On Immigration

We have quite a few folks coming to this blog who are opposed to immigration. To be honest, almost everyone in the US who is opposed to immigration is White, and to some extent, it's associated with White nationalism.

There are also anti-immigrant sites out there like Vdare, but they are almost always on the crazy end of the spectrum. Vdare is not White nationalist, but they do want to end all immigration altogether. On the far moderate end of White nationalism, we have American Renaissance. I do like to hang out there because it's nice to hear real, honest talk on race for once.

In general, the White nationalists on Amren want to end non-White immigration altogether.

I'd like to point out that this is a crazy and extremist point of view. Furthermore, Whites are only 65% of the US in 2006 according to this chart, and possibly less. 2% of the US is Muslim, and the overwhelming majority are not Europeans. Another .5% of the population are Indian-Americans. 1% of the population are Arabs, mostly Christians. Let us reduce the Euro-White population to 61.5%.

I suppose with a White population declining like this, we would expect to see wild and crazy proposals like this. It's really just a sign of desperation.

Few non-Whites want to limit immigration this strictly, and even many Caucasians don't. Keep in mind that most White nationalists call only Europeans White. Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Indians - none of them count.

So almost everyone who is not a European White in the US has recent immigrant roots and does not want to end immigration. We should feel lucky if they want to limit it at all.

Arabs, Turks, Kurds, North Africans, Africans, Hispanics of all types (even White Hispanics), Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, SE Asians, Filipinos, Polynesians, East Indians, Central Americans, Caribbeans, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis - none of these folks are on board for an immigration moratorium.

That leaves us the 61.5% Euro-Whites? Now, we would need over 80% of European Whites to get on board for an immigration moratorium. Not going to happen. They would be very lucky to get even 50%.

Looking around the world, we would be very hard-pressed to find even one country that has banned all immigration. Someone find me one, please!

Japan and Korea are always being brought up, but there are plenty of immigrants in both places. What may be a lot more difficult there is getting citizenship.

But that's not unusual, nor is it the point here. Germany had race-based citizenship until recently, and may still have it. Syria and probably other Arab nations has race-based citizenship (The Kurds have not even been allowed to be citizens, because they are not Arabs!)

So White nationalists are really changing the subject here. We ask them to show us some countries who have been so crazy as to ban all immigration, and they point to Japan and Korea, who have merely made it difficult to be a citizen, while immigrants are fairly common (indeed, Jared Taylor, head of Amren, was an immigrant in Japan for years).

So the truth is that there are almost no nations that have banned immigration altogether. Why are White nationalists promoting this then? Because they are nuts.

At this point, this project isn't going anywhere, like every White nationalist project.

So I would say it's time for those of us on the anti-immigrant spectrum to cut our losses and do some damage control. As immigration isn't going to be ended, sensible folks ought to focus on limiting it. Negative Population Growth advocates an end to illegal immigration to the extent possible, a removal of all illegal immigrants, and a reduction in legal immigration to 200,000. This is reasonable, and I support that organization.

Here is a good example of the White nationalist mindset from my comments section:

Why do Whites oppose massive non-White immigration?

Because non-White immigration causes higher crime, declining standards in education and morality, more drugs, more economic degradation and economic inequality, more strife/suspicion/competition between ethnic groups, more welfare and big government, more overpopulation and pollution, and so on.

ALL countries and empires have eventually fallen or balkanized after being swamped by millions of 'immigrant' invaders, even the non-White empires and countries -- and the same is now happening in America.

Those opposing massive non-White immigration to America are more opposed to the decline of America than they are against other races and ethnicities. If they are against other races or ethnicities it is because their presence hastens and is an obvious sign of this decline.

You will find this mindset all over Amren, and probably deep down inside Vdare, too.

The problem with this is that it is in large part false. The notion that immigration leads to inevitable strife, group competition, environmental degradation in an already crowded nation, etc. is going to be true with any group of immigrants.

However, White nationalists are pro-natalists who cheer stories about White women having 18 kids, so they really shouldn't talk about overpopulation leading to environmental degradation. Furthermore, your average White nationalist is a hard rightwinger, and at least their voting patterns suggest that they are quite hostile to environmentalism.

All of the other points are not true for non-White immigration in toto. There is no problem with "non-White" immigration per se, but there are problems, sometimes major problems, with select groups.

