Re: An expert confirms El Castor's theory :-)

[El Castor]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:16:02 -0700, sordo <so...@the.real.deal.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 May 2013 08:48:23 -0400, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Immigration Researcher Jason Richwine Resigns From Heritage Amid Race
>>Flap
>>
>>Jason Richwine, the co-author of a study by the Heritage Foundation
>>claiming immigration reform would add $6.3 trillion to the deficit,
>>has resigned from his position at the conservative think tank.
>>
>>Heritage had already sought to distance itself from Richwine amid
>>reports that he suggested in a Harvard thesis and a panel at the
>>American Enterprise Institute that the United States discourage
>>various non-white groups from immigrating because they have lower IQs.
>>He also wrote articles on Hispanic incarceration rates for a white
>>nationalist website.
>>
>>"Race is different in all sorts of ways, and probably the most
>>important way is in IQ," Richwine said at the 2008 AEI panel. "Decades
>>of psychometric testing has indicated that at least in America, you
>>have Jews with the highest average IQ, usually followed by East
>>Asians, then you have non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks.
>>These are real differences, and they're not going to go away tomorrow,
>>and for that reason we have to address them in our immigration
>>discussions and our debates."
>>
>>http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/immigration-researcher-jason-richwine-resigns-from-heritage-amid?ref=fpb
>
>Jeff is on the money and I don't think its a theory, but a fact.

Normally I would chime right in when someone says something I agree
with, but in this case ... modesty, well uh ...

Most of us know something about dogs. We can and do freely talk about
them without fear of being verbally assaulted or arrested. Dogs,
regardless of size, shape, or color, are all the same sub-species --
Canis lupus familiaris. A Chihuahua can breed with a Great Dane and
the offspring will be viable, and yet we know there are differences in
psychology, intelligence, physical abilities, and aggression between
breeds. Dog fanciers don't have a problem discussing those
differences, and will readily acknowledge that Border Collies are
measurably much smarter than Bull Dogs. But ... plop a Jewish
cardiologist down next to an African pygmy and claim there is a
difference, and in France you just might find yourself behind bars.
Here, it will just get you called a lot of names, and maybe fired from
your job. But, in the end, Border Collies are still smarter than Bull
Dogs. (-8

[Islander]

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. We are learning a great deal about the
canine genome, but any comparison in the variability of canine genome
and humane genome is eugenics desperately looking for verification. We
know that the canine genome has a unique propensity for mutation, but we
don't yet know why. That is a topic of intense research right now.
That propensity for mutation has, however, made possible thousands of
years of intentional breeding to produce dogs with specific traits.
Since dogs have demonstrated traits that are useful to man, there has
been significant effort to improve those traits and this is why we have
so much variety within one species.

There is no parallel in human history. Yes, there have been a few
attempts to preserve royal lines or even to produce a superior race, but
these efforts have failed miserably. Instead, the history of the human
race is one of migration and intermingling of what might have otherwise
produced unique strains. Even populations of indigenous people in
Australia that were isolated from the rest of homo sapiens differ very
little from European populations, for example (only a genetic difference
of about 0.24%). By contrast, the difference between Africans and
Americans is about 0.22%.

Theories of racial superiority belong in the trash bin of history and
serious scientists have discarded this notion for a long time now.

Now, before you trot out Charles Murray's book again, you should be
aware that there is *no* evidence to support a genetic difference in
intelligence between the races. Rather, it is very likely (IMV) that
the differences that he found are very likely due to differences in
prenatal and childhood health care. There is an enormous amount of
research now on the early development of the human brain and how the
early home environment can handicap that development.

[El Castor]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:01:40 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

Of course there is evidence to support a genetic difference in
intelligence between the races. If you doubt me, please take a stroll
through west Oakland. In the unlikely event you survive, please report
back on what you find.

"Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability.
Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R."
http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235


"Race Differences in Intelligence: a Global Perspective"
Richard Lynn, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland
http://euvolution.com/articles/racediff01.html

"Race differences in behaviour: A review and evolutionary analysis"
J.Philippe Rushton
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988901353

"Educability And Group differences"
Arthur Jensen
www.Amazon.com

In all the world, 15 Black Nobel Laureates
101 Jewish Nobel Laureates, just in Germany. The US has had more than
300.

[Islander]

You are arguing nature over nurture when the evidence is to the contrary.

But, at least you have abandoned your canine analogy.

Rushton's paper has been resoundingly rejected by the scientific
community and the APA. The APA's official position is that there is no
evidence of genetic causes of racial differences in IQ.

Richard Lynn publishes primarily through Washington Summit Publishers
associated with the National Policy Institute which is a white
supremacist organization. http://www.npiamerica.org/

Finally, Jensen's work was cited in the most controversial chapter in
*The Bell Curve* so citing him is essentially citing what Charles Murray
published. Perhaps you might respect the work of Stephen Jay Gould, a
real expert in evolutionary biology who simply stated that Jensen didn't
understand the concept of heritability.

Interestingly, last Saturday's "The Next List" with Sanjay Gupta
featured a Jewish entrepreneur and scientist (Yosef Abramowitz) who had
the vision of introducing solar power into an Israeli kibbutz. The
project made a great deal of sense for a nation that gets a lot of
sunshine and is otherwise energy poor. It took him years to get it past
the Israeli bureaucracy and the vested energy interests. He finally
succeeded and his company is now introducing solar power systems around
the world.
http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/tag/the-next-list-staff-cnn/

Do you count Abramowitz among the naturally gifted?

[El Castor]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:55:20 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>

Believe what you like. There are racial differences in intelligence.
The data is out there and has been for years. It is simply true. Do I
wish it wasn't the case? Of course! But wishing doesn't make it so --
at least not for me. You are guided solely by politics and your
liberal view of the universe. That is all well and good -- until it
leads society to make bad decisions based on false assumptions. Bad
decision heaped on bad decision has given us a Black illegitimacy rate
of 72%, a functional illiteracy rate in Detroit of 47%, a Black murder
rate seven times higher than that of Whites, and undoubtedly more than
ten times higher than that of Asians and Jews. But, putting aside race
for the moment, can we agree that there is an important link between
genetics and intelligence?

