Immigration

Oog Wants Ugg to Keep Out of His Cave

|

For those who haven't encountered economist Paul Rubin's book Darwinian Politics: The Evolutionary Origin of Freedom, I highly recommend (1) buying it now, and (2) tiding yourself over with this nifty mashup of econ and evopsych from The Washington Post:

Our primitive ancestors lived in a world that was essentially static; there was little societal or technological change from one generation to the next. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum—if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it came at the expense of another.

This is the world our minds evolved to understand. To this day, we often see the gain of some people and assume it has come at the expense of others. Economists have argued for more than two centuries that voluntary trade, whether domestic or international, is positive sum: it benefits both parties, or else the exchange wouldn't occur. Economists have also long argued that the economics of immigration—immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people's labor—is positive sum. Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose.

Rubin touches on the fact that anti-immigrant sentiment is something that many people feel at a gut level. It's something more than prejudice–we've been wired that way. However, one of the important offshoots of evolutionary psychology is the insight that human beings wound up at the top of the food chain not because we have the best instincts hardwired in, but because our brains are the most flexible. As circumstances change, we adapt. We figure out new behaviors that serve us better than the ones our parents relied on. So don't despair over the immigration debate just because we're hardwired to be suspicious of The Other. To place two cliches head-to-head: Old humans can learn new tricks, even if old habits die hard.

Via Alex Tabarrok

Advertisement

NEXT: Attn, DC Reasonoids: Discuss the Free State Project with Its Maximum Leader, Friday, May 11, at 10.30AM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is actually pretty fascinating. Has there been any clinical research on this? It would certainly help explain the enduring appeal of folk-Marxism long after the real thing has been thoroughly discredited.

  2. “So don’t despair over the immigration debate just because we’re hardwired to be suspicious of The Other. To place two cliches head-to-head: Old humans can learn new tricks, even if old habits die hard.”

    The anti-immigration lobby. …so easy a cave man could do it!

  3. Immigrants are generally quite welcomed, provided they are young and look hot as hell. This is another universality to humanity.

  4. I’m in favor of broad *legal* immigration, with some reservations (like, why not have immigrants get sponsors to vouch and post bond for their good behavior?). I’m not a big fan of awarding lots of rights to illegal immigrants, or calling skeptics racists or cavemen.

    Are we hard-wired to be skeptical of a border-security and immigration enforcement system so lax that terrorists can slip through? Did evolution predispose us to be skeptical of combining chaotic immigration with (distinctly non-chaotic) welfare-state programs for lots and lots of immigrants? If so, then God bless evolution!

  5. Before you can have that kind of us-vs-them mentality, though, you first need to divide the world into Uses and Thems.

    I see no real explanations for why I should prefer that a random American citizen get a particular job over a random Mexican citizen, other than base racism or xenophobia.

  6. I’m not a big fan of awarding lots of rights to illegal immigrants…

    Oooga-booga! Natural rights. Oooga-booga! Unalienable. Oooga-Booga!

  7. highnumber wins.

  8. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum — if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it came at the expense of another.

    Prove it.

  9. Your world frightens and confuses me.

  10. Mad Max,

    We are hard-wired so that the concept of immigrants and immigration provokes, as the first set of thoughts that pop into our heads, images of foreigners coming to kill us in our beds (“terrorists”), the anarchic rout of our defense by an invading horde (“chaotic immigration”), and outsiders coming to sponge off the fruit of our labor (“distinctly non-chaotic welfare-state programs for lots and lots of immigrants”).

    Some of us embrace such impulses more than others, I guess.

    God bless civilization!

  11. joe,

    Is the distinction between “legal” and “illegal” too subtle and nuanced for you to grasp?

    Is the distinction between a law-abiding shopkeeper, laborer or doctor (on the one hand), or a group of jihadists plotting to attack Fort Dix (on the other) too complicated for you to deal with? Or do you think that the security procedures which let in these apparent plotters was just about the right amount of security?

  12. Do you think that there is no relevant difference between a hard-working immigrant who earns his/her way in life and becomes a proud American, and a sponger?

    If you deny that there are any spongers, then I assume you wouldn’t object to closing government welfare programs to this non-existent class of persons?

  13. What I think, Mad Max, is that neither the phoney distinction the government enforces over paperwork, nor the fact that YOU brought up illegal immigration when it didn’t have anything to do with the article, are remotely difficult for me to grasp.

