Whites Only Need Apply

For a couple of months now the debate has been centered around immigration…..and after the appalling turnout for Mitt by minorities the GOP has said that it will outreach to more minorities in an effort to woe them into joining the GOP……they are trying hard to rid themselves of the tag that the GOP is nothing more than old whites….they want a bigger tent for the next election…..

The only problem is that nothing they do is appealing to women or Hispanics or African-American voters….they are still pushing the issues of women and their bodies, they are still not showing any genuine concern for the poor or for that matter the minorities……the big problem is that their actions are not the same as their words…..

Their actions on same sex marriage or voting or immigration talk volumes on their real intentions…….

Let’s move on for now……the conserv think tanks like American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation are the sources of all their policy papers (by they I mean GOP)  and the biggest one is Heritage their academic papers have given us all the issues we debate today…..slashes in social programs, and now they have one on immigration……this should be a good one for the prez of the organization was a Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint.  I believe his years in the Senate that he authored maybe one bill but he is however a master of campaigning and getting conservs elected……and usually by any means to include false information……

The newest paper is the party line for the GOP on immigration……and the paper shows their racist underpinnings……

Jason Richwine, the coauthor of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s controversial study on the supposed $6.3 trillion cost of comprehensive immigration reform, has received much attention and criticism for his 2009 Harvard dissertation that argued there was “a genetic component” to racial disparities in IQ. But this dissertation wasn’t the first time Richwine had expressed such views publicly. In 2008, he told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute that “major” ethnic or racial differences in intelligence between the Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants who flocked to the United States at the turn of the 20th century and the immigrants coming to the US today justified severely restricting immigration.

………Richwine argued for restricting immigration based on IQ differences, which he believes are partially the result of genetic differences between ethnic groups. In the dissertation’s acknowledgements, Richwine wrote that “no one was more influential” than AEI scholar Charles Murray, coauthor of the much-criticized book The Bell Curve, which argued that racial disparities in IQ are partially the result of genetic differences between races. After the Post broke the story about the dissertation, the Heritage Foundation distanced itself from Richwine’s immigration reform study.

Richwine closed his remarks with what he called a thought experiment: “Imagine if early immigrants in the 20th century—say, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews, the Irish. Imagine if we replaced them with say, Australian Aborigines, Pakistanis, and Cambodians. Can we really say with any kind of rational argument that they today would be considered absolutely indistinguishable from the white majority, that there would be no cultural differences between them? I think it’s very difficult to make that argument.” No one at the event seemed bothered by Richwine’s remarks—in fact, when he was finished, he received a smattering of applause from the audience.

Reminds of some random racist asshole from the 1990′s who used race and intelligence to state why Blacks were inferior…….I cannot recall his name but he was proven to be a racist academic that the lunatic Right fell in love with and quoted for weeks on end……And this whack-a-doodle can walk back his observations and statement but there is a transcript of what he said……

Here is the full transcript of Richwine’s statement at the 2008 event:

Despite the fact that I like the book overall, I have to say that I disagree with the very first sentence of the book. That was the introduction. I’ll just read very quickly: “What’s different about immigration today as opposed to a century ago is not the characteristics of the newcomers but the characteristics of our society.” I half agree with that. No argument at all from me that—our society has changed in ways that make it less amenable to assimilating immigrants, no doubt about it. But the argument that immigrants themselves are no different from the ones that came a hundred years ago I think is quite wrong. And I think that the major difference here is ethnicity, or race if you will. I think that race is important for two main reasons. One is that human beings as a species are a naturally tribal group of people. We have inside outside groups, we have families, for one example, family comes first in virtually every society. We tend to be very attuned to even small trivial differences between groups. I don’t mean to suggest that I think this is a good thing. I wish we could be more universalist, but the reality is that we are not going to be that way and we should not be basing policy on that either.

The second reason I think that race is important, is that there are real differences between groups, not just trivial ones that we happen to notice more than we should. Race is different in all sorts of ways, and probably the most important way is in IQ. 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. You can see that when you combine these two things, group differences in ability, combined with a natural tribal disposition, is going to create usually parallel cultures within a multiracial society, rather than an assimilated culture. And I think that is a major, major, obstacle to the assimilation of today’s immigrants, because they are not from Europe, which is I think a major difference which Mark sort of tries to avoid discussing.

I know what the common response is here, and Mark mentions it in his book for a little bit. Which is they say something like the Irish used to be considered nonwhite and now they’re white today, and the Sicilians were the same way. Could you imagine the Sicilians—well, they’re white today. This is based on a syllogism that is fairly obviously false right? The syllogism if you work it out logically goes like this: It says, some people in the past who were thought to be unassimilable actually ended up being assimilated. Therefore everyone who we think of as unassimilable will be actually be assimilated later on. Obviously you can see the fallacy here, where you can’t generalize this claim without evidence.

I think that there are a number of counterexamples here already in America, we have blacks, we have American Indians, and even early Mexican Americans, who have been living in the country for a long time, and who have not assimilated into the cultural mainstream as typified by white Americans. Obviously I think with blacks we know that, at least in my opinion, I think black and white culture has actually if anything diverged in the last 50 years rather than converged. American Indians have been here a long time, and we still have Indian reservations. And Mexican Americans, we tend to think of them as being here only recently, and I believe it’s something like three quarters of them have been first or second generation immigrants today. But they’ve been around since the Mexican-American War. Several thousand families were already living in the areas that the United States acquired during that war. And they’ve been here ever since, and I don’t think that they’ve been defined as white, certainly not by Europeans and really not by themselves either, except in the cases where they’re trying to distinguish themselves from being black.

In fact, it’s interesting that as part of the deal with Mexico, Mexican Americans were given a legal definition as white by the United States government, because they had to conform to the Naturalization Act which had reserved it to white people. Even that legal definition has not changed their status. I don’t know if Mark is going to get a chance to respond directly to what I’m saying, but if he does, I think it would be a good place to start by answering a question I’m about to pose in the form of a thought experiment, which is just to imagine if early immigrants in the 20th century—say, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews, the Irish—imagine if we replaced all of them with, say, Australian Aborigines, Pakistanis, and Cambodians, imagine if they were the immigrants in the early part of the 20th century.  Can we really say with any kind of rational argument that they today would be considered absolutely indistinguishable from the white majority, that there would be no cultural differences between them? I think it’s very difficult to make that argument. So I think that would be a good place to start. I see your triangulation attempt in the book when you say immigrants are no different than anyone else. It’s helpful because at least you can say, I’m not like Richwine, and people like me. Nevertheless, I think it would be a lot healthier to discuss the racial issue here, because it’s here, it’s not going away, and we can’t wish it away. I do not believe that race is insurmountable, certainly not, but it is definitely a larger barrier today than it was for immigrants in the past simply because they are not from Europe.

This is the types of people the Heritage uses to write their “academic” white papers….now does any of that sound like they are truly wanting to expand the party beyond old white guys…….they are failing miserably or they were never that serious about that fabled Big tent.