As a good rule, less restricted immigration from US colonies, of refugees and illegal immigration is problematic because of a lack of a rigorous selection process that winnows out many applicants. Legal immigration with a rigorous selection process has been associated with few problems, except in the odd case of Dominicans from the Dominican Republic.

Let us look at the "non-White" immigrant groups in the US:



South Americans: No problems here. They are very well-screened, and with the exception of some Colombians in New York City, pretty well behaved. It's not a large group. There are small Peruvian, Ecuadorian and Argentine enclaves in Los Angeles, and there are Venezuelan enclaves in Florida and Texas.


Japanese: Always one of the best immigrant groups. There are enclaves in San Francisco and Gardena, California. The enclaves are safe as far as the Japanese go, but Gardena now has many Blacks. When I taught school in Los Angeles, the non-PC teachers used to joke, "Gimme a class full of Japs and Jews and I'll never complain."

A teacher friend of mine was asked to fill out a form that idiotically said, "Ethnic preference". He was White, but he put, "Japanese". The principal called him in and asked, "What do you think you're doing? You're not Japanese." He answered, "It said ethnic preference. I prefer to teach Japanese students." I was amazed that Japanese students got a little squirrelly in 8th grade.

All humans are horrible at age 13, but I thought maybe the Japanese transcended that. They didn't, but they were the breeziest 8th graders I've ever taught. By 9th grade, they were back to normal, and by 7th grade, they were still ok. If all kids were like this, parenting could be done with your eyes closed.


Chinese: See Japanese. There are many new immigrants with poor English who are are adding to already existing Chinatown enclaves in many large cities, but this problem will sort itself out. There is poverty in Chinatowns, but there is little crime. For some reason, poverty in Chinatowns is not a serious societal problem.

There are also quite a few exploited Chinese illegal immigrants, but almost all are working in Chinatowns and speaking Chinese on the job. They are taking few, if any, jobs from Americans. Very low crime rate. Chinatowns are safe places in the daytime at least and generally pleasant at night.


Koreans: More or less the same as Chinese. They are probably better assimilated than Chinese. There is a vast enclave in Los Angeles (Koreatown) and a large enclave in Garden Grove, California. The enclaves are safe both night and day. Very low crime rate.


Vietnamese: Most came as refugees and got off to a rocky start. There are some gangs, but overall it appears that their crime rate is far below Whites. Their criminals generally prey on their own.

Young Vietnamese in Orange County, California are becoming a new high-achieving elite. This is the highest scoring group in the CA school system and US Irvine is full of Vietnamese students. They have formed some ethnic enclaves, but the young ones are assimilating, and even their enclaves are pleasant, non-dangerous places in both night and day. One large ethnic enclave is in Garden Grove, California.

There is an enclave in Richmond, California that has a high crime rate and is not doing well, but this seems to be anomalous.


Khmer: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves, especially in Long Beach and Santa Ana, California. There is still heavy welfare use, but a new generation is coming up. There are some youth gangs, but overall, the crime rate seems low. Khmer enclaves are pleasant and not dangerous at least in daytime.


Hmong: This group of refugees still has very heavy welfare use. There are also gangs, but the overall crime rate seems much lower than the White rate, at least here in Fresno. There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Minnesota.

The new generation is coming of age, going to school and doing well. Highly intelligent; they resemble Chinese. Their enclaves are not that pleasant and tend to be poor and rundown, but don't seem to be all that dangerous. Their criminals generally prey on their own.


Mien: There are enclaves in Northern California in Davis and Merced in the Central Valley. They are refugees that came in with the Hmong. In appearance and behavior, they are very Chinese like the Hmong.

A friend of mine worked in Social Services in Davis and said she would go to these poverty-stricken, blighted, rundown, hellhole apartment complexes and visit the Mien welfare families. The parents would be sitting on the floor eating out of a rice bowl and did not speak a word of English. They seemed like they were fresh out of the jungle of SE Asia. The walls would be covered with the kids' report cards - all A's. Think about it.

On balance, seems to be a good group. High welfare use is balanced by a crime rate probably way lower than Whites, and the kids seem to have a good future.


Lao: This group of refugees still has high welfare use, and there are youth gangs. The young people seem to be doing well, going to school, graduating, moving on. Despite the gangs, the crime rate seems to be much lower than the White rate, at least in Fresno. There are enclaves in Fresno and Santa Ana, California. Their enclaves are poor and run-down, but not that dangerous for non-SE Asians.