"Study: Genes Play Big Role in Intelligence"
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110809/genes-play-big-role-in-intelligence

"Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is
highly heritable and polygenic"
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html

[Ernest Money]

El Castor wrote:
> There are racial differences in intelligence.
> The data is out there and has been for years. It is simply true.

Actually, for practical purposes it doesn't matter whether the black/
white IQ gap is or is not primarily genetic in origin.

Suppose the gap were shown to be 0% genetic, i.e. entirely
environmental. Does that mean that we could eliminate it? No, since
the environment-only assumption has been the basis for every
imaginable program and intervention in education and welfare since the
1960's (integration, busing, charter schools, magnet schools,
mentoring, black teachers, black administrators, single sex schools,
free computers, school uniforms, after-school programs, Afro-centric
curriculum, free lunch programs, Head Start, pre-natal care, smaller
schools, paying kids to learn, etc, etc), none of which has produced a
lasting effect (except to deplete the nation's finances).

Suppose it was generally accepted among educators and social theorists
that the gap is substantially (but not completely) genetic (which is
all anyone on the hereditarian side claims). That still leaves wiggle
room to dream of enhancing the environmental component to bring the
races to parity, which puts us back where we are now.

IMO the strongest evidence for the second of these possibilities is
that initiatives based on the first have so clearly failed. If the gap
is primarily a consequence of environment, what is it in the
environment of black kids that is so markedly affecting their
performance on standardized tests?

[Islander]

Science says that there is no racial factor in inherited intelligence
and I am content to rely on science. While you frequently accuse me of
making decisions based on my politics, this is not one of them. You, on
the other hand, seem to want to ignore science and base your beliefs on
whatever dregs of pseudo science you can dig up to suit your politics.

Have you ever considered that *your* religion is right wing politics?

The first study that you cited from WebMd is about the effect of
genetics on aging. Yes, there is a genetic link to dementia, but the
study was not about native intelligence based on race.

The second study is also about population-wide variability and makes no
claims about racial dependence.

The human brain is very complex and the development of the human brain
is far more dependent upon prenatal and childhood medical care than on
genetics. Of course those are the programs that Republicans want to cut!

[El Castor]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT), Ernest Money
<ernest...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El Castor wrote:
>> There are racial differences in intelligence.
>> The data is out there and has been for years. It is simply true.
>
>Actually, for practical purposes it doesn't matter whether the black/
>white IQ gap is or is not primarily genetic in origin.
>
>Suppose the gap were shown to be 0% genetic, i.e. entirely
>environmental. Does that mean that we could eliminate it?

Sure 0% genetic means that social programs would work and would be
worthwhile. I would be the first to demand that we pour money into
schools, nutrition, housing ... whatever. "IF" it really would make a
difference. But, since it isn't 0% genetic and IQ has a direct and
deadly connection to crime and poverty, we have wasted billions,
probably trillions, applying remedies that can't work, and only make
the situation worse.

>No, since
>the environment-only assumption has been the basis for every
>imaginable program and intervention in education and welfare since the
>1960's (integration, busing, charter schools, magnet schools,
>mentoring, black teachers, black administrators, single sex schools,
>free computers, school uniforms, after-school programs, Afro-centric
>curriculum, free lunch programs, Head Start, pre-natal care, smaller
>schools, paying kids to learn, etc, etc), none of which has produced a
>lasting effect (except to deplete the nation's finances).
>
>Suppose it was generally accepted among educators and social theorists
>that the gap is substantially (but not completely) genetic (which is
>all anyone on the hereditarian side claims). That still leaves wiggle
>room to dream of enhancing the environmental component to bring the
>races to parity, which puts us back where we are now.
>
>IMO the strongest evidence for the second of these possibilities is
>that initiatives based on the first have so clearly failed. If the gap
>is primarily a consequence of environment, what is it in the
>environment of black kids that is so markedly affecting their
>performance on standardized tests?

IQ, IQ, IQ. Conservatives oppose Obama's $100 million brain research
project. I don't. I'd rather spend $10 billion on brain research than
$100 billion on food stamps.

"EU gives a billion euros to Human Brain Project with Hebrew
University's Prof. Idan Segev as a leader of Israeli team"
http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge135936589605872560

At least the Israelis have their heads screwed on straight.

[El Castor]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:03:39 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>

We will have to agree to disagree.

[Ernest Money]

Islander wrote:
> Science says that...

There is no such person as "science"

[Ernest Money]

El Castor wrote:
> Sure 0% genetic means that social programs would work and would be
> worthwhile.

When one program fails, those on the nurture side of the argument
invariably come up with a new source of the IQ gap, and pretty soon
are advocating yet another *program*, that somebody else has to pay
for. We can see this in an earlier Islander post:

QUOTE
.... it is very likely (IMV) that
the differences that [Charles Murray] found are very likely due to

differences in
prenatal and childhood health care. There is an enormous amount of
research now on the early development of the human brain and how the
early home environment can handicap that development.

END QUOTE.

Of course he has no reason to choose this as an explanation. Its only
virtue is that there is no evidence to refute it.

Suppose it is true. What then is the justification for racial
preferences in college admissions, given that the poor performance of
black applicants is traceable to parental behavior rather than the
"legacy of oppression" etc?

[mg]

. . .

>
> We will have to agree to disagree.

In 2003, 78% of whites supported the war against Iraq, but only 29% of
blacks did. So what does that mean? Does that mean that Blacks are
smarter than Whites in some ways?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8122/Blacks-Show-Biggest-Decline-Support-War-Compared-1991.aspx

[Planet Visitor II]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT), Ernest Money <ernest...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El Castor wrote:
>> There are racial differences in intelligence.
>> The data is out there and has been for years. It is simply true.
>
>Actually, for practical purposes it doesn't matter whether the black/
>white IQ gap is or is not primarily genetic in origin.
>

Of course it matters!!