    As you’re sitting around the fire tonight, maybe you should ask yourself why you decided that terrorists, people getting around the “border-security and immigration enforcement system,” and welfare slackers were the most relevant topics for you to write about in response to this piece.

    The legal/illegal distinction is relevant to your point about immigrants coming here to get welfare, how, exactly?

  14. And you continue to change the subject.

    Why do you think that is?

  15. Mad Max,

    The distinction between “legal” and “illegal” is subtle, nuanced, and largely irrelevant here. Much of what is “illegal” should not be. Many illegal immigrants are violating no one’s rights.

  16. joe,

    The point I was trying to make was the very point you’re demonstrating – that the concerns many Americans have about U.S. immigration policy can’t simply be brushed off as the instinctual reactions of cavemen. You see, there actually are valid concerns to be raised. You appear to be aware of this on some level, since you wish to drown out such concerns with name-calling.

    Then there’s the familiar joe trait of projection. First, saying that other people are prejudiced bigots who make sweeping generalizations about entire groups and don’t let the facts get in the way. Second, saying that people are changing the subject.

    When you see me criticize immigrants who break the law and commit terrorism, you assume that I’m talking about *all* immigrants. You’re the one drawing the connection, not me. Who, then, is the insular caveman?

    My father and most of his colleagues were immigrants. I’m afraid they wouldn’t be your kind of people, though, joe. They were not proper objects of liberal sympathy. Although they weren’t big fans of American culture and government, they somehow managed to avoid rioting and burning the American flag. Nor did they go around committing crimes and plotting terrorism. I guess they never found the time, what with earning a living and raising their families and all. People like you wouldn’t be able to turn them into a victim group to serve as props in a liberal morality play. So they would basically be invisible to you and yours.

    This reminds me of the liberals when they saw the rapist killer Willie Horton and immediately said, “look at that black guy!” And they thought this proved that their *opponents* were racists.

  17. Urkobold SEES NO EVIDENCE OF joe CALLING NAMES.

    PUNISHMENT FOR Mad Max:
    SLEEP UNDER THE STARS TONIGHT.
    IN THE DESERT.
    WITHOUT A SLEEPING BAG.
    WHILE PEOPLE WITH GUNS HUNT FOR YOU.

    Urkobold HATH THUS BEEN DISGUSTED.

    WHAT, ARE YOU A PHYSICIST OR SOMETHING?

  18. INCIDENTALLY, Urkobold CONSIDERS THE REST OF YOUR LAST COMMENT EQUALLY DISAPPOINTING. PLEASE SLEEP ON IT BEFORE YOU TRY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN.

  19. Is the distinction between a law-abiding shopkeeper, laborer or doctor (on the one hand), or a group of jihadists plotting to attack Fort Dix (on the other) too complicated for you to deal with?

    You jumped the shark on what could have been, I think, a better argument. Here’s a more commonplace distinction between a legal and an illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant sells oranges out of a bag from the side of a freeway ramp, on public property. Just across the street, the legal immigrant sells oranges from a shelf in his store, private property that he either rents or owns and often lives in. The illegal immigrant has no overhead and pays no taxes. The legal immigrant participates in being a citizen, with all the overhead, government forms, inspections, and taxes that involves.

    If illegal immigrants deserve, according to some, the special privilege of breaking stupid immigrations laws then why can’t legal immigrants and citizens alike get the same privilege in breaking stupid business licensing and tax laws.

  20. Urk,

    Did you see this evidence:

    “Some of us embrace such impulses more than others, I guess. . . .

    “As you’re sitting around the fire tonight . . .”

  21. nb – the reference to “sitting around the fire” was, of course, in the context of a thread comparing certain people to cavemen.

  22. If the orange seller has been law-abiding (other than the whole illegal-immigrant thing), then I’m sure Congress can work out some way to regularize his status, and that of others.

    American history is full of people starting out with doing something illegal, and then having it regularized later. The spirit of enterprise – go for it!

    But let’s not assume *every* illegal immigrant is a totally harmless proto-American. Talk about generalizations!

  23. More on topic from Unca’ Cecil:

    http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_014.html

    …about how the word “nostalgia” didn’t get a grip until man’s environment noticeably changed during a normal life. I’m going to go pour a bowl of Capitan Crunch and watch the Boomerang channel now.

  24. Urkobold,

    I am definately not supporting Zod.

  25. If illegal immigrants deserve, according to some, the special privilege of breaking stupid immigrations laws then why can’t legal immigrants and citizens alike get the same privilege in breaking stupid business licensing and tax laws.

    OK, I give up. Why can’t they?

