[Andropov]

Because the US was not built by Hispanics. It was built by white settlers and black slaves. Mexican/Latin American immigration into the US is the doing of a weak liberal state that hides the aforementioned fact under the rug because it's "racist."

And those settlers and slaves are now dead. Immigrants came over from Europe in the late 19th century and built up the country even more. Hispanics are for the most part hard workers; are they too not as much builders of the country as the European immigrants before them?

[Andropov]

I would rather kill an intelligent immigrant rather than a dumb fellow countryman for the simple fact that the smart immigrant could threaten my nation.

When does an immigrant become a countryman?

[Preston Cole]

And those settlers and slaves are now dead. Immigrants came over from Europe in the late 19th century and built up the country even more. Hispanics are for the most part hard workers; are they too not as much builders of the country as the European immigrants before them?

Completely different issues. European immigrants came to a completely new world dominated by a people who they perceived to be a competitor (natives). The US as a political entity is entirely the doing of European (mostly British) Americans, the Founding Fathers, Hamilton in particular, and the sweat and muscle of black slaves. I'm not aware of the Hispanics contributing to the formation of the US politically. Their only contributions were the early colonies of the 1500s around Florida and New Mexico. To put it shortly, Hispanics are now coming to a nation they didn't help build. Why should they be considered builders of the US?

When does an immigrant become a countryman?

My personal conception is that an immigrant becomes a countryman after having spent several years since childhood in a country and becomes tied to it emotionally. I only spent two years in South Africa when I was a kid and I still feel emotionally attached to it and the people there. Emotion is key. All else--artificial "citizenship" and such--is less important.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Smart immigrants are attracted by opportunities, hence are willing to be good, productive citizens. There are exceptions but it's far better for the country to get rid of proven liabilities than probable assets.

I would rather have one drunken degenerate (sterilised, naturally) of my Volk than one thousand Indian IT workers or whatever; the ethnic-spiritual composition of a nation is more important than the productivity of immigrants; thinking in terms of solely economics is the road to ruin. No great figure of world historical importance thought this way. It is the thought of a middle-level stockbroker.

This is the problem with people that care about IQs, especially supposed conservatives or far-rightists. So, we should have a Jewish and East Asian elite overuling our nations because they have higher IQs? This economic cosmopolitanism is a nihilist ideology.

[Ombrageux]

I really think those who are having a narrow ethnic view are poor thinkers. The greatness of the United States of America is almost entirely founded on its ability to take in tens if not hundreds of millions of people from all parts of the world. Russia and Yugoslavia are less than they were before because their regimes were unable to maintain this cohesion. Poland is lessened because Hitler and Stalin respectively exterminated its substantial Jewish population and removed its multiethnic territories (now Belarus, Ukraine).

The ability to manage diversity, to have a broader national identity, is a national strength.

[starman2003]

Just because someone is economically productive does not mean he is politically (or emotionally) loyal.

Sure. But IMO lack of loyalty to the current American system is no less of an asset than some skill. For my purposes, it wouldn't be bad to have more people who weren't brainwashed with pro-democracy hogwash all their lives.

..the ethnic-spiritual composition of a nation is more important...thinking in terms of solely economics...No great historical figure thought this way.

I sure don't think solely in terms of economics; IQ isn't everything either. Political and ideological goals are most important. But ethnic purity is going the way of Carcharodontosaurus, and some of the greatest historical figures such as Alexander and Caesar, thought of uniting all peoples into one system. Bravo Ombrageux.

[Dave]

I really think those who are having a narrow ethnic view are poor thinkers. The greatness of the United States of America is almost entirely founded on its ability to take in tens if not hundreds of millions of people from all parts of the world.

Questionable. If we're discussing today this is obviously not true, and if we're discussing the period of European mass immigration it hinges on whether or not that immigration increased our population in the long run. Old stock Americans were ethnically cleansed from many major industrial cities, and many scholars at the time believed that the birth rate of old stock Americans was reduced by the mass immigration of the time. If that is true then there was no major change in the long run population size of the United States, and the main effect was simply to introduce ethnic conflict which took decades to subside.

[Ombrageux]

How could you imply any kind of causality between immigration and lower native birth rates? What possible explanation is there for America's exponential demographic growth (from 3 million at the founding to over 300 million today) other than immigration? For reference, the population of the UK was about 10 million in 1800 and it is over 60 million today, or a sixfold increase. Are you suggesting North Americans are some 50 times more reproductive than Britons?

[Dave]

How could you imply any kind of causality between immigration and lower native birth rates? What possible explanation is there for America's exponential demographic growth (from 3 million at the founding to over 300 million today) other than immigration? For reference, the population of the UK was about 10 million in 1800 and it is over 60 million today, or a sixfold increase. Are you suggesting North Americans are some 50 times more reproductive than Britons?

In pre-feminist populations TFR is primarily a function of resource scarcity. Families tend to produce and support the number of offspring that their available resources can support. As America was largely virgin territory, enormous amounts of land were available for settlement and exploitation. This resulted in tremendously less resource scarcity, and thus TFR was far higher.