If it is argued that there is a racial difference in intelligence because of
genetics that supports the argument of every racist, who insist that
Blacks are genetically a sort of sub-human species different from Whites.
It even goes toward any racist argument that slavery of Blacks is hardly
any different than having a dog who follows commands. Further it
supports a belief that Blacks are only qualified for jobs needing only low
ability to process information, or low ability to learn tasks.

BUT --

If it is argued that there is an IQ gap because of educational shortcomings
or other environmental factors that supports the argument that it is
CAUSED by racists. Racism then is shown to be the factor RESPONSIBLE
for those environmental and educational shortcomings. A failure brought
about by racists rather than a presumed failure of nature. This argument
supports a belief that it is environmental racism that keeps Blacks in jobs
needing only low ability to process information, or low ability to learn tasks.


Planet Visitor II

[Planet Visitor II]

That goes without saying. Oh, wait... there is no such person as "goes."


Planet Visitor II

[El Castor]

The Chinese have a real "legacy of oppression" in California, and yet
today they own half of San Francisco.

[El Castor]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:28:13 -0400, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:37:33 -0700, El Castor
><DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:03:39 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
>>wrote:
>

>>>Science says that there is no racial factor in inherited intelligence
>>>and I am content to rely on science. While you frequently accuse me of
>>>making decisions based on my politics, this is not one of them. You, on
>>>the other hand, seem to want to ignore science and base your beliefs on
>>>whatever dregs of pseudo science you can dig up to suit your politics.
>>>
>>>Have you ever considered that *your* religion is right wing politics?
>>>
>>>The first study that you cited from WebMd is about the effect of
>>>genetics on aging. Yes, there is a genetic link to dementia, but the
>>>study was not about native intelligence based on race.
>>>
>>>The second study is also about population-wide variability and makes no
>>>claims about racial dependence.
>>>
>>>The human brain is very complex and the development of the human brain
>>>is far more dependent upon prenatal and childhood medical care than on
>>>genetics. Of course those are the programs that Republicans want to cut!
>>>
>>We will have to agree to disagree.
>

>Jeff, let me see if I got your and Islander's arguments straight.
>You seem to think the reason blacks have an IQ of 75 while whites have
>one of 100 -- is due to genetic factors.

Pretty much.

>But Islander holds that the difference has nothing to do with genes,
>but is all a matter of the home environment. So by his theory, if
>we took a black child from his family at birth -- and gave it to an
>average white family to raise -- his IQ will eventually be 100.
>
>By the same logic -- if we took a white child from his family at
>birth -- and gave it to an average black family to raise -- its IQ
>would only rise to 75.
>
>Damn ! That sounds more racist than Eugenics :-)

Don't forget the Chinese with an IQ of 106 and Ashkenazi Jews with an
IQ of 115. If that black child was fed chow mein and matzoh balls just
think how smart he would be!

[Islander]

On 5/13/2013 2:28 PM, Gary wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:37:33 -0700, El Castor

> Jeff, let me see if I got your and Islander's arguments straight.
> You seem to think the reason blacks have an IQ of 75 while whites have
> one of 100 -- is due to genetic factors.
>

> But Islander holds that the difference has nothing to do with genes,
> but is all a matter of the home environment. So by his theory, if
> we took a black child from his family at birth -- and gave it to an
> average white family to raise -- his IQ will eventually be 100.
>
> By the same logic -- if we took a white child from his family at
> birth -- and gave it to an average black family to raise -- its IQ
> would only rise to 75.
>
> Damn ! That sounds more racist than Eugenics :-)
>

Are you really that dense or do you work at it?

If black children were born into homes that had the same economic
benefits as the white population, had the same medical care, had the
same nutrition, had parents who were sufficiently well off to nurture
them, then yes, the small difference in IQ that is pontificated about in
white supremacist propaganda would disappear. The BLS reports that of
those with an IQ < 75 30% are born in poverty compared with 50% of the
US population overall having an IQ between 90 and 110.

Black children, on average, are disadvantaged from before they are born
throughout their childhood. Check the statistics. It is during this
period that the brain develops. Small wonder that the disadvantaged
suffer brain disorders at a higher rate than the well-to-do. Why would
you think that supposed "native" intelligence would be any different?

[mg]

On May 13, 6:00 pm, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 2013 16:05:09 -0700 (PDT), mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >. . .
>
> >> We will have to agree to disagree.
>
> >In 2003, 78% of whites supported the war against Iraq, but only 29% of
> >blacks did. So what does that mean? Does that mean that Blacks are
> >smarter than Whites in some ways?
>

> No.   It simply means they believe everything the Democrats tell them.
> Or ...... it could mean only 29% of them knew there was place named
> Iraq.

Which Democrats are you referring to? Hillary Clinton?

[Ernest Money]

Islander wrote:
> If black children were born into homes that had the same economic
> benefits as the white population, had the same medical care, had the
> same nutrition, had parents who were sufficiently well off to nurture
> them, then yes, the small difference in IQ that is pontificated about in
> white supremacist propaganda would disappear.

...for which you cite no documentary support, of course.

SAT score is a good proxy for IQ, and in any case is more important to
the individual since it is used in college admissions.

For SAT scores, data is available broken down by race and parental
income:

QUOTE.
Explaining the Black-White Scoring Gap on the SAT Test

A number of reasons are advanced to explain the large and persisting
black-white SAT scoring gap. Sharp differences in family incomes are a
major factor. Always there has been a direct correlation between
family income and SAT scores. For both blacks and whites, as income
goes up, so do test scores.

In 2006, 24 percent of all black SAT test takers were from families
with annual incomes below $20,000. Only 4 percent of white test takers
were from families with incomes below $20,000. At the other extreme, 8
percent of all black test takers were from families with incomes of
more than $100,000. The comparable figure for white test takers was 31
percent.