They are part of the high-crime, poorly-performing Asian enclave in Richmond, California that is so far pretty anomalous.


Khmu: Khmu from Laos are part of the poorly-performing, high-crime Asian enclave in Richmond, California, along with Vietnamese, Lao and Samoans. So far, this situation is pretty anomalous. This seems to be a case of very poor Asian refugees moving into a horrible Black ghetto and aping the worst Black behaviors.

I don't have any data on Khmu other than the Richmond report, and on that basis, I'm inclined to mark them as a problem ethnic group, but to tell the truth, I lack good data on them, and they really are a miniscule group anyway.


Thai: Not a large group, but there are some enclaves in Los Angeles. They seem to be doing well and are out of poverty. Little or no gangs or crime. Professionals, owners of shops and restaurants.


Burmese: A tiny group that seems to be doing quite well, at least those I met.


Tibetans: A very small group that is active politically. No known problems. Behaviorally resemble Chinese.


Filipinos: A much-vilified group, even by other Asians. There are youth gangs. They form large enclaves in California in Carson, Wilmington, north of downtown Los Angeles and in San Fransisco. There are also a number in the Central Valley.

I have no idea what the crime rate is, but their enclaves in the Harbor area are pleasant enough at daytime. I taught them in school for a long time and felt they were well-behaved and pleasant students. Some are quite intelligent. Filipinos may undergo high selection pressure by US immigration, because they are said to be one of the highest performing immigrant groups of all, and the highest performing of the Asian groups.


Indonesians, Aborigines, Melanesians, Papuans, Malays, Mongolians, Nepalese: For all intents and purposes, these groups don't even exist as immigrant communities in the US. I've never met an immigrant from most of these groups. I have met a few Indonesian and Malay students who were very well-behaved.


Micronesians (Marshall Islands): There are a few of them in the US, but not many. Some have serious diseases, because the islands are a disease haven. As immigrants, they are totally unscreened, as the islands are still pretty much US territory. Overall, little problem. Warm, friendly, pleasant, easy-going people. I do recommend completely cutting these islands off from US colonization.


Polynesians (Hawaiians, Tongans and Samoans): Samoa is still a colony of the US, so they get to come here totally unscreened. I taught them for years in LA, and I really don't mind them too much, but some can be violent.

Easy-going, warm, friendly, pleasant people who like to laugh and party. There are gangs, but Samoans are not a large community, so it's dubious how much of a problem they are. They are reportedly causing major problems in Salt Lake City.

There appear to be some problems with Tongan gangs, but it doesn't seem to be serious because there are just not that many of them.

This is one immigrant group that may on balance be a problem, albeit a small one. They are an issue purely because they are unscreened. Hawaiians are not immigrants in Hawaii, but they are a serious problem there, where they form a vast and teeming underclass. They are not violent so much as thieving. This is not an immigrant issue because Hawaiians are native to the US.


Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans: This group more or less does not exist in the US. Never met one.


East Indians: This is a fairly large immigrant group here in California. H-1B scab guest workers are a problem, but they are not immigrants, so they are best dealt with elsewhere. Here in this part of California, this group is mostly Punjabis.

Punjabis are a very high-functioning ethnic group in the US who cause almost no problems at all. Punjabis in the US have a surprisingly high intelligence, work extremely hard and commit almost no crime. Other Indians are not so common, but they tend to be very high-functioning also, and are often professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a bad idea, but it's not happening yet.


Afghans: A very small group of very high-functioning immigrants. I have met some. Many professionals. Those here tend to be quite secular and even progressive or even Leftist. There is a small enclave in Fremont, California.


Pakistanis: We have some here in California. Here again, a very high-functioning group with few to no problems. Many professionals, some shopkeepers and a few students. Tend to be seculars or even Christians.


Iranians: This group is doing very well in the US. There is an enclave in Beverly Hills, California. The ones who are here are often the rich and secular supporters of the Shah. This group causes almost no problems at all. High education attainment and professional involvement.


Kurds: A very small group that appears to cause minimal problems, but some in Tennessee have formed street gangs for some reason. Little known.


Iraqis: Those here tend to be Chaldean Christians who cause almost no problems at all. We have a few in California. There is an enclave in Michigan. A very traditional group who do not mingle much with outsiders.


