9 ms·

The immigration comment is moronic. The reason that our borders aren't wider open to the world's "best and brightest" is 2-fold. 1) Current American immigratio

by thras 18y ago

The immigration comment is moronic. The reason that our borders aren't wider open to the world's "best and brightest" is 2-fold. 1) Current American immigration is saturated by the world's worst and dumbest. Low-IQ immigrants contribute marginally to GDP and are a huge drain on social resources. Look at the modern equivalent of white flight going on in California and what it's doing to state budgets. Insane family reunification policies exacerbate this. The fix: build a fence on our southern border, and we'll have a lot more capacity to import skilled labor. 2) Europe is unfortunately reproducing at low levels (just like WASPs in America, in case you didn't know). So our historical sources of quality immigrants are running low. However East Asians are even higher IQ (perhaps less creative), and there are plenty of them. Oh, and if you are getting ready to call me a racist (I'm not), I'd like you to state your magic means for getting even 2nd and 3rd-generation Mexican immigrants to graduate high school. Because we might want to figure that out before importing many more.

clintjhill 18y ago
Read more about No Child Left Behind. Pay attention to what it requires schools to do in order to receive funding. With that information look at what schools are receiving as products (children). When 200 immigrant children get to your school and are ESL, can't pass tests and can't get the support at home because Dad is working 2 jobs and Mom is probably still in Mexico, you quickly realize that you have a serious problem. So then you request more books, more ESL programs and reading curriculum. Then the state and federal agencies say "sorry". You're under-performing. Get kids to pass more tests and you'll get money. There is no magic means. Simply lack of appreciation for children from other countries compound with a reversed process of quality.
- thras 18y ago
  The problem predates NCLB by several decades. Besides, why do East Asians and Europeans do so well under similar circumstances?
  - ardit33 18y ago
    European and Asians don't teach by the lowest denominator!! Not everybody is born with the same abilities to learn. Sure, you can teach people, but the slowest kids will take longer to learn. If you teach by the lowest denominator, you slow down the smart kids, the ones that will make great impacts in the economy in the future. I am south-east european. Back at home everybody starts at the same footing. Same books, same education. By 5th grade, while people are still taught the same curricular, the brightests kids are bunched together in classes. Assuming there are 200 kid in a grade, they are divided in classrooms of 30-35 (teachers come to class, and students stay in the same class with the same peers), usually named A,B,C,D ...etc, witch a main teacher responsible for each class. Example MySchool 5th A, gives a you the exact placement of a student. Why it is unofficial (not writen in policy) by the 5th the best students are usually placed in the A, B, classes, the average ones in the C and D classes, and the ones that are there just for a formal education in the rest of the classes. There is some diversity introduced also, (for those'd kids that try hard, (and whose parents care) they are still placed in higher level classes. It is the same curricula, same books, maybe same teachers, but the evnviroment is different. In the higher level classes students face more competition (as there are lots of smart people), are challenged more to learn etc. The system is setup in a way that it is easier to get a 5 (the lowest passing grade), but it is really hard to get a 10 (the highest grade). Therefore, while you teach everything you can, the smart people are not artificially left behind by being taught by the lowest common denominator. Also, a huge difference is that all sciences are taught, By force. You can't choose between physics or biology or chemistry, you are forced to learn them all. (biology is introduced in 6th grade, and chemistry in 8). The thought is that you have to try everything and have a taste of all sciences (and know the basics), so you know what you like to do in the future (in college) The only thing you get to choose as optional is the SECOND foreign language you want to learn. When I came in the States, i finished my last year of high-school on a average american high-school, and I could run circles around most american students. Even in AP classes! Amazing on how even a poor country like mine (Albania) can do some much better in basic education. I remember between 92-93 I had to learn in a cold class with no glasses on the windows, during winter, and we had to put paper on them, and all try to bunch up as much as possible together, around the wooden stove. Amazing, yet there were so many bright students produced by that school. 1. Teachers cared. 2. Parents cared a lot more (education = future in their yes). 3. Curricula was heavy on science, and taught as much as it could on students and not on the lowest common denominator.
biohacker42 18y ago
What makes you think that the Mexican problems of multi-generational poverty and lack of education have anything to do with quality high IQ stock? You mention Europe as our historical sources of quality immigrants, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent, just like Americans are mostly of English/Irish/German/Italian descent? And the last time I checked Spain is in Europe. I don't have any magic means for getting 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants out of poverty, but I do know that America has a unique underclass problem in the industrialized world. And I don't think immigration has much to do with it, there are not a lot of immigrants in Appalachia. Compare the social services in the US vs the rest of the industrialized world. Outside the US, you tend to see things like cradle to grave, and those are not magic. They are expensive, but they are not magic. A valid debate would be the cost vs benefits of European or Canadian style social services vs what the US has. Lastly, I don't think low reproductive levels are responsible for the lack of European immigrants. Ireland still have quite the high birth rate, and they aren't falling over to come the the US, like they did during the famine. Their present standard of living might have something to do with that. You don't attract masses of immigrants from places that have a standard of living just as high as yours. And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? I suspect your prejudices are formed by the fact that East Asians can't walk into the states, and that means they are less likely to be common laborers and more likely to have a formal schooling background. If the US bordered India, and Mexico was across the ocean, things would be reversed.
- chiffonade 18y ago
  > And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? See, when racists use "average IQ" as a weapon against blacks and mexicans, they have to somehow justify their 2nd place to the Asians or else they will not feel comfortable using these "studies" as proof. They just say "oh, well they're less creative, so you know, white people are really still at the top", and everything is right again in the world. Did you see what they did there? They took valid objective metrics - statistics - and disqualified the positive outcome for a selected class of people with something totally subjective - creativity. This is classic racism. It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race. Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions. I've conducted enough business with enough people in this economy to know that. Younger or less experienced people may have not. > but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent Racists never blame white Europeans for anything, especially not fundamentally flawed colonial systems like the Spaniards' that were devised by greedy people who were bent on raping native people and lands for as much wealth as possible in as little time as possible - actually, why should they blame them, it worked flawlessly, didn't it?
chiffonade 18y ago
> East Asians are even higher IQ (perhaps less creative) Less creative? How exactly do you measure this? Or is this your totally non-racist white hunch on how to classify a third of the population of planet Earth? > Oh, and if you are getting ready to call me a racist (I'm not) This seems to happen often enough that you have a prepared response. You might want to just go with the flow and reclassify yourself as a racist, that way you don't spend half your energy defending yourself against false accusations and can spend time attacking people who aren't white in a more efficient manner.
- thras 18y ago
  The Left doesn't believe in evolution any more than the Right. There is no magical equality fairy even if it would be a nicer world if so. Still, that is never any excuse to mistreat someone due to their race -- which is what racism really is. All my statements above are about population averages. Some ignorant people (I certainly don't mean you) don't understand that population averages apply to populations, and not to individuals. For example, women are shorter than men, on average, but there are millions of women that are taller than me. Native Americans tend to have a lot of trouble with alcohol (for very simple genetic reasons). On the other hand, many don't. Africans have invested a lot of evolutionary effort into malaria resistence. Sometimes they get it anyway. Europeans have invested in lactose tolerance. My dad can't drink milk. Unsuprisingly brain genes (check out Lahn's papers on ASPM and microcephalin in Mol. Gen.) differ between population groups as well. That doesn't say much about any given individual. It does say a lot about groups.
  - chiffonade 18y ago
    > That doesn't say much about any given individual. It does say a lot about groups. Why are you repeating everything I just said?
    - thras 18y ago
      thras~$ grep -c -e "group|individual" chiffonade_comment.txt 0 Ah yes. I was repeating what you said. I see that now. Goodbye.