But there is a major flaw in the thesis that income differences
explain the racial gap. Consider these observable facts from The
College Board’s 2006 data on the SAT:

• Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean
SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for
all blacks.
• Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test
score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes
of more than $100,000.
END QUOTE.
"A Large Black-White Scoring Gap Persists on the SAT" The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education, 2006, http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html

In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line in the above quote:
"Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test
score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes
of more than $100,000."

[Ernest Money]

Islander wrote:
> Black children, on average, are disadvantaged from before they are born
> throughout their childhood. Check the statistics.

Translation: "off you go Gary on a wild goose chase looking for the
data that supports my position."
It is your assertion Islander. It is your responsibility to provide
the jusification.

[El Castor]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 15:40:12 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

Pay no attention to him, Gary. If liberalism was science, he would
have a PhD. As it is, all he has, and is, is BS -- and that does not
stand for Bachelor of Science.

[Islander]

> College Board�s 2006 data on the SAT:
>
> � Whites from families with incomes of less than $10,000 had a mean

> SAT score of 993. This is 130 points higher than the national mean for
> all blacks.

> � Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test

> score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes
> of more than $100,000.
> END QUOTE.
> "A Large Black-White Scoring Gap Persists on the SAT" The Journal of
> Blacks in Higher Education, 2006, http://www.jbhe.com/features/53_SAT.html
>
> In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line in the above quote:
> "Whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had a mean SAT test
> score that was 17 points higher than blacks whose families had incomes
> of more than $100,000."
>

If you had bothered to read further in the site that you posted instead
of simply posting a sentence that appeared to support your view, you
might have learned something about the disadvantages of growing up black.

Further, it is a common ploy of the white supremacists to offer up a few
exemplars in an attempt to counter an argument that is based on
statistical arguments. How many black families have incomes over $100K
and are they representative of the black population? I doubt it.
Whites, even in poverty, have significant advantages in obtaining all
the factors that I cited above that contribute to healthy brain
development. If you doubt that, visit an inner city emergency room some
time!

[Ernest Money]

Islander wrote:
> ..it is a common ploy of the white supremacists to offer up a few

> exemplars in an attempt to counter an argument that is based on
> statistical arguments.

I am countering your argument, which is a tissue of unsupported
assertion, not in any way a statistical argument.

And we are not talking about "a few exemplars", but rather about
aggregate data from the SAT, a very widely used standardized test of
mental ability. According to the College Board it was taken by 1.66
million students in 2012.

> How many black families have incomes over $100K
> and are they representative of the black population?

Of course they are not representative because not all black households
had incomes over $100K in 2006. Neither did all white households.

Let me remind you of what you originally wrote, which you appear to
have conveniently forgotten:

"If black children were born into homes that had the same economic
benefits as the white population, had the same medical care, had the
same nutrition, had parents who were sufficiently well off to nurture
them, then yes, the small difference in IQ that is pontificated about
in white supremacist propaganda would disappear."

Black kids born into affluent families, according to this argument,
should not be subject to the various negative forces that beset poor
black kids, and thus should perform in IQ or equivalent standardized
tests at a similar level to whites. They don't, not remotely, so you
are wrong.
Or are you saying that affluent black parents do not know how to raise
their own children? That even with an income of $100K they are not
"sufficiently well off to nurture them"?

> Whites, even in poverty, have significant advantages in obtaining all
> the factors that I cited above that contribute to healthy brain
> development.

Assertion without evidence appears to be your signature tune.

> If you doubt that, visit an inner city emergency room some
> time!

You can observe the disparity in brain development in an emergency
room?

[BIG BIRD]

"Ernest Money" <ernest...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bce48523-be5d-4a1a...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

: Islander wrote:
: > ..it is a common ploy of the white supremacists to offer up a few
: > exemplars in an attempt to counter an argument that is based on
: > statistical arguments.

:



hey dickhead, you're the typical, low life, inbred, lard assed, toothless, low IQ,
trailer trash hillbilly, rich man's
dick suckin bitch

what are you trying to prove and what difference would it make shithead ??

is it a child's or any person's fault what IQ he's born with ?

what do you want to do, reinstitute segregation and jim crowe for all people who
have lower intelligence, or
just black people who do ?

are you looking for a reason to discriminate ?

are you just looking for an issue to be able to point fingers at black children
and punish them ?

what are you after you slimy,filthy,stinkin, angry, old rich white man's dick
sucker ??

are you so low on the food chain that you're desperately seeking to place someone
else lower than your
pitiful,pathetic, no account classless and clueless hillbilly culture ?

how about we take all those bomb damaged,PSD'd military veterans, who obviously
have little IQ left and do
to them whatever it is you want to do to black people,

hell, let's take all the white children with low IQ's and pitch them in with black
children into whatever hole you're
trying to relegate them to

we need to get you, your lard assed, dick suckin sow of a wife, and your fat
hillbilly children and grandchildren too

95% of you hillbillies,crackers, and rednecks would be at risk if we did that


cut to the chase you dick suckin pussy bitch,don't hide out like a 14 year old,
obese, pimple faced, dick suckin little bitch
in your mama's trailer, show some balls and tell us what you're after goober

suck some more, filthy,slimy,stinkin, angry,old rich white men's dicks while those
2 functioning brain cells
are trying to articulate an intelligent response, which is about as likely as
sarah palin giving up on suckin rich dick

[Glenn]

With all the money the liberals give to provide black
children with at least equal opportunities one would be hard
pressed not to conclude that there's a natural inequality.
I certainly never benefited from such claimed concern and
the only blacks we employed were those the government forced
on us.

--

Glenn

[Islander]

Like most conservatives, you are concentrating only on the income of
families as a factor. That was one of the factors that I mentioned and
certainly poverty has enormous negative effect across the other factors.
Using your threshold of $100K, only about 6% of black families fall in
that category, so they are hardly representative of the black population.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Your observation that black children, even in modestly wealthy black
homes do not do as well as white children overall in SAT scores is
correct, but is easily explained by cultural issues involving race
including peer pressure within the black community. The most notable
work on that was done by the late John Ogbu in *Black American Students
in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.* Alarmed by
the failing grades of black students in an affluent community, Ogbu was
asked to investigate the causes. His conclusion was that the pervasive
attitude among black students at this school was that they would not get
a fair shake in life independent of the effort that they made in school.
This defeatist attitude is a product of the overall black culture
which has been and continues to be discriminated against.

