its disassociated parts. We know that they lower per-person productivity, and the fallacy you are so happy to espouse is that rising GDP is somehow a relevant datum.
Obviously, it’s not. GDP could rise despite negative influence from immigration.
“nowhere in New Jersey is as bad as Sicily.”
How exactly is Negro Newark and Negro Camden better than Sicily?
20 years ago I watched old men play bocce in Branch Brook park (which has more cherry blossoms than DC, in a fraction of the space). Those men are likely dead now, but some of their sons might be carrying on the tradition. If there are any Italians left.
Newark, away from the projects, is eminently gentrifiable. Someone just has to go first.
Reg, I spent 2 days travelling around the area looking for an Italian market or deli. I finally found a Corrado's Italian Market, and was well-rewarded with excellent calzones.
Well, it’s an act of rape anyway.
Yeah okay, you got me. I should have made it clearer that I was referring to the parts settled by immigrants from the country mentioned. My point obviously stands, of course. Immigration is bad enough that there’s no need to exaggerate its horrors to gain converts.
I agree. It shouldn’t be about people being allowed to come to the US because we have a shortage of a skill or workers to supposedly do jobs Americans won’t. It should just be about this is our people and we don’t want to be replaced.
There are some areas in our inner cities and smaller towns that are pretty dangerous though.
He was just saying that he liked them because they stuck up for white people, while a lot white people will bash and hate their own people. Some whites think white people are the worst people in the world and he didn’t agree with that. I didn’t label him a white nationalist. He did.
I did bring up the fact that Japan created a decent place to live.
Mike Shedlock is good on the ten million or so driver- and truckers are first- jobs to go.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/
Merkel is loading up on the type of labor that will first be redundant.
Not an Eastern European Communist looking to destroy the West, is she?
The person I know with the best knowledge of the Third World (his residual charity work now is returning the Orissa railway children and educating girls in Orissa but, when a prof and good at getting money from Germans, Ford Foundation and you name it he taught people small business development for Africa as well as the subcontinent. His Harvard MBA had helped him close down his 180 year old family business’s uncompetitive production**) tells me that the Somalis are far from stupid… But maybe he was just making the sort of point one might make against overgeneralisers by pointing to the Igbo or Nigerian scammers…
**in Nottinghampshire
Estimates for the job losses from the incoming robotics wave go up to 1/3.
It’s how you know all the people pushing economic arguments for mass immigration are lying.
Self evident, axiomatic rubbish.
National wealth is purely a function of national productivity per worker - unless you run an 'extractive state'. Importing mass populations with productivity levels below that of the indigenous workforce lowers the mean productivity of the workforce - and hence per capita wealth of the nation.
Something most of us learnt in grade school, whilst we were first coming to terms with the concepts of 'division' and 'averages'.
Go on, quibble, quibble and quibble - call me stupid and invoke all the pompous sounding economism guff and catchphrases that you want. Sorry, but you cannot change this axiomatic fact any more than you can change the mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2.
Yes.
There will be some exceptions to the rule e.g. Chinese under communism had productivity levels below their natural level but in general it will be true.
People making bogus economic arguments ought to need to prove in advance that any particular group of immigrants will do this but the media never ask them so they get away with it.
Glad to see all the discussion has been above the level of complacent jibes like “how many immigrants do you see [from the US or] trying to get in to country X?”. The non simple minded notice such simple facts as the Serbian musician studying for a professional qualification in Australia who professes to have no time at all to take the slightest interest in politics.
Of course the US is one of the rich countries (just one) where a pretty large number of on the whole desirable immigrants will understandably value freedom and relative security but the reality is that “democracy” is not a very explanatory term for understanding the US if anyone wants to start with the Greek idea of the people ruling.
It makes a bit more sense applied to much smaller simpler countries like Canada and Australia…A sensible realistic person could probably keep on believing until close to retirement.
Here is what rationality would prescribe for First World population policy.