by thras 18y ago

clintjhill 18y ago

Read more about No Child Left Behind. Pay attention to what it requires schools to do in order to receive funding. With that information look at what schools are receiving as products (children). When 200 immigrant children get to your school and are ESL, can't pass tests and can't get the support at home because Dad is working 2 jobs and Mom is probably still in Mexico, you quickly realize that you have a serious problem. So then you request more books, more ESL programs and reading curriculum. Then the state and federal agencies say "sorry". You're under-performing. Get kids to pass more tests and you'll get money. There is no magic means. Simply lack of appreciation for children from other countries compound with a reversed process of quality.

thras 18y ago
The problem predates NCLB by several decades. Besides, why do East Asians and Europeans do so well under similar circumstances?
- ardit33 18y ago
  European and Asians don't teach by the lowest denominator!! Not everybody is born with the same abilities to learn. Sure, you can teach people, but the slowest kids will take longer to learn. If you teach by the lowest denominator, you slow down the smart kids, the ones that will make great impacts in the economy in the future. I am south-east european. Back at home everybody starts at the same footing. Same books, same education. By 5th grade, while people are still taught the same curricular, the brightests kids are bunched together in classes. Assuming there are 200 kid in a grade, they are divided in classrooms of 30-35 (teachers come to class, and students stay in the same class with the same peers), usually named A,B,C,D ...etc, witch a main teacher responsible for each class. Example MySchool 5th A, gives a you the exact placement of a student. Why it is unofficial (not writen in policy) by the 5th the best students are usually placed in the A, B, classes, the average ones in the C and D classes, and the ones that are there just for a formal education in the rest of the classes. There is some diversity introduced also, (for those'd kids that try hard, (and whose parents care) they are still placed in higher level classes. It is the same curricula, same books, maybe same teachers, but the evnviroment is different. In the higher level classes students face more competition (as there are lots of smart people), are challenged more to learn etc. The system is setup in a way that it is easier to get a 5 (the lowest passing grade), but it is really hard to get a 10 (the highest grade). Therefore, while you teach everything you can, the smart people are not artificially left behind by being taught by the lowest common denominator. Also, a huge difference is that all sciences are taught, By force. You can't choose between physics or biology or chemistry, you are forced to learn them all. (biology is introduced in 6th grade, and chemistry in 8). The thought is that you have to try everything and have a taste of all sciences (and know the basics), so you know what you like to do in the future (in college) The only thing you get to choose as optional is the SECOND foreign language you want to learn. When I came in the States, i finished my last year of high-school on a average american high-school, and I could run circles around most american students. Even in AP classes! Amazing on how even a poor country like mine (Albania) can do some much better in basic education. I remember between 92-93 I had to learn in a cold class with no glasses on the windows, during winter, and we had to put paper on them, and all try to bunch up as much as possible together, around the wooden stove. Amazing, yet there were so many bright students produced by that school. 1. Teachers cared. 2. Parents cared a lot more (education = future in their yes). 3. Curricula was heavy on science, and taught as much as it could on students and not on the lowest common denominator.