Palestinians: We have some in my area. They run small stores, gas stations, bakeries, and cause no problems at all. A very high-functioning group. Most around my place seem to be pretty apolitical. Quite a few are Christians. Warm, easy-going, happy, talkative and very hard-working. A few are militant in a quiet way.


Syrians: Mostly secular, often secular Muslims or Christians. Often well-educated. A small group.


Lebanese: A small group that does quite well. A very large number are Christians. Often run small stores. An enclave in Michigan. Many have been in the US for a long time.


Yemenis: There is a small group around me who run markets. They do very well, are extremely hard-working and cause no problems at all. Tend to be apolitical religious Muslims who are very conservative and traditional.


Turks: A small group in the US who often run stores, dry cleaners, etc. Very well-behaved. Tend to be secular.


Kuwaitis: There are some students here. Tend to be very, very religious Muslims. I'm not aware of any problems though. They seem to go home after school. This is a tiny group.


Jordanians: Secular, often Palestinian, mostly students. I only met one, and she was a militant but secular Palestinian-Jordanian and was very well-to-do. A tiny group.


North Africans: Honestly, I have never met one other than Egyptians. This must be a very tiny group.

The US is not having problems with Kurds, Iraqis, Turks and North Africans like the Europeans are. Mass immigration of Turks, North Africans, Kurds and Arabs as the Europeans did would probably be a disaster - this entire whole group is extremely well-screened, and that needs to continue.


Egyptians: Run gas stations or work in the professions. Many are Coptic Christians. Absolutely zero problems at all. Most here are apolitical, secular and divorced from Middle Eastern issues altogether. Often traditional, even the Copts. Often surprisingly intelligent and educated, as is the case with many Arabs in the US.


Ethiopians: There are enclaves in California's Central Valley and in Los Angeles down around the airport (LAX). This group seems to cause few to no problems. Many are students and are quite intelligent. They very much keep to themselves. Many are Christians. The women are often quite beautiful.


Somalis: Apparently a disaster. They are also causing terrible problems in Europe, especially Norway and Finland. Almost all are coming to the US as refugees, and refugees are typically a more or less unscreened population. In other words, almost anyone gets in. Probably 99% of these Somalis would be rejected if they applied for ordinary legal immigration, but with refugees, they pretty much all get in.

There are not many of them here, but the few that are have quickly descended into an Underclass of chaos, crime, poverty, unemployment and heavy welfare use. These refugees are not appropriate for America.

They come from Africa, and are not the sort of Africans who do well here (see the next listing). They can easily go to other African nations. It won't be ideal, but I assume that in general, they won't starve. There's no reason to bring an African refugee all the way to the US.


Sub-Saharan Black Africans: There are few in the country. There are some Nigerians, but they are often extremely high-functioning professionals. There are reportedly some Nigerian criminals in the US, but the number is not large.

This group undergoes extreme screening (99.5% minimum of Nigerians trying to get in to the US are rejected), which is appropriate. As such, they are surprisingly the highest-performing immigrant group of all. I have only met Nigerians and one Cameroonian, all professionals. Mass immigration of this group would be a nightmare.


Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz: Virtually nonexistent.


Armenians: Some White nationalists say they are not White, so we include them. A very high-functioning group. There are some street gangs in Los Angeles around Hollywood and Glendale, and there is some organized crime also, but overall, they appear to not be much a problem.

There are enclaves in California in Los Angeles (East Hollywood), Glendale and vicinity and around Fresno in the Central Valley. The enclaves are quite safe. Most Armenian crime involves fighting amongst and preying on their own kind.

Here in the Valley this is a very high-performing, intelligent group that is still quite traditional and often still keeps to themselves somewhat. They are farmers and run retail stores, restaurants and repair outfits, work in sales and the professions, and in general, do all sorts of things. Can be very warm and friendly. They have actually formed an elite in this area.


Georgians, Azeris, people of the Caucasus: They barely exist in the US.


Europeans: White nationalists seem to think this group is not a problem, and indeed they are not. Some formed highly criminal and impoverished Underclasses in the US for decades in the past, but they have moved out of that now. In my area, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, etc. (Mediterraneans) form a White elite and do very well, despite some White nationalists who insist they are not White.


Gypsies: Disaster. Fortunately, there are few of them in the US, and it needs to stay that way. They have adopted crime as a way of life. Very few should be allowed to enter the US. A small number are assimilated, out of crime and doing very well, but it's not typical.