1. Immigrants should give a prospect of becoming net taxpayers as well as non criminal and even so get no guarantee of the right to vote snd change the culture faster than modern life is thrusting on it anyway…
2. Refugees should, prima facie, expect help for the return to their countries of origin with marketable skills and citizenship elsewhere only in limited numbers (and only after they have paid taxes);
3. The big money ought to be paid in Africa (and maybe Yemen and Pakistan) to families so that the patriarch guarantees his daughters stay in education or training – and childless- till 25+… That way our great grandchildren may still be able to enjoy their own African experiences and not just David Attenborough’s.
“Refugees should, prima facie, expect help for the return to their countries of origin with marketable skills and citizenship elsewhere only in limited numbers…”
That’s been a missing piece in this whole story. Refugees should expect to return home once the crisis has passed. A comprehensive policy should keep this in mind as the endgame. Assuming it’s never going to be possible right at the start seems self-defeating.
Tell me you are not over-generalizing from a sample size of one.
I don't think Australia's experience with African migrants and refugees is a a particularly happy one though I am not at all sure that it has anything to do with the cognitive abilities of the Somalis or any others. (I found myself sitting next to a physician at the opera whose features made me guess he was East African. But it turns out his father was from West African and mother Australian, which, given that he was in his 30s meant that she must have been white Australian). I think there has been some tendency to favour large fatherless Christian Sudanese families but it's ridiculous when Australia boasts about its (admittedly relatively large) refugee quota - before the addition of a few thousand for Syria - of 13750 a year and ignores the way one could best spend money to make it a win-win for refugees and Australia.
We fend off the Tamils who are indeed mostly economic migrants but actually fit in pretty well.
Of course the US is one of the rich countries (just one) where a pretty large number of on the whole desirable immigrants will understandably value freedom and relative security but the reality is that "democracy" is not a very explanatory term for understanding the US if anyone wants to start with the Greek idea of the people ruling.
It makes a bit more sense applied to much smaller simpler countries like Canada and Australia...A sensible realistic person could probably keep on believing until close to retirement.
Here is what rationality would prescribe for First World population policy.
1. Immigrants should give a prospect of becoming net taxpayers as well as non criminal and even so get no guarantee of the right to vote snd change the culture faster than modern life is thrusting on it anyway...
2. Refugees should, prima facie, expect help for the return to their countries of origin with marketable skills and citizenship elsewhere only in limited numbers (and only after they have paid taxes);
3. The big money ought to be paid in Africa (and maybe Yemen and Pakistan) to families so that the patriarch guarantees his daughters stay in education or training - and childless- till 25+... That way our great grandchildren may still be able to enjoy their own African experiences and not just David Attenborough's.
It would be more advantageous to seek to completely eliminate all immigration than to fiddle around the margins with rates or futilely attempt to set rules for what immigrants and “refugees” are required to do.
I don’t know that I would disagree with you if I were American. However, I got a chance to try and spread my common sense idea of recruiting African patriarchs to help keep African fertility down! It would be nice to give all the girls scholarships too…..
“nowhere in New Jersey is as bad as Sicily”
I’ve been to Sicily, Sicily ain’t so bad. I’d prefer to live there than in New Jersey.
No, I was not generalising personally but offering what is probably a generalisation (which I took at face value with only some reservations as indicated) by someone whose opinion I would trust on these matters more than anyone else’s that I know personally. And he really does have the perfect background of over 50 years experience to form such opinions. Mind you I am not sure that I have ever found a great deal of H-bd interest in him. He would just treat it as irrelevant to the work he has done and the enterprises and charities he has promoted I think.
I don’t think Australia’s experience with African migrants and refugees is a a particularly happy one though I am not at all sure that it has anything to do with the cognitive abilities of the Somalis or any others. (I found myself sitting next to a physician at the opera whose features made me guess he was East African. But it turns out his father was from West African and mother Australian, which, given that he was in his 30s meant that she must have been white Australian). I think there has been some tendency to favour large fatherless Christian Sudanese families but it’s ridiculous when Australia boasts about its (admittedly relatively large) refugee quota – before the addition of a few thousand for Syria – of 13750 a year and ignores the way one could best spend money to make it a win-win for refugees and Australia.
We fend off the Tamils who are indeed mostly economic migrants but actually fit in pretty well.