biohacker42 18y ago

What makes you think that the Mexican problems of multi-generational poverty and lack of education have anything to do with quality high IQ stock? You mention Europe as our historical sources of quality immigrants, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent, just like Americans are mostly of English/Irish/German/Italian descent? And the last time I checked Spain is in Europe. I don't have any magic means for getting 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants out of poverty, but I do know that America has a unique underclass problem in the industrialized world. And I don't think immigration has much to do with it, there are not a lot of immigrants in Appalachia. Compare the social services in the US vs the rest of the industrialized world. Outside the US, you tend to see things like cradle to grave, and those are not magic. They are expensive, but they are not magic. A valid debate would be the cost vs benefits of European or Canadian style social services vs what the US has. Lastly, I don't think low reproductive levels are responsible for the lack of European immigrants. Ireland still have quite the high birth rate, and they aren't falling over to come the the US, like they did during the famine. Their present standard of living might have something to do with that. You don't attract masses of immigrants from places that have a standard of living just as high as yours. And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? I suspect your prejudices are formed by the fact that East Asians can't walk into the states, and that means they are less likely to be common laborers and more likely to have a formal schooling background. If the US bordered India, and Mexico was across the ocean, things would be reversed.

chiffonade 18y ago
> And I'm not sure what you mean by East Asians having a higher but less creative IQ? See, when racists use "average IQ" as a weapon against blacks and mexicans, they have to somehow justify their 2nd place to the Asians or else they will not feel comfortable using these "studies" as proof. They just say "oh, well they're less creative, so you know, white people are really still at the top", and everything is right again in the world. Did you see what they did there? They took valid objective metrics - statistics - and disqualified the positive outcome for a selected class of people with something totally subjective - creativity. This is classic racism. It's a nonsense argument posited by younger people who really haven't had much life experience, and have not met many people who aren't of their same race. Personally I don't believe in average anything when it comes to race, it's a totally meaningless metric that will get you absolutely nowhere when you deal with actual people and in some cases will handicap you with preconceived notions. I've conducted enough business with enough people in this economy to know that. Younger or less experienced people may have not. > but aren't Mexican's mostly of Spanish descent Racists never blame white Europeans for anything, especially not fundamentally flawed colonial systems like the Spaniards' that were devised by greedy people who were bent on raping native people and lands for as much wealth as possible in as little time as possible - actually, why should they blame them, it worked flawlessly, didn't it?

chiffonade 18y ago

> East Asians are even higher IQ (perhaps less creative) Less creative? How exactly do you measure this? Or is this your totally non-racist white hunch on how to classify a third of the population of planet Earth? > Oh, and if you are getting ready to call me a racist (I'm not) This seems to happen often enough that you have a prepared response. You might want to just go with the flow and reclassify yourself as a racist, that way you don't spend half your energy defending yourself against false accusations and can spend time attacking people who aren't white in a more efficient manner.

thras 18y ago
The Left doesn't believe in evolution any more than the Right. There is no magical equality fairy even if it would be a nicer world if so. Still, that is never any excuse to mistreat someone due to their race -- which is what racism really is. All my statements above are about population averages. Some ignorant people (I certainly don't mean you) don't understand that population averages apply to populations, and not to individuals. For example, women are shorter than men, on average, but there are millions of women that are taller than me. Native Americans tend to have a lot of trouble with alcohol (for very simple genetic reasons). On the other hand, many don't. Africans have invested a lot of evolutionary effort into malaria resistence. Sometimes they get it anyway. Europeans have invested in lactose tolerance. My dad can't drink milk. Unsuprisingly brain genes (check out Lahn's papers on ASPM and microcephalin in Mol. Gen.) differ between population groups as well. That doesn't say much about any given individual. It does say a lot about groups.
- chiffonade 18y ago
  > That doesn't say much about any given individual. It does say a lot about groups. Why are you repeating everything I just said?
  - thras 18y ago
    thras~$ grep -c -e "group|individual" chiffonade_comment.txt 0 Ah yes. I was repeating what you said. I see that now. Goodbye.