There was relatively little immigration until the 1840s (as a result of the Potato Famine and 1848), and mass immigration did not truly take off until the 1880s.

In 1776 the Thirteen Colonies had 2.5 million people, in 1790 the United States had 4 million people. By 1840 there were 17 million people.

Mass immigration goes to cities, and had the effect of displacing Americans and driving down the remuneration for labor. Driving down the remuneration for labor increases the resource scarcity of labor, so one would expect a decrease in American TFR from that. During the 1950s, the last pre-feminist era of industrial civilization, wages increased extremely rapidly and many programs were introduced to better the living standards of the middle class. Recall also that there was little immigration in this period. In 1958 TFR reached nearly 4, which as far as I know is the highest TFR ever for a fully developed industrial country.

Thus this question hinges upon to what extent the Great Surge migrants affected native American TFR.

One thing I know for sure contributes to America success and power, however, is the willingness to take in and assimilate people of exceptional talent.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I sure don't think solely in terms of economics; IQ isn't everything either. Political and ideological goals are most important. But ethnic purity is going the way of Carcharodontosaurus, and some of the greatest historical figures such as Alexander and Caesar, thought of uniting all peoples into one system. Bravo Ombrageux.

No empires with the small exceptions of the British Empire and the United States, base their imperial projects solely or primarily on economics alone. Empires and nations are political organisms, despite what Manchester Liberals and Marxists claim to the contrary.

[starman2003]

...United States, base their imperial projects solely or primarily on economics alone.

The US has been notorious for relegating economic interests to secondary importance. What other nation would so stupidly alienate key oil suppliers to back "democratic Israel"? Anyway, current US behavior and orientation is far from what I advocate and predict in the future.

[Figlio di Moros]

Key oil suppliers, like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuala? Or Saudi Arabia, even? Or do you labor under the delusion more than 8% of our oil passes through the straights of hormuz?

[starman2003]

The industrialized world is highly dependent on arab oil even if the US isn't, and the US wouldn't be immune to a world economic crisis stemming from a shutoff. Btw the '73 embargo caused significant economic damage here even though US dependence on arab crude was less at the time.

[Fasci XP]

Precisely why a nation such as the United States ought to invest in alternative energy and tap into its own oil reserves.

[Figlio di Moros]

Starman, the reduction in foreign production would require Americans to purchase more domestic products, boosting our domestic industries.

[starman2003]

Precisely why a nation such as the United States ought to invest in alternative energy..

Right! But under democracy, you can't force people to give up gasoline powered vehicles for lower performance, higher priced electric types. Just like in other areas the solution is sacrifice, which democracy usually can't compel.

..and tap into its own oil reserves.

Unfortunately, "the resource base is shot" as one oilman put it years ago. And while offshore reserves are still there, the recent gulf catastrophe has made people leery of deepwater drilling.

..the reduction in foreign production would require Americans to purchase more domestic products...

Unfortunately, as '73 showed, an oil embargo causes an economic contraction, in part because fuel becomes much costlier, so don't bet on it. And it would involve more than a loss of foreign production; with less money, they'd stop lending; basically the depression would be global, as in the '30s.

[Figlio di Moros]

Right! But under democracy, you can't force people to give up gasoline powered vehicles for lower performance, higher priced electric types. Just like in other areas the solution is sacrifice, which democracy usually can't compel.

1) Pointless move if your source of energy isn't non-petroleum based, since you only make the system more innefecient.
2) Yes, they can.

Unfortunately, as '73 showed, an oil embargo causes an economic contraction, in part because fuel becomes much costlier, so don't bet on it. And it would involve more than a loss of foreign production; with less money, they'd stop lending; basically the depression would be global, as in the '30s.

Do you have more examples? We still have an extensive rail system which is cheaper and more feul-effecient than trucking, especially under the conditions you imply. Since the bulk of gas is used for trucking, and our major suppliers are obligated to sell their excess source to us, we could more easily end up with a stronger economic position than ending up within a "Great depression".

And, needless to say, the places we've invaded were major European suppliers, not American ones. Attacking Iraq and Libya didn't cost us a dime of oil.

[starman2003]

Attacking Iraq and Libya didn't cost us a dime of oil.

I meant a cutoff of all arab--and Iranian too--oil due to US support of Israel in some future conflict.

....we could easily end up with a stronger economic position...

Didn't happen in '73 when dependence on arab sources was actually less.

[Figlio di Moros]

[b]....we could easily end up with a stronger economic position...

Didn't happen in '73 when dependence on arab sources was actually less.[/quote]

We also had a much stronger industrial sector. Considering the economic and technological realities were so different, you shouldn't rely so heavily on the analogy.

I meant a cutoff of all arab--and Iranian too--oil due to US support of Israel in some future conflict.

[Fasci XP]

The United States should not be supporting Israel in any case. Israel should not exist.