Comments to Steve Sailer:
* I’ve been pretty interested in what Scott Adams has written about Trump. What’s interesting is that, as a candidate, Trump appears able to define issues and then make others argue against his position. Adams claims this is because Trump uses the tactic of anchoring from business negotiations and applies it to politics masterfully. Trump seems able to proactively define the agenda on issues instead of reactively responding, so he has an initial position of strength instead of offering rebuttals and counters to predefined positions.
* A bunch of liberals the other day sat around and were basically kicking themselves for not being able to top Trump’s proposal, here’s the clip.
I like how they’re now asking how would you even tell if people are Muslim. Weren’t they just telling us that the Obama administration would be able to screen for radical ideology? Now we can’t tell what religion people are?
It’s amazing how the media shoots at you from all angles. When they hear an idea they don’t like, they try to convince you
1) It’s impractical (“How will you tell people are Muslim?”)
2) It’ll make the problem worse (“Doing the bidding of ISIS!”)
3) It’s “contrary to our values”
If you refute one of these arguments, they’ll start debating on a different plane. Trump refuted (1) by pointing to Operation Wetback, so they just moved on to (3).
When I started seeing (2), it was really disheartening. “We need the help of the Muslim community, this will alienate them!” Yes to deal with the immigration problem you need the help of immigrants, which means you need more immigrants indefinitely, lest the ones we let in kill us all.
* They can’t make proposals, because if they do, they lose.
If they propose to “do nothing” they become responsible for all future attacks, and they make themselves look ineffectual, uncaring, and oblivious.
If they say “do x” they are admitting that Muslim immigration is a problem and so concede the most important point in the debate. The debate then devolves into quibbling over details.
If they start making actual proposals, they are Farooked no matter what they propose. That is why they have to drown out the debate itself.
* Steve the problem is that government does not WANT to screen immigrants. More voters for Dems. So the process has to be end-around government.
Allow US citizens to sue and collect from both governments AND officials when immigrants who are let in do damages to ordinary people. There is much talk of piercing the corporate veil, to allow suing of corporate officers in various lawsuits. Oh such as, GM covering up its ignition problems leading to … death.
The same thing has to happen here. Allowing not only the Federal Government to be sued, but also NGOs making money and critically, government officials. Even years after they leave office.
Its one thing for a government official to think, “F- you Americans. President Obama! has ordered me to admit half the ME ESPECIALLY the terrorists because they haven’t been hugged enough get Y-T. Achmed here screaming he wants to kill Jews and Christians is going to be your next door neighbor and health inspector!” What did you expect him to do, exhibit moral super powers?
It is another thing for him to fear, “God-damn, I could lose my house and have to live in Baltimore not some nice place in Virginia if I let in this screaming jihadi. F-you Obama! I’m keeping my house.”
It is a matter of incentives. Demanding moral supermen is a recipe for failure. Of course pushing a piercing of the government veil will be very hard, but its a good discussion to have, as it points out the incentives to make Dem leaders happy at the expense of Joe Average shot dead at a Christmas Party.
* How about no more black immigrants until we figure out what to do with all the black-related crime, mayhem, rape, murder, rage, etc.?
That makes more sense.
Blacks do far more damage than Muslims.
* I agree that Scott Adams has some of the most interesting comments on trump. On this issue, his opinion is that trump is playing the odds that there will be another terrorist attack somewhere in the world before the election, and at that point no other candidate will be set up like he is to play the adult in the room.
I like Steve’s idea that other organizations should be the model, and think we should make it more specific. For example, “Why are the admissions policies of the US like the University of Phoenix, when they could be like Harvard’s?”
* Scott Adams is right.
Trump isn’t really coming from right or left he’s operating on instinct and sniffing out the best policies for maximum votes – effectively he’s negotiating with the electorate.
Those polices will be a *mixture* of left and right and in particular slowing/halting immigration will appeal across the board and bite great chunks out of the Democrat base while at the same time enthusing the white blue collar Republicans people like Romney can never reach.
The only people opposed will be the oligarch class and people who have a desperate craving to see white people turned into a minority.
* One obvious truth that hasn’t received any scrutiny in America is that the entire Third World has now figured out how to game America’s immigration system. Someone sitting in Accra who wants to come to America not only has access to information on how to go about it, he or she now also has an accomplice (relatives, friends) in Columbus, Ohio, to grease the scheme. The consular officers at our posts must be overwhelmed. Assuming only a 2% success rate for the schemers, it is still a large number of people LEGALLY coming in every year who shouldn’t have been granted a visa in the first place.
* It’s a general pattern that knowledge on how to scam institutions is readily available these days. Our society has invested heavily in defenses against some kinds of grifts, but not much against others, such as immigration and scamming on standardized tests.
* No mystery. He’s following two of the most basic rules in business.
Find a niche and fill it.
Give the customers what they want.
* Any American citizen who wants to vote has to be on a voter registry. The data on these rolls is public information and gets packaged and sold by corporations. The point is that you can’t expect privacy and anonymity while simultaneously exercising your rights associated with citizenship.
Why should immigration be a private affair? Why not create a publicly searchable database on prospective immigrants, load up all of their data, and then offer a bounty to people who a.) can invalidate any presented information and b.) add new information which would disqualify the prospective immigrant?