  26. OK, I give up. Why can’t they?

    Because breaking the law by not filling out a sales tax form correctly and on time has real, immediate, and well enforced, consequences. Breaking immigration law does not.

    Any other questions, shecky ?

  27. Jkii: good points that are often left out of the debate, and something I admit I have not thought about. There are lots and lots of rules and regulations that a minority (and often times a majority) of people would just as soon not ocomply with. Of course, I am very confused about this – does anyone have a list of the non-seriously enforced laws?

  28. Of course, I am very confused about this – does anyone have a list of the non-seriously enforced laws?

    That would probably be about 90% of them.

    The danger, of course, is that anytime some thug prosecutor gets a bug up his ass and decides to throw the book at you, he has a whole lot of sticks to beat you with.

  29. If that’s the ingrained human instinct that compelled the Shell Tribe to shun Raquel Welch and send her off clad only in an animal-hide bikini to battle voracious dinosaurs, then I’m ashamed of you, me and the whole lousy lot of us.

  30. Here’s a more commonplace distinction between a legal and an illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant sells oranges out of a bag from the side of a freeway ramp, on public property. Just across the street, the legal immigrant sells oranges from a shelf in his store, private property that he either rents or owns and often lives in. The illegal immigrant has no overhead and pays no taxes.

    The illegal immigrant pays no taxes? Plenty of illegal immigrants work regular jobs with phony documentation, paying social security taxes. Others make income tax payments despite not having legal status. Even the guy selling oranges–where did he get them? There’s a good chance if he bought them, he paid tax on the purchase. And what does he do with the money he earns selling them? Hard to believe none of it gets captured in a sales transaction that includes a tax. The “no taxes” definition of an illegal immigrant is an exagerration, at best.

    And what about the illegal immigrant who works in a business where say, 80% of the work force is comprised of legal residents? In New York, it doesn’t seem to be uncommon to find tax-paying businessnes that would find it hard to remain solvent if their largely-legal labor force weren’t supplemented by a minority of illegal immigrants whose labor is cheaper (both in terms of dollars per hour and from avoiding the employer’s portion of social security and Medicaid). The immigrants hired in those jobs may or may not be paying taxes directly, but they are making it possible for the business to pay taxes, and for the legal employees, whose jobs would be lost if the business went under, to pay taxes as well.

  31. Grotius,

    Why on Planet Houston wouldn’t you vote for Zod?

  32. So, we have a natural instinct to mistrust people outside of our tribe and we’re protective of what we perceive to be our stuff. Oh, and we don’t get economics.

    In other obvious news – men and women are different.

  33. To this day, we often see the gain of some people and assume it has come at the expense of others.

    No assumptions about it. Democrats know that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

  34. So there are no social costs to illegal immigration. No one who has any reason to object. No one ever ends up indvidually being hurt by immigration. Nope. It is just all inbreed racism in our biololgy.

    Are you people that stupid? Even if agree that huge numbers of immagrants are good for the country in the aggregate, only an economic illiterate would think that that means that large numbers of locals might end up individually worse off. There are good reasons why people object to immigration. Some of those reasons may be the result of pure self interest, but they are rational reasons none the less.

    Back in the real world of reality, there are social costs to illegal immigration namely crime.

    In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.

    confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal;

    in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

    In the real world people are not blind. They see this kind of thing and they object to it. Instead of answering the arguments or gasp trying to limit the problems associated with illegal immigration by controling the border and deporting the criminals who come here, elitist assholes in the media like this guy just right off any objection to racism. This is not about immigration per say. It is about illegal immigration. People would object a lot less if the U.S. actually controlled its borders but still let large numbers of legal immigrants in on the condition that they don’t have a criminal history and if they commit a crime while here, they get deported. But that is not what is happening. Instead, we have no control over our borders and a lot of bad is coming with the good.

    But don’t think about those problems. Those are hard. All that matters is that you get your yard mowed cheap and none of that stuff happens in your neighborhood.

  35. Mad Max,

    What terrorists? Of the tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands, of people entering the country illegally since 9/11 (assuming that is your (arbitrary) benchmark) how many terrorists have appeared? How many sneaky brown bombers have walked in from Mexico? None? Wow!

    In spite of all the evidence, using such a lame emotional touchstone is, frankly, a lame tactic.