Returning to the topic of brain development and it's relationship to
prenatal and childhood health care, there is a good overview of what is
known about brain development at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/
You will note that the article states, "Both gene expression and
environmental input are essential for normal brain development, and
disruption of either can fundamentally alter neural outcomes." I'm
pointing out this article, not because it gives the relative importance
of nature vs. nurture, but because it might give you some sense of how
this most complex of all human organs develops. You might think of it
as analogous to a computer. If the individual circuits in a computer
are damaged during its manufacture, it will not perform well no matter
how hard you work to install the very best software later.

The human brain essentially develops from the back to the front with the
frontal cortex, most directly responsible for IQ, developing last,
typically in adolescence. But, this is just the "programming" of the
brain, first in the routing of the "wiring" of the brain in the form of
axons and dendrites, the thousands of inputs and outputs of each neuron
and later in the actual memory elements in the form of the synapses.

This sequence is controlled by the genes, but can be interrupted at any
point in time from a few weeks after conception until about 18 years of
age. This is why childhood healthcare is so important.

We have known for a long time that the health of the mother is important
to fetus development and especially for healthy brain development. This
is why doctors recommend vitamins during pregnancy. Direct links to
deficiencies in iron and iodine have been shown to specifically result
in an average of 12 point loss in IQ tests.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734706

There is now broad agreement across multiple disciplines that prenatal
and early childhood periods are critical to cognitive development and
that there are a variety of treats to healthy brain function during
these periods that are preventable.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12692458
While this paper addresses world-wide attention to this issue, we have
our own problems here at home in the poverty-induced causes of poor
health care in the black community.

The white supremacist argument that blacks are intellectually inferior
is merely an excuse to continue policies that favor the white race. The
tragedy is that conservatives exploit this belief and cut programs that
are critically important to producing future generations of intelligent
children who have a chance at competing in a world that increasingly
depends upon intelligence.

[El Castor]

The difficulty you are experiencing in communicating the truth to
Islander is not surprising. He will never yield to logic or the facts.
on this or many other subjects, because for him this is not a
discussion of the facts. Islander has principles, closely resembling
religious conviction, which I doubt he fully understands. His quasi
religious political convictions will not allow him to deal with a wide
range of issues objectively, this being just one of many.

I shouldn't be too critical, since the Islander Syndrome is something
I suppose we all have to deal with, but he appears to have a
particularly bad case. (-8

[Ernest Money]

Islander wrote:
> Like most conservatives, you are concentrating only on the income of

> families as a factor. That was one of the factors that I mentioned...

No, it was the ONLY factor you mentioned, deriving all others from it:

> > "If black children were born into homes that had the same ECONOMIC
> > BENEFITS as the white population, had the same medical care, had the
> > same nutrition, had parents who were SUFFICIENTLY WELL OFF to nurture

> > them, then yes, the small difference in IQ that is pontificated about
> > in white supremacist propaganda would disappear."

Quite obviously, this is false, it doesn't disappear.
And it is not true that the differences in IQ are small. The
difference is 15 points on the usual scale (IQ mean = 100 for US
population, Std Dev = 15). This is a huge difference and it persists
across the SES continuum. It shows up (as IQ theory would predict) in
low black scores in all standardized tests.
And it is not true that the gap is an issue only in "white supremacist
propaganda". It is one of the major issues in US education, a subject
of endless agonizing among educators, sociologists and politicians.
For example, the primary purpose of Bush's No Child Left Behind Act
was to improve minority academic performance.

> Using your threshold of $100K, only about 6% of black families fall in
> that category, so they are hardly representative of the black population.

Who says they are? The important point is that families with incomes
at this level are able to confer ECONOMIC BENEFITS on their offspring,
because they are SUFFICIENTLY WELL OFF to do so. But this does not
bring them to educational parity with whites, does it? And you said it
would, didn't you?
And 6% is nearly a million families, hardly a small number.

> Your observation that black children, even in modestly wealthy black
> homes do not do as well as white children overall in SAT scores is
> correct, but is easily explained by cultural issues involving race
> including peer pressure within the black community. The most notable
> work on that was done by the late John Ogbu in *Black American Students
> in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic Disengagement.* Alarmed by
> the failing grades of black students in an affluent community, Ogbu was
> asked to investigate the causes. His conclusion was that the pervasive
> attitude among black students at this school was that they would not get
> a fair shake in life independent of the effort that they made in school.
> This defeatist attitude is a product of the overall black culture
> which has been and continues to be discriminated against.

The truth is a little more complicated; to quote the jbhe article I
cited earlier:

QUOTE.
The late John Ogbu, professor of anthropology at Berkeley, believed
that broad cultural attributes among blacks - such as parental style,
commitment to learning, and work ethic - bear a heavy responsibility
for the black-white educational gap. Ogbu wrote in his recent book,

Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic

Disengagement, that black students in the affluent homes of doctors
and lawyers are looking at rappers in ghettos as their role models.
Students talk the talk about what it takes to be a good student, Ogbu
wrote, but few put forth the effort required to get good grades. This
type of behavior is typical, Ogbu said, of racial minorities adapting
to oppression and the lack of opportunity. Ogbu, much as Bill Cosby
has done recently, also placed the blame on black parents. He believed
that many black parents are not offering sufficient guidance, do not
spend enough time helping with homework, and do not pay adequate
attention to their children's educational progress.
END QUOTE.

I am familiar with Ogbu's work in Shaker Heights. Ogbu was an
anthropologist. Ask an anthropologist a question and you will get an
anthropologist's answer.

There are important questions Ogbu doesn't ask: why would black kids
think "that they would not get a fair shake in life independent of the
effort that they made in school", when they grow up in "the affluent
homes of doctors and lawyers"? Didn't their parents get a fair shake?
Doesn't Affirmative Action give them more than a fair shake?