Yes, that makes complete sense and is exactly what you would expect. The problem is that all the real world data seems to show that not happening. For example, Hong Kong doubled its population in 20 years (1950-1970) with a couple of million migrants from a desperately poor China. It'd be perfectly logical to expect Hong Kong in 1970 to be poorer *per capita* in 1970, than in 1950 but that simply wasn't the case.
"Call me stupid"
You simply seem confused. You're assuming I'm advancing some fancy theory of how migrants make a country richer. Nope, I'm completely in agreement with you as to what you'd expect to happen using basic common sense. I'm simply pointing out that the data doesn't bear out the common sense predictions. I don't claim to understand *why*.
You cannot change the axioms of mathematics – no matter how much you ‘disagree’ or ‘dislike’ them.
Christian Arabs have been in Latin American nations and doing well for themselves for at least 110 yearsDollars to donuts Christian Arab founded. Many of whom are (Maronite) Catholics so are naturally going to immigrate to Catholic Latin American nations such as Brazil.
Actully a lot of the turn of the century Lebanese immigrants to Brazil were muslim, or as they are known here Muselman (muçulmano). They converted to Christianity because islam was illegal in Brazil at the time. They still did pretty well.
Italian Newark is okay. Probably richer, but less cozy, than Sicily, which I’ve never visited. Though I did read Vincent Schiavelli’s cookbook/travelogue.
20 years ago I watched old men play bocce in Branch Brook park (which has more cherry blossoms than DC, in a fraction of the space). Those men are likely dead now, but some of their sons might be carrying on the tradition. If there are any Italians left.
Newark, away from the projects, is eminently gentrifiable. Someone just has to go first.
A White Indian is an oxymoron.
Maybe, but he was my favorite character in Camp of the Saints. Indeed, the only one I can remember.
How have those cities not worked out for Somalis? Are they complaining about racial discrimination?
There was a recent fuss at the high school in St Cloud, another lily-white city and the regional capital of a German-Catholic bunch of counties.
Lutheran (!) Social Services dumped a load of refugees there. Of course, it’s the kids who grew up here and haven’t experienced the homeland who make the complaints. (They’re assimilating! To our culture of complaint!) The parents are just relieved to be here.
In these cases, I refuse to blame either side. The place in hell belongs to the fools who brought them together.
The sweet spot for Somalis is 5-15% American black in a metro area. Less, and they’re the freaks; more, and their kids get sucked into ghetto culture. Also, state capitals seem to be preferred.
How common is it to see on local Minnesota news incidents involving homicide perpetrators with Somali sounding names?
I was in Fairfield, NJ on business for 4 days last week and there wasn’t a single white store clerk in sight.
Reg, I spent 2 days travelling around the area looking for an Italian market or deli. I finally found a Corrado’s Italian Market, and was well-rewarded with excellent calzones.
Lutheran (!) Social Services dumped a load of refugees there. Of course, it's the kids who grew up here and haven't experienced the homeland who make the complaints. (They're assimilating! To our culture of complaint!) The parents are just relieved to be here.
In these cases, I refuse to blame either side. The place in hell belongs to the fools who brought them together.
The sweet spot for Somalis is 5-15% American black in a metro area. Less, and they're the freaks; more, and their kids get sucked into ghetto culture. Also, state capitals seem to be preferred.
“The sweet spot for Somalis is 5-15% American black in a metro area. Less, and they’re the freaks; more, and their kids get sucked into ghetto culture. Also, state capitals seem to be preferred.”
How common is it to see on local Minnesota news incidents involving homicide perpetrators with Somali sounding names?
lol so he’s trying to convert kids in odisa to cuckxitianity?
Why would ypu think he was trying to convert anyone to anything? I don’t suppose he’s any more Christian than most of my friends whose next decision wrt the church – probably Anglican – will be whether to encourage his children to hold a funeral for him with the KJV trappings. My recollection is that, after using his Harvard MBA skills to close down the family’s 200 year old business he spent decades teaching people how to foster small business in Third World countries and, in the course of doing that, found some of the bigger gaps that needed filling in the poorest parts of India and Africa so chose some where his efforts could achieve maximum leverage for the kind of humanitarian or charitable activity which the prosperous and successful eventually want to take part in – as a matter of ordinary human psychology (cf. Maslow’s hoerarchy).
It’s Orissa btw.