    And John, there are also studies that show that new immigrants, especially the illegal variety, have lower rates of crime (aside from the one entailing crossing the border)

  36. “And John, there are also studies that show that new immigrants, especially the illegal variety, have lower rates of crime (aside from the one entailing crossing the border)”

    I would like to see those. Also, look at the studies on the children of illegals. Their crime rates are very high. Regardless, the point is that there are downsides to illegal immigration and there are people in this society who end up worse off for it even if it is the case that it is an overall good. You can’t blame the people who are on the loosing end from objecting. Reason is so arrogant that it refuses to admit there is any downside and any reason beyond ignorance to object to a completly open border with no checks whatsoever.

  37. John,

    I don’t think that Reason refuses to admit that there are downsides, the question is do they outweigh 1) the benefits and 2) the cost of actually stopping illegal immigration. The answer, I suspect, is no.

    And there have been many studies of the one I mentioned. My first Google hit: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109 is an article about just one of these from earlier this year.

  38. the point is that there are downsides to illegal immigration and there are people in this society who end up worse off for it even if it is the case that it is an overall good.

    Substitute illegal immigration with….

    1) free trade
    2)free market
    3)legalizing drugs
    4)freedom of association
    5)private health care
    6)getting rid of the minimum wage
    7)tort reform
    8)agriculture reform

    Anyway the list could go on, but its pretty clear that favoring the few at the expense of the many is never good policy, nor is it very persuasive.

    You can’t blame the people who are on the loosing end from objecting

    I agree.

    However, the vast majority of those who object are in no way on the “loosing end”? So why do so many still object?

    This discrepancy is interesting, and could possibly be explained by evolutionary psychology, which makes Rubin’s theory very inviting.

  39. John | May 11, 2007, 10:25am | #

    …confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal;

    in 2000, for example, nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born…

    If you look up the information on the 18th Street Gang, you’ll find that its roots date back to around 1917 / 1922, well before immigration laws were put in place. That said, citing the 18th Street Gang’s numbers seems to be more of a gang-control issue as opposed to an illegal immigration issue. The only reason it contains so many illegal immigrants is because of the sheer availability of them. If they had the same amount of whites or blacks to recruit, and they didn’t base themselves as a latino gang, then their numbers would be just as large, only comprising of legal residents. The fact that they are illegals is moot. Take a look at the Crips, the Bloods, etc. I’m sure their numbers are comparable…most of them made up of US born citizens. Again, don’t bring up the illegal immigrant card here – it’s a gang problem period!

    As for the second part of your statement, 30% incarcerated “federal prisoners” are foreign. Now you sound just like Bill O’Reilly trying to confuse the audience. Yes, they may be foreign, but you claim you’re OK with LEGAL immigration (i.e. foreigners). How many of the 30% “foreigners” are illegal?? Give more accurate numbers if you’re going to try to argue against illegal immigration.

  40. One other thought.

    Is an injustice committed by an immigrant any worse then an identical one committed by a citizen? If so, why?

    Does someone from group A have a higher moral standing then someone from group B simply because they belong to that group?

  41. John,

    It is true that illegal immigrants offer only a marginal benefit to the aggregate well being of people already in the US, and that various social costs may indeed cut into that benefit.

    But when the well being of the immigrants themselves is considered, the total aggregate sees a huge win due to the immigration.

    Why do you refuse to consider the immigrants’ well beings in your calculation of costs and benefits?

  42. General: Religionists have to explain all morality as coming from God; “rationalists” as coming from evolution. No wonder there’s a near-religious war over a boring question of biological history.

  43. People would object a lot less if the U.S. actually controlled its borders but still let large numbers of legal immigrants in on the condition that they don’t have a criminal history and if they commit a crime while here, they get deported. But that is not what is happening.

    You do of course realize that this it what everyone you are arguing against on this forum wants to see happen — provided “large numbers” means “any who want to without receiving welfare”.

    Instead, we have no control over our borders and a lot of bad is coming with the good.

    Then join us in arguing for the general legalization of all immigration with specific exceptions to protect specific public interests. Requiring border security to handle the exceptions alone would make it a much much more tenable problem.

  44. Economists have also long argued that the economics of immigration — immigrants coming here to exchange their labor for money that they then exchange for the products of other people’s labor — is positive sum.

    “As long as you have a welfare state, I do not believe you can have a unilateral open immigration. I would like to see a world in which you could have open immigration, but stop kidding yourselves. On the other hand, the welfare state does not prevent unilateral free trade. I believe that they are in different categories.” – Milton Friedman

    Yet our evolutionary intuition is that, because foreign workers gain from trade and immigrant workers gain from joining the U.S. economy, native-born workers must lose.