Also, it is a mystery why the parents "are not offering sufficient
guidance, do not spend enough time helping with homework, and do not
pay adequate attention to their children's educational progress"
since, by assumption, the parents themselves must have received such
guidance, help and attention from *their* parents to get where they
are.

It is therefore more likely that underperforming affluent black kids
are blaming racism for their own failures since they know they can
rely on other blacks and white liberals to agree with them, or at
least not to disagree. And, despite prevailing wisdom, kids do not
need parental help to succeed in school.

snip dissertation on brain development and the role of maternal
nutrition.

But since the black IQ deficiency vis-à-vis whites is present across
the SES spectrum, it cannot simply be due to the causes you describe.
In fact, you present no data showing a connection, you simply imply
one.

[El Castor]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 07:17:01 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
wrote:

Islander, putting aside the Black IQ issue, I am curious if you ...

1. Accept the average IQ superiority of Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians
when compared to Western European Caucasians?

2. Believe that among members of the same race and geographic origin,
all IQ differences must be attributed to environment, and genetics has
no influence?

[Islander]

If you read the above citation on brain development you would have seen
my view: "Both gene expression and environmental input are essential

for normal brain development, and disruption of either can fundamentally
alter neural outcomes."

This leaves us with the argument of which is the more important
influence on intelligence. Fortunately, environmental input is
something that we can change if we really want to create a competitive
work force for the future. Independent of whether or not Ashkenazi Jews
are more intelligent, we cannot build an economy on Ashkenazi Jews.

Nor should we aspire to do so. While this group is characterized by
exceptionally high IQ, there is a debate over why that is the case.
Classic nature vs. nurture. Inbreeding is evidently a problem for the
group as witnessed by their susceptibility to certain inheritable
diseases.

But, whether it is nature or nurture or some combination of both, what
does it matter? Does it justify ignoring things that we can and should
do to improve brain development in our children regardless of race? Or,
do you think that we should write off a significant segment of our
population because you believe white people to be superior?

[El Castor]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:32:50 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>

Why do I bother?

[Islander]

Because your religion is white supremacy and you cannot resist
proselytizing your belief system.

[El Castor]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 08:07:29 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>

White supremacy? Then why do I persist in insisting that Asians are
significantly more intelligent than Caucasians, and Jews, who I
believe White supremacists love to hate, are the most intelligent of
us all? Why do I support objective test score based admissions to San
Francisco's premier public school, Lowell High, as well as the
University of California system, when I know that Asians can and will
displace Whites? Why do I strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans
and sending them back to Mexico?

[Ernest Money]

El Castor wrote:
> White supremacy? Then why do I persist in insisting that Asians are

> significantly more intelligent than Caucasians...etc

> Why do I strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans
> and sending them back to Mexico?

Why do you strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans and sending
them back to Mexico?

[Islander]

Ok, then you are a selective white supremacist. You discriminate
against blacks and Muslims.

[El Castor]

Fair question. I like Mexicans, at least the ones I come in contact
with, more than a lot of native born Americans. Let's face it, around
here if you want a meal cooked, roof repaired, fence post replaced,
lawn mowed, or house cleaned or painted, it's going to be done by a
Mexican -- and I use the term loosely to mean any kind of mostly
illegal Hispanic. Mexicans work harder and are more conscientious than
most Americans. My wife volunteers at a local K-4 school helping kids
with their reading. The parents are frequently Mexican, and are
uniformly grateful -- more than can be said for the parents of many
indigenous kids. One Mexican woman has given my wife two $50 gift
cards. The woman cleans houses for a living, we don't need or want the
money, but she won't take no for an answer. And, Mexicans tend to be
good Catholics, and seldom blow themselves up -- as opposed to the
Muslim immigration to Europe. My best friend in the neighborhood is
the legal son of illegal parents. He owns a successful business, surfs
as a hobby, has a daughter who is a ballet dancer, has his son in
every little league type of activity that exists, and is a fiscal
conservative.

I have a degree in economics and a life long interest in the subject.
There is a good argument to be made that illegal immigration is a plus
for the economy and a net boost for jobs, not only for the immigrants,
but for indigenous Americans, although I admit that there is an
argument that they may create more mid-level jobs while costing the
lower strata of the work force employment by out competing them.

Then there is the fertility issue. Left up to the indigenous Caucasian
population, we would soon be experiencing the same kind of negative
population growth they are seeing in Europe and Japan. Take a look at
the situation in Italy -- not nice.

That said, I believe we should quit paying lip service to sealing the
border, and actually do it -- tight as a drum. Sovereign nations like
the United States have a right and obligation to make their own
decisions about immigration, but don't send the ones home who are
already here -- except genuine criminals. Seal the border, deny anyone
who is not a citizen most of the trappings of our welfare state, but
give those who have roots a path to citizenship. And, yes, I know it's
not that simple, but we should be able to figure it out.

[El Castor]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:17:10 -0400, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:

>Nicely stated. Personally, I've had very little experience with
>illegal Hispanics. But those few, I have liked and respected.
>You seem to describe them pretty well. We could do a lot worse.

Thanks, Gary. I guess that qualifies you as another "selective white
supremacist", as Islander would put it. Welcome to the club. (-8

[Ernest Money]

Ernest Money wrote

> >Why do you strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans and sending
> >them back to Mexico?

El Castor wrote:
> Fair question. I like Mexicans, at least the ones I come in contact
> with, more than a lot of native born Americans. Let's face it, around
> here if you want a meal cooked, roof repaired, fence post replaced,
> lawn mowed, or house cleaned or painted, it's going to be done by a
> Mexican -- and I use the term loosely to mean any kind of mostly
> illegal Hispanic.

Around here? You mean in the US?

