Er -- I'm not sure you've rebutted Sullivan here. Other than his use of the word 'we' -- his point still stands.

How did open border work out for the Natives?

How did open border work out for the Natives?

well, to be fair, they were probably toast anyway unless the border was TOTALLY sealed. diseases and all.

The two examples given are talking about different centuries and vastly different areas of the country.

The Pilgrims excluded almost everyone who did not believe in their theocratic idea of paradise while the English in Jamestown invited many to join the party including African slaves and indentured Irish - all before Plymouth Rock.

When the Irish really decided to come over, the old MA regime was overwhelmed as was most of the industrial north. These uneducated serfs (many of whom did not speak English) eventually added immensly to the worth of the United States as did subsequent migrants.

The same will occur with the present influx of hard working motivated immigrants.

Exclusion has never worked very well in this country but you are right, it has been tried continously even before the country was founded.

the historical nonsense is just a way to avoid wrestling with the nettle of IQ

[non value added comments aren't welcome]

Edited By Siteowner

And also with the nettle of overcrowding. No more new beautiful country like California for the taking. It's a zero sum game when it comes to land.

And of course IQ.

The statistical work of "Inductivist", mining the General Social Survey data shows that those of English ancestry are the best citizens; and Mexicans the worst. Irish somewhere in the middle. So the future of the US is bleak. Chances are "we'd" have been even better off if the Irish had never come here. Go over his work at

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/

Mikeyes, why must the Irish be brought into these debates all the time? Do we not have stats on third or fourth generation Mexicans?

The native American effort to "close the borders" worked pretty well with the Vikings. They apparently became so inhospitable that the Vikings decided never to come back or really talk about the place.

I know that the "Mound Building People" were killed by diseases without ever coming in contact with Europeans (and Plymouth had already been decimated due to contact with English fishermen), but I think the natives could have held on if they hadn't actually been invaded and shot/shoved into reservations.

Mikeeyes, if you don't want to make yourself look silly, maybe you should provide some data instead of pap.

The statistical work of "Inductivist", mining the General Social Survey data shows that those of English ancestry are the best citizens; and Mexicans the worst. Irish somewhere in the middle. So the future of the US is bleak. Chances are "we'd" have been even better off if the Irish had never come here. Go over his work at

which is why england is in such better economic shape than ireland! no, seriously though, let's be careful of linear extrapolations of this sort. obviously selection for types of english and irish also matter. where people settle, etc. who identifies as irish over 150 years after irish immigration. let's add a little more nuance to the model.

The native American effort to "close the borders" worked pretty well with the Vikings. They apparently became so inhospitable that the Vikings decided never to come back or really talk about the place.

true, but the vikings were a one-off outlier. roanoke failed too, but by the 16th century european transport systems made it feasible for multiple colonization attempts. it seems that only one base would be needed for a locus of incubation for eurasian pathogens.

The great wave of the 19th century was a product of the shipping revolution. Great ships laden with whatever would sell stuff to England, only they didn't have much to bring back, so they decided to bring people instead, at really low prices. I don't think America was prepared, although interestingly (given the current situation) the Democrat's encouraged it on the explicit basis that the new arrivals would vote Democratic, ie they literally elected a new people. Was it good for America? So many variables, alternatives, possibilities, I cannot say, although it most certainly wasn't good for certain groups. And you mightn't have gotten the Kennedy clan either.

Do Inductivist's figures count Scotch Irish as 'Irish' or 'Scots', an important distinction. Also, Robert Hume, the figures show that those upright Germans are 'worse' than the Irish.

I guess the main "Inductivist" relevance today is with respect to Mexican-Americans and African-Americans being at the bottom of the lists. The rest is detail, I agree; someone else brought up the Irish first.

If the Irish, Germans, et. al. had not arrived then I think the current ratio of English to African-Americans would be about 50-50. So the US would likely have been much worse without the additional European immigration.

However, I would hazard that England is being held back by the civic and welfare burden of the large number of its Asian and Caribbean colonial heritage immigrants; and by the loss of political communication due to white flight dispersal from London. Ireland has no colonial burden and has had a fresh start with plenty of European Union investment.

I think the Inductivist civic virtues of the English make them vulnerable in a multi-cultural world. It's good for themselves if isolated, and good for everyone else in a diverse society as long as they have some influence. Post-colonial Zimbabwe might be an example.

had not arrived then I think the current ratio of English to African-Americans would be about 50-50.

blacks were never more than 20% of the population from what i recall. and, i doubt that the differential birthrate was much of an issue before 1900, so where do you get those figures?

However, I would hazard that England is being held back by the civic and welfare burden of the large number of its Asian and Caribbean colonial heritage immigrants;

for you, "large" means 8% of the population then? (this is the high bound number which includes mixed & other). some of whom, such as the indians and the chinese, are near parity or surpass white natives in economic productivity.

hint: no need to use adjectives when specific numbers are on hand!

Razib,

which is why england is in such better economic shape than ireland! no, seriously though, let's be careful of linear extrapolations of this sort. obviously selection for types of english and irish also matter. where people settle, etc. who identifies as irish over 150 years after irish immigration. let's add a little more nuance to the model.

Well, I don't think pointing to the economic conditions of modern England and Ireland is a valid refutation of his argument. The English and Irish who stayed in their home countries might be different than those who came to America, but the point would still stand that Americans of English or Welsh extraction are much better behaved than those of Irish background according to the GSS. If that is accurate, and all else being equal, then Americans of English or Welsh descent would have been better off without the Irish. (For full disclosure, I'm predominantly of German extraction. Germans usually come out poorly in Guhname's results.)

Your argument about self-identification being potentially inaccurate might have more merit, I don't know.

Robert Hume,

As for arguments about population differentials between whites and blacks, that is always a little 'iffy.' The white "Old American" population might have found economic conditions more conducive to larger families had other Europeans never arrived. Presumably someone would have had to settle those tracts of land that went to Germans and Scandinavians in the Midwest, for example.

One harmful effect of the last wave of European immigrants is that they've created ethnic lobbies that support further immigration as a matter of principle. Jewish, Irish, and Italian organizations all shill for a less restrictive immigration policy and don't seem to give much thought to its long-term consequences.