    Just because it’s intuitive, possibly for the wrong reasons in one case, doesn’t mean that it’s not the ‘correct’ policy for any number of other reasons. An irrational fear of heights doesn’t mean that performing proper airplane maintanence is optional.

    Why do you refuse to consider the immigrants’ well beings in your calculation of costs and benefits?

    Are the immigrants concerned about the wellbeing of current citizens? Is the aim of Armenian immigrants to improve the well-being of Americans?
    As for elected officials: it’s their job to represent and protect the interests of their constituents, not citizens of other countries (= the rest of the world).

  45. Are the immigrants concerned about the wellbeing of current citizens? Is the aim of Armenian immigrants to improve the well-being of Americans?

    Would you make such distinctions based on race or religion or eye color, or is it only birthplace that causes you to out-group a human being?

  46. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum

    What a complete and utter load of bullshit…why would trading firs for fish be any less beneficial 20,000 years to both parties then it would be today.

  47. Yet another writer demonstrating why evo-psych is called “‘Just-So’ stories” by its detractors and has the same scientific validity.

  48. Parse: The illegal immigrant pays no taxes?

    Yes, I know. Taxes are embedded in every transaction. But I am correct, in the orange selling example I offered, that the illegal immigrant does not pay the specific taxes that relate to his retail transactions. It’s more than just taxes. A legal orange seller is bound to comply with all sorts of laws and regulations, such a filling out sales tax forms (even if his sales are tax-exempt), applying for a business permit, insuring his property against fire, and making his store ADA compliant.

    As a small business owner, I would like to attain Mexican or Guatemalan citizenship for a day and come right back with the claim that these laws and regulations don’t apply to me.

    You are right about the unassigned FICA and Medicare taxes illegal immigrants pay. These taxes are not supposed to be allocated to the general fund. Illegal immigrant workers who pay them, with no way to claim them back, are getting the shaft.

  49. jkii,

    I fail to understand your orange selling example. The legal immigrant orange seller is perfectly free to abandon his store and go sell oranges on the streets and off the books just like the illegal immigrant orange seller.

    And the police and prosecutors are just as empowered to arrest and prosecute both the legal and illegal immigrant orange seller for failure to abide by proper business regulations and taxes.

    So what’s your point?

    As a small business owner, I would like to attain Mexican or Guatemalan citizenship for a day and come right back with the claim that these laws and regulations don’t apply to me.

    And how is it that these laws and regulations don’t apply to Guatemalan citizens?

  50. The legal immigrant orange seller is perfectly free to abandon his store and go sell oranges on the streets and off the books just like the illegal immigrant orange seller.

    You are saying (I exaggerated only to make my point), “I am perfectly free to go rob a bank as long as I don’t mind taking the risk of going to prison for 15 years.” So you are, but you’re evading the ethical question a normal person would have regarding capricious law enforcement.

  51. ‘capricious law enforcement’

    Uggh, not very well written. But read it either way:

    ‘capricious enforcement of laws’ or ‘enforcement of capricious law’.

  52. I still fail to see how the legal immigrant and the illegal immigrant are different in this regard. In fact, the illegal immigrant has more to lose in misdemeanor business crime because he’ll likely be deported if caught. The legal immigrant will likely face only a fine.

    Furthermore, since everyone you are arguing against thinks the proper thing to do with the illegal immigrant is to unilaterally make him legal, I fail to see how any actual distinction you might conjure between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant is relevant.

  53. In fact, the illegal immigrant has more to lose in misdemeanor business crime because he’ll likely be deported if caught. The legal immigrant will likely face only a fine.

    The illegal immigrant orange seller will not be deported. Police here in LA are not even allowed to ask whether or not he is a legal resident. Now here’s where we get to nuts and bolts of what I was trying to point out. The illegal immigrant should be fined for operating a business that does not comply the laws and regulations. Why ? Because the legal immigrant or citizen would be fined. If you want to make it so that neither of them gets fined, that’s OK with me too.

  54. The illegal immigrant should be fined for operating a business that does not comply the laws and regulations.

    And when did someone say that business laws and regulations should apply to the legal immigrant but not to the illegal immigrant?

    Moreover, if, as you say, “Police here in LA are not even allowed to ask whether or not he is a legal resident,” how would anyone know the residency status of the person they were applying the business laws and regulations to?

  55. And when did someone say that business laws and regulations should apply to the legal immigrant but not to the illegal immigrant?