> Mexicans work harder and are more conscientious than
> most Americans. My wife volunteers at a local K-4 school helping kids
> with their reading. The parents are frequently Mexican, and are
> uniformly grateful -- more than can be said for the parents of many
> indigenous kids. One Mexican woman has given my wife two $50 gift
> cards. The woman cleans houses for a living, we don't need or want the
> money, but she won't take no for an answer.

This is a short-term way of looking at the issue. First & second
generation immigrants are usually more diligent and ambitious than
later generations. The important point is that through Latino
immigration, legal and illegal, we are not merely acquiring some hard-
workers to mow lawns and shovel snow, we are a permanently
transforming US demography, not necessarily for the better.

> And, Mexicans tend to be
> good Catholics

Depends what your definition of *good* is. 53% of births to Hispanics
are out-of-wedlock (cf 29% for non-Hispanic whites); Hispanic women
have substantially higher abortion ratios than non-Hispanic white
women (195 vs 140 abortions per 1000 live births, see
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm#Tab12). A
majority of Latinos favor same sex marriage. If these are "good"
Catholics, I wonder what it takes to be a lousy one.

> and seldom blow themselves up -- as opposed to the
> Muslim immigration to Europe.

Not much of a recommendation; any immigrant group has got to be better
than Muslims. Large scale Muslim immigration in Europe simply shows
that they are even crazier than we are, and we are crazy enough.

> My best friend in the neighborhood is
> the legal son of illegal parents. He owns a successful business, surfs
> as a hobby, has a daughter who is a ballet dancer, has his son in
> every little league type of activity that exists, and is a fiscal
> conservative.

..and is thus not a typical Latino; Latinos gave the presidency to
Obama in 2012. Conservatives, fiscal or otherwise, would not have done
that.

> I have a degree in economics and a life long interest in the subject.
> There is a good argument to be made that illegal immigration is a plus
> for the economy and a net boost for jobs, not only for the immigrants,
> but for indigenous Americans, although I admit that there is an
> argument that they may create more mid-level jobs while costing the
> lower strata of the work force employment by out competing them.

The counter argument was best summed up by Mark Krikorian in the
National Review: Is it wise to import a 19th century workforce into a
21st century civilization?

There is a fundamental flaw in the notion that the importation of
large numbers of unskilled workers benefits the economy, simply
because firms that employ them say so. Consider the case of the tomato-
growing industry in California:

QUOTE.
Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell
a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers
relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's
"bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then
processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964, Congress killed
the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom
their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong
tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's
tomato output has risen five times.
END QUOTE.
Why U.S. Doesn't Need Guest Workers By Robert Samuelson
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/importing_poverty.html

> Then there is the fertility issue. Left up to the indigenous Caucasian
> population, we would soon be experiencing the same kind of negative
> population growth they are seeing in Europe and Japan. Take a look at
> the situation in Italy -- not nice.

This issue hinges on whether Latino immigrants and their descendants
will be a net positive for the economy. All the indicators (including
the IQ data which you cite) are that they will not be.

> That said, I believe we should quit paying lip service to sealing the
> border, and actually do it -- tight as a drum.

But why, given all the (alleged) benefits to the US that you have
listed? Why not have a "Come one, come all" immigration policy?

> Sovereign nations like
> the United States have a right and obligation to make their own
> decisions about immigration, but don't send the ones home who are
> already here -- except genuine criminals.

The ones who are here are lawbreakers.

> Seal the border, deny anyone
> who is not a citizen most of the trappings of our welfare state, but
> give those who have roots a path to citizenship.

..so that I will continue to get my meal cooked, roof repaired, fence
post replaced, lawn mowed, house cleaned or painted ...

> And, yes, I know it's
> not that simple, but we should be able to figure it out.

For some of us it is simple: close the border and implement E-Verify;
no amnesty. Done.

[El Castor]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:27:53 -0700 (PDT), Ernest Money
<ernest...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ernest Money wrote
>> >Why do you strongly oppose rounding up illegal Mexicans and sending
>> >them back to Mexico?
>
>El Castor wrote:
>> Fair question. I like Mexicans, at least the ones I come in contact
>> with, more than a lot of native born Americans. Let's face it, around
>> here if you want a meal cooked, roof repaired, fence post replaced,
>> lawn mowed, or house cleaned or painted, it's going to be done by a
>> Mexican -- and I use the term loosely to mean any kind of mostly
>> illegal Hispanic.
>
>Around here? You mean in the US?

No, I mean around here.

>> Mexicans work harder and are more conscientious than
>> most Americans. My wife volunteers at a local K-4 school helping kids
>> with their reading. The parents are frequently Mexican, and are
>> uniformly grateful -- more than can be said for the parents of many
>> indigenous kids. One Mexican woman has given my wife two $50 gift
>> cards. The woman cleans houses for a living, we don't need or want the
>> money, but she won't take no for an answer.
>
>This is a short-term way of looking at the issue. First & second
>generation immigrants are usually more diligent and ambitious than
>later generations. The important point is that through Latino
>immigration, legal and illegal, we are not merely acquiring some hard-
>workers to mow lawns and shovel snow, we are a permanently
>transforming US demography, not necessarily for the better.

Hmmm, that sounds very similar to historical arguments against Irish
and Chinese immigration.

>> And, Mexicans tend to be
>> good Catholics

To be honest, "good" is a term I would use to describe anyone who is
not a Muslim. (-8

>Depends what your definition of *good* is. 53% of births to Hispanics
>are out-of-wedlock (cf 29% for non-Hispanic whites); Hispanic women
>have substantially higher abortion ratios than non-Hispanic white
>women (195 vs 140 abortions per 1000 live births, see
>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm#Tab12). A
>majority of Latinos favor same sex marriage. If these are "good"
>Catholics, I wonder what it takes to be a lousy one.

I live in what is by some measures the richest county in the United
States, and Gay marriage (which I don't support) would pass here in a
NY minute, so the Gay marriage thing is not what I would call a strong
argument. I don't support it, but it is beginning to look inevitable.

