It will be fascinating to see what happens. Clearly there are some serious potential downside risks. Most of Latin America seems to see-saw between leftist populism and right wing strong men. This seems a somewhat predictable outcome of mass democracy in poorly educated societies.

I’m personally hoping that we can Americanize our Latin (mainly Mexican) immigrants faster than they can Latinize our political culture. But I have no idea what will happen. It seems both the Repubs and Dems are trending in the direction of populism.

A lot may come down to voter registration. Right now the Latin impact is muted since most don’t participate in politics. Personally I think this is a good thing. I know we are supposed to worship at the altar of participatory democracy, but I’d prefer that somebody with only a 4th grade education not actually vote. Having masses of uneducated voters has the potential for really destructive economic policies.

That said, I’m in favor of large scale Latin immigration. I want American large, populous, and growing. And of the regions of the world with excess population, Latin America produces reasonably assimilable people. Right now I get the best of both worlds – the economic and population boost, without the leftist populism and authoritarianism.

I’ve lived in Houston for twelve years, which puts me on the front lines of this debate. In Texas, we generally have a better relationship with Latin immigrants than they do in California (Prop 187 would not fly here), probably because Texas public benefits and taxation are minimal, and the business climate is hospitable to entrepreneurship (so immigrants are not seen as freeloaders).

I wonder if Latin America’s penchant for populism and strongmen is more a legacy of the viceroy system and Mexico’s mandarin system (example, Carlos Slim’s monopoly on cell phone service in Mexico) than anything inherent in Latin outlook? India is also a poorly educated country that, after a flirtation with socialism, has embraced the free market, while Spain and Italy are both rich and educated but have alternated between strongmen and populists.

Assuming it’s a legacy of the viceroy system, the hope is that we can give Latin immigrants a stake in “the way we do things” before some politician can corrupt them. In the past, the US withstood waves of immigration from Germans, Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans because there was unchallenged notion that our way of doing things was the right way, but with multi-culti, I’m not sure we can. Then, although there was local corruption (Tamany Hall and the Daleys), it did not threaten the Anglo system because government was much weaker than business.

I’m in favor of large scale Latin immigration. It works here in Texas. Much of the criticism is recycled from 1880’s issues of Harper’s or McClure’s magazine…The US is a Protestant country, Jews will never be assimilated, Sicilians are not even white people…Pat Buchanan too will look ridiculous in 50 years.

I’m in favor of large scale Latin immigration. I want American large, populous, and growing. And of the regions of the world with excess population, Latin America produces reasonably assimilable people.

...reasonably assimilable people with average IQs almost a full standard deviation below the American average. We’re not going to do any better as a more populous nation if our average national IQ declines, especially when east Asian nations, whom we are most likely to compete with for world power in the future, already have average national IQs higher than America’s, which are they exploiting extremely effectively in high-tech sectors.

You have a pretty poor understanding of IQ if you think that a minor change in lifestyle will somehow effect it. I suggest you check out Linda Gottfredson’s writings on her website and educate yourself about the issue before discussing it further.

Interesting correlation there. Florida (where I grew up) is the same way as Texas, with thousands and thousands of Latino entrepreneurs from every country south of the border. And Florida is known for being a pro-business state as well. (No income tax! Crazy homestead exemption! Yay!)

But there’s an outlying data group here: it seems to me that Asian immigrants (whether east, southeast, south or west) generally do better in the US than Latino immigrants, both in California and elsewhere. So I wonder what it is about California and Latinos that doesn’t mesh. Perhaps the culture surrounding poor Mexicans in southern California is the problem here, and not necessarily the policies of the state in general? I don’t know enough about California to say, myself.

What about New Mexico? Steve Sailor cites New Mexico state as an argument for restricting immigration.

Does anyone here know anything about New Mexico? I have been there twice on business. So, I do not know it well.

“I’ve lived in Houston for twelve years, which puts me on the front lines of this debate. In Texas, we generally have a better relationship with Latin immigrants than they do in California (Prop 187 would not fly here), probably because Texas public benefits and taxation are minimal, and the business climate is hospitable to entrepreneurship (so immigrants are not seen as freeloaders”

I teach in a community with a rapidly growing Hispanic population. It is eye-opening to see how these families live. Often both parents work, and despite not being here legally and speaking limited English, they are able to afford newish vehicles and nice clothes and gold jewelry for their children (gold is cheaper in Mexico, but it’s not dollar store cheap). I respect their work ethnic, but it bothers me to see some game the system, getting free school meals, food stamps and WIC for their US-born children, yet they drive SUVs and fashionably dress their kids. Since they have false papers and often work under the table, it’s easy to underclaim household income. US citizens and green card holders can game the system, too, of course.

“reasonably assimilable people with average IQs almost a full standard deviation below the American average. We’re not going to do any better as a more populous nation if our average national IQ declines, especially when east Asian nations, whom we are most likely to compete with for world power in the future, already have average national IQs higher than America’s, which are they exploiting extremely effectively in high-tech sectors.”

Solid research into the US black-white test score gap shows that the causes are environmental, not genetic. See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Skip down to the bottom third of the page and you will find research showing that adopted black and mixed-race children raised by white mothers have much higher IQs than adopted black and mixed-race children raised by black mothers. DNA research shows no correlation between IQ scores and the amount of European ancestry in African-Americans.

International IQ comparisons are meaningless. There are so many environmental factors that determine IQ, from educational experiences to diet to birth spacing, that proving genetic IQ differences between different branches of our complex human DNA family tree is an impossible, pointless endeavor.

First, we must separate Latin America from Mexico/Central America, they are two different things. Second, we must remember that cultural exchanges flow both ways. Mexicans (and Central Americans to a lesser extent) often go back and forth and send quite a bit of money back to their homelands. Their political power down there as begun to grow and no matter the level of the economic ladder they live here, they cannot help be see that things run more smoothly and more transparently in El Norte. Using Mexico as in illustrative case, a split in both the view of the US and of how an economy should function has formed in Mexico. In the last Presidential election the Mexican states that voted for the more business-oriented, pro-American candidate were in the north. Precisely the states that have more trade and exposure to the United States. (it was close to a clean North/South split )
Mexico is also continuing to grow richer and more middle class , though it has a lot of obstacles working against it.

On a final note, Mexicans are multi-racial. The majority of Mexicans who come to the US now are Indian (indigenous, not sub-continental), often from small rural villages that never got much notice or help from the central government. 40-50 years ago, Mexican migrants were more likely from cities, European (or more clearly Meztizo). Indians never got a truly fair treatment in Mexico, despite all it’s myth-making about it’s Meztizo self-image. I kind of like the idea of the Indians I see everyday in Chicago slowly growing into rich Americans as well as serving as vessels for entrepreneurship and taking risks into the Gap.

I would only ask that Mexico made it possible for American pioneers to start businesses and own land in Mexico just as easily.

As for the different treatment of immigrants in California vs. other states, consider this:
“From 1985 to 1990, two-thirds of all Mexican immigrants settled in California, Professor Massey said, but from 1995 to 2005, that figure dropped to one-third.” from here