    No one had to say it MikeP, it’s a fact. If I set up a legal business across from the Home Depot in nearby Alhambra, CA, that provides landscaping services, the California BOA, OHSA, the county tax board, etc, would be swarming around me like flies on a fresh pile of dung. The day laborer’s in the Home Depot parking lot are immune to this.

  56. The day laborer’s in the Home Depot parking lot are immune to this.

    Whether or not they are illegal residents.

    If you’re arguing that illegal immigrants can’t set up a legitimate business because their residency will be discovered in the inevitable scrutiny, I fail to see how that is an advantage for them.

  57. Whether or not they are illegal residents.

    I just want the California Board of Equalization (how’s that for Orwellian name) to distribute a form 601 to every freeway off-ramp orange seller or Home Depot day laborer along with me. Or better yet, not send the darned form to anyone.

  58. What a complete and utter load of bullshit…why would trading firs for fish be any less beneficial 20,000 years to both parties then it would be today.

    The point isn’t that it was any less beneficial, our earliest ancestors simply had not learned that it was so.

    He has it. I want it. I’ll take it.

    That was probably our first line of reasoning when faced with scarcity.

    He has it. I want it. I wonder what he’d accept in exchange?

    That was most certainly a later development as we learned through bitter experience that conquest is often more costly than trade. Especially if the guy who has what you want is bigger than you or has more friends.

  59. Mad Max,

    Nice try, but no, you don’t get to pass off your mental leap towards the scary, scary illegal immigrants as if it were mine.

    This blog post had nothing – nothing – to do with illegal immigration. It was a commentary on how people react to immigrants from other societies coming into their own.

    And what did you write about? Terrorist, lawbreakers, and welfare cheats. That wasn’t my jump, Max, that was yours.

    Throw out the “you’re a racist for noticing my racism” canard if it makes you feel better, but everyone can see exactly where your conflation came from.

    BTW, the man behind the “Willie Horton ad,” Lee Atwater, apologized on his death bed for so cynically using racist code in that ad, and throughout his career as a Republican “Southern Strategy” poitical flack. He said he hoped he could be forgiven for it.

  60. Throw out the “you’re a racist for noticing my racism” canard if it makes you feel better, but everyone can see exactly where your conflation came from.

    Without even reading or trying to understand what Max wrote my first response is to call bullshit Joe.

    You call everyone who is not a left of you a racists a gay basher and sexist and it is your first response in these debates. Your crying wolf so many times has lost any validity.

    Anyway in general as I glanced through the discussions, here is an answer to all your bullshit: Humans are xenophobic because strangers have a greater opportunity to cheat in exchanges then do family members. A degree of Xenophobia can protect hunter gather groups from such cheating.

  61. Thank you for sharing your feelings about me, joshua.

    As usual, you have nothing to add except that.

    Oh, wait, you did pull the idea that there was extensive trade 20,000 years ago out of your ass.

  62. “Without even reading or trying to understand what Max wrote my first response is to call bullshit Joe.”

    And that’s the joshua we’ve come to know and love; he don’t need no steeking READING. He noes who the good guys are, and everything else follows from there.

  63. So there are no social costs to illegal immigration. No one who has any reason to object. No one ever ends up indvidually being hurt by immigration. Nope. It is just all inbreed racism in our biololgy.

    The funny part about the “inbred…biology” part is that Reason’s writers pick and choose which characteristics they believe are genetically based and which aren’t (always along standard liberal lines, and regardless of information, or lack of it, regarding the actual genetics). For instance, nobody on Reason’s staff will ever posit the idea that perhaps, just maybe, the shitty societies and countries which a lot of immigrants come from are the result of the genetic predispositions and abilities, or lack of, of the inhabitants, and that they’ll bring those characteristics with them. “No! That’s impossible!” Yet baseless conjecture in an MSM article is taken as close to gospel.

  64. And there have been many studies of the one I mentioned. My first Google hit: http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109 is an article about just one of these from earlier this year.
    From there: “In every ethnic group, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, even those who are less educated, said the study by the Immigration Policy Center, an immigrant-advocacy group in Washington.”

    Too bad they didn’t provide a link to the actual study, huh?

    Note the disclaimer “in every ethnic group,” which the Advocacy group provides. That means that immigrants from Mexico have a lower crime rate non-immigrant Mestizos (AKA ‘Hispanics’ in gov’t-speak): however Meztizos in the U.S. have crime rates about 3 times higher than the white US population (close to 4x higher for murder):

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/piusp01.pdf
    “About 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current incarceration rates remain unchanged.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.