>> and seldom blow themselves up -- as opposed to the
>> Muslim immigration to Europe.
>
>Not much of a recommendation; any immigrant group has got to be better
>than Muslims. Large scale Muslim immigration in Europe simply shows
>that they are even crazier than we are, and we are crazy enough.

Large scale Muslim immigration in Europe is primarily a function of
geographic proximity, and low fertility rates in the indigenous
population. Europeans are beginning to understand the error of their
ways. Perhaps the last half of this century will see a new wave of
European immigration to North and South America. About the time Notre
Dame is converted to a mosque, the French should start pulling up
stakes.

>> My best friend in the neighborhood is
>> the legal son of illegal parents. He owns a successful business, surfs
>> as a hobby, has a daughter who is a ballet dancer, has his son in
>> every little league type of activity that exists, and is a fiscal
>> conservative.
>
>..and is thus not a typical Latino; Latinos gave the presidency to
>Obama in 2012. Conservatives, fiscal or otherwise, would not have done
>that.

The "typical Latino", at least where I live, is more imbued with the
traditional American manifestation of the Protestant Ethic than are my
Western European Caucasian neighbors.

>> I have a degree in economics and a life long interest in the subject.
>> There is a good argument to be made that illegal immigration is a plus
>> for the economy and a net boost for jobs, not only for the immigrants,
>> but for indigenous Americans, although I admit that there is an
>> argument that they may create more mid-level jobs while costing the
>> lower strata of the work force employment by out competing them.
>
>The counter argument was best summed up by Mark Krikorian in the
>National Review: Is it wise to import a 19th century workforce into a
>21st century civilization?

The world is rapidly changing. The work force will soon consist of
machines and the computers that control them. Neither you nor I has a
clue of what the workforce of even 50 years hence will look like.

>There is a fundamental flaw in the notion that the importation of
>large numbers of unskilled workers benefits the economy, simply
>because firms that employ them say so.

Here's a Cato piece that argues just the opposite:
"Measuring the Economic Benefits of Immigration Reform"
http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-policy-analysis/restriction-or-legalization-measuring-economic-benefits-immigration-reform

And the Manhattan Institute:
"The Economic Benefits of Immigration"
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_18.htm

In any case, 12 million Mexicans are not going home. Just the way it
is. Conservatives should be working on closing the border and quit
indulging in fantasies about a wave of deportation that is not going
to happen.

>Consider the case of the tomato-growing industry in California:

>QUOTE.
>Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell
>a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers
>relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's
>"bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then
>processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964, Congress killed
>the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom
>their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong
>tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's
>tomato output has risen five times.
>END QUOTE.
>Why U.S. Doesn't Need Guest Workers By Robert Samuelson
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/importing_poverty.html

>> Then there is the fertility issue. Left up to the indigenous Caucasian
>> population, we would soon be experiencing the same kind of negative
>> population growth they are seeing in Europe and Japan. Take a look at
>> the situation in Italy -- not nice.
>
>This issue hinges on whether Latino immigrants and their descendants
>will be a net positive for the economy. All the indicators (including
>the IQ data which you cite) are that they will not be.

Not to worry, None of us will measure up in a world where cars drive
themselves and computers are smarter than we are. You will be as out
of date as Jose from Guadalajara. We need to admit to ourselves that
IQ is real, it's genetic, and it's inherited. For all we know a few
injections in a pregnant mother or fetus would produce far more
intelligent offspring. If we don't figure it out, someone else will.

"Supercomputers and the mystery of IQ
Some of the world�s fastest supercomputers are being set up in Hong
Kong to address the age-old mystery of human intelligence.The study of
intelligence quotient (IQ) is being conducted by BGI Hong Kong,
[formerly] known as the Beijing Genomics Institute. It will survey DNA
samples from 1,000 child prodigies from China�s best high schools,
comparing them with samples from 1,000 children of average
intelligence, searching for genetic variations. The study will examine
protein coding genes of the extremely smart children, many of whom are
expected to enroll at Harvard, Yale or Cambridge. The results will be
correlated with each youngster�s school test scores, in hopes of
learning how specific genetic variations affect intelligence."
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421885/supercomputers-and-the-mystery-of-iq/

>> That said, I believe we should quit paying lip service to sealing the
>> border, and actually do it -- tight as a drum.
>
>But why, given all the (alleged) benefits to the US that you have
>listed? Why not have a "Come one, come all" immigration policy?

There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, but as a believer
in free enterprise I do have to think that immigration will be self
limiting, as long as we don't set ourselves up as the world's welfare
agency. We should have a sensible immigration policy that includes
secure borders, severely restricts Muslim immigration, and attracts
immigrants with skills and intelligence. Jose from Guadalajara has a
place here, but so do highly skilled H1B workers that we force to go
home.

>> Sovereign nations like
>> the United States have a right and obligation to make their own
>> decisions about immigration, but don't send the ones home who are
>> already here -- except genuine criminals.
>
>The ones who are here are lawbreakers.

If you were a Mexican who had grown up scratching in the dirt for a
living, wouldn't you be here, or thinking about some way to get here?
I would. One thing about immigration, legal or otherwise, is that it
attracts ambitious self-starters who have the motivation and courage
to pull up roots and set out for the unknown. That is a quality
difficult to measure on an intelligence test. The Black population of
the US consists of people whose ancestors had a net thrown over them
-- but there is one exception, Black immigrants from the Caribbean who
settled in Queens, NY. They didn't come here to lay on a couch and
watch TV or sell drugs on a street corner. They are characterized by
economically successful two parent households.

"Black Incomes Surpass Whites in Queens"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/nyregion/01census.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

>> Seal the border, deny anyone
>> who is not a citizen most of the trappings of our welfare state, but
>> give those who have roots a path to citizenship.
>
>..so that I will continue to get my meal cooked, roof repaired, fence
>post replaced, lawn mowed, house cleaned or painted ...
>
>> And, yes, I know it's
>> not that simple, but we should be able to figure it out.
>
>For some of us it is simple: close the border and implement E-Verify;
>no amnesty. Done.

Simple for you to think about, but it's not up to you -- or me.