These people want to “join” us so better that they get used to private info becoming public. If their right to privacy is important to them then they can exercise that right in their home country.
* As someone who has been through the immigration process it is like dealing with the worst possible day at the DMV and then doing it over and over again. Around half the staff speak very poor English, some to the point of being almost impossible to understand. The guy that tested my knowledge of English had difficulties speaking the language.
At one point in the process I received a letter from them requiring me to turn up in person. The letter was addressed to someone else. I called them and was told I had no reason to turn up. Being cautious I got a lawyer involved and he said it was in fact for me and if I had followed the advice given I my application would have been denied.
You get finger printed over and over again for no discernible reason.
At the first actual interview I had the guy muttered “I can’t believe people like you think you can just come here and start businesses”.
At the swearing in ceremony (in LA at least) armed US Marshals stand giving hate stares into the audience with their hands on their weapons while someone gives a speech about what a great country the US is. I thought the Marshals must have been there looking for someone but when late arrivals had their own ceremony they went over and performed the same routine.
My overall impression was one of astonishing incompetence.
* Someone in an earlier thread was writing about expanding Harvard’s entering class to be 3 million and thus solving the education problem, well why don’t we model immigration so that it matches Yale’s Skull and Bones secret society – every prospective immigrant has to apply before ALL OF US, and each of us can black ball anyone we don’t like?
* The procedure is already rigorous if ICE and the embassy do as they should. I have heard stories of interviews where the embassy people were so tough on Colombian girls they cried. You need to take elaborate stuff with you, hard copies of messenger chat sessions, tickets, receipts, pictures and be prepared for a grilling.
If you clamp down and add steps on the whole process you mess with people who generally are doing the right thing. I know this is sort of a variation on the Not All Muslims Are Like That. But this is kind of like the whole nobody had rules that said don’t fly airplanes into buildings because nobody flew airplanes into buildings before.
Single women coming to marry someone are about the least immigration threat ever. Even if there is a Russian girl that gets a beta to marry her for a green card, then you get one more hot Russian girl in the US and that in my opinion is OK, especially when ugly fat Central American kids can just stumble across the border and get taken care of.
But Latin American women coming through K visa process have high rates of sticking in the Marriage. Only DR had women with divorce rates approaching US divorce rates. In a way, the whole process is a vetting of the seriousness of both parties, lots of forms, requirements, time, BS. The bad side of it is that feminists screaming has led to more scrutiny about the US male then the foreign female.
To me, adding more complexity and vetting for K visas is like adding airport security crap to search grandmothers when obviously it is Arab men that are the risk.
I say screw em, cut off K visas to Arab countries. Kills a whole bunch of birds with one stone, eliminates Jahidi girls, cousin marriage, slows down a rapidly growing the muslim population, and even providing a disincentive to Muslim men to come here if they can’t bring a woman in to marry.
Let them go to Germany or someplace.
Then create a line at airports manned by bouncers from nightclubs that check out the line of foreign females from non-muslim countries wanting into the US.
And they just pull back the rope and let all the hot ones come right on in.
* One has to understand that there are two basic types of visas: nonimmigrant visas, and immigrant visas. Nonimmigrant visas are the ones that are adjudicated very quickly (two minutes), but the important part is that the applicant has no right to enter the USA – he has to prove to the consular officer that he’d be a good tourist, business meeting attendee, etc. Rejection of his application is not reviewable by a court; it’s the end of the line.
Immigrant visas, such as K-visas (fiancee visas) are processed totally differently. They start at USCIS, a component of DHS, which reviews all the materials, etc., and then they are sent to an embassy or consulate for a consular officer to conduct an interview. The vetting is pretty extensive, HOWEVER, the real issue is this: the American citizen basically has a right to get his immigrant fiancee (or spouse, or parent, etc) admitted, and either USCIS or the consular officer has to surmount a pretty high hurdle in order to keep someone out. Rejection of an application can end up in court, and petitioning relatives also often ask their congressman to weigh in on their behalf. There’s a lot of institutional pressure to admit these people.
In summary, nonimmigrant visa applicants have to prove they should be admitted; immigrant visa applicants come in with an assumption of admissibility and the government has to prove that they _shouldn’t_ be admitted. It’s hard to prove a negative.
* I bet Trump could get a lot more black votes than other Republicans by framing it this way:
“Yes, many WEAK BLACKS will not like what I say because they can’t succeed without the patronizing excuses and handouts of liberals. WEAK BLACKS will always vote for the Democrats, and I can’t change that. But, STRONG SMART BLACKS who don’t need handouts and excuses are STRONG enough to vote for me. STRONG, SMART BLACKS find liberal attitudes patronizing and demeaning. I welcome their votes.”
Telling blacks tender lies hasn’t helped previous Republicans (e.g., Bush 43 and Kemp), so why not appeal to black pride instead?
* Rational discrimination exists for rational reasons — i.e., their behavior. Thus, the War on Noticing that attempts to make the rest of us less rational.
The best way to minimize rational discrimination against immigrants who behavior is rationally objectionable is to let fewer of them into the country.