Cubans: Hard to say. They have taken over Miami and turned it into a part of Latin America and virtually torn it off from the US. Many are arrogant and refuse to learn English. Miami as a city has virtually done away with the English language. They have formed a Latin American style White reactionary elite that has seriously corrupted Miami.

Miami has one of the most extreme wealth differentials in the US, as the reactionary Cubans have transplanted semi-feudal Latin American economics to their pet city. The wet foot - dry foot policy needs to end, and this group needs to be well-screened at least. I feel that on balance this group is not positive, mostly because they are arrogantly refusing to assimilate and are recreating Batista's Cuba in the US.


Dominicans: Reports indicate that this group is on balance a nightmare. Some are educated and intelligent and doing very well - I know one who is a clinical psychologist. Many others have transformed New York City neighborhoods into crime-ridden Underclass hellholes.

My understanding is that the vast majority of them in Washington Heights in New York came to the US as illegal aliens pretending to be Puerto Ricans, starting in the 1970's. They gave birth to anchor babies who are now all US citizens.

This group needs to be much better screened at the very least. This group formed an Underclass quickly after they came here post-1965, and in general this scenario has continued or even gotten worse.


Puerto Ricans: Same as Dominicans - a nightmare. A colony of the US. As such, they get to immigrate unscreened. Some are highly intelligent, are doing very well and are even in the professions. I know one who is a university professor.

Back East, they have formed crime-ridden, gang-infested Underclass hellholes, especially in New York City. We need to cut this colony loose and let them go their own way. Like Dominicans, they have formed long-lasting Underclass wrecked zones that have lingered or even gotten worse. This is one group that is not climbing out of the Underclass.

Future immigrants need much better screening, but that will never happen as long as Puerto Rico is a US colony. As long as Puerto Rico is a colony, Puerto Ricans can go to the US the same way I can move from California to Nevada.


Jamaicans: Tough call. There are supposed to be some drug gangs around, but I'm not sure how serious of a problem this is. I've met a few who were very warm, pleasant, friendly, hard-working and honest. It does not seem to be a large group. Mass immigration would be a mistake.


Haitians: Although we turn most of them away, there are quite a few in the US anyway. One might think they would form Underclass hellholes, but that does not seem to be the case. I don't know much about them. There are quite a few in New York and Florida.


Other Caribbeans (Virgin Islands, Grenada, etc.): There are not many here. Those who are here are often professionals. I met two who were schoolteachers and were doing very well.


Panamanians: Few, doing well. Very small group.


Costa Ricans: Small group that is doing well in the US.


Nicaraguans: On balance, seems to be a positive group, but little is known about them. Those that I have met were functioning well. Seems to be a small group. There is an enclave in Florida.


Hondurans: This group seems to be a problem. Many are illegals, and are caught up in the usual Mesoamerican illegal immigrant scenario. Doesn't appear to be a really large group. Needs much better screening and needs more research to be done on them - poorly known.


Salvadorans: Disaster. Many came here in the war as refugees and eventually got legalized. Many are in street gangs, selling dope, living in barrios and ghettos, and not doing well.

They have a vast enclave near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles that is probably quite dangerous at night. I have been there in the daytime, and even then it seems run-down, teeming, Third-Worldish, horribly overcrowded, impoverished, chaotic and somewhat Hellish, but I used to walk around there anyway, and nothing ever happened to me. The English language does not exist in this part of Los Angeles.

This group is not working out at all. Needs much better screening at the least.


Guatemalans: Nightmare. Huge numbers are illegal immigrants. Others are caught up in the gangsta thing. Many do not speak English well. This group is doing very poorly. Seem to have very high rates of criminality and gang membership. Needs much better screening at an absolute minimum.


Mexicans: A very complex group that makes up the huge majority of Hispanic immigrants to the US. A vast number of Mexicans are illegal immigrants who have destroyed towns all up and down California and all over Arizona and Texas. They are now fanning out across the US, causing crime and chaos everywhere they go.

Typically, cities with large numbers of Mexicans become run-down, dirty, trash-ridden (they don't believe in trash cans), graffiti-covered, crime-ridden, drug-drenched, gang-infested, noisy, chaotic, dangerous, overcrowded, wrecks. Sex crimes in particular seem to escalate. Petty thievery becomes epidemic. Spanish appears to be the native language and English is sidelined.

Services are quickly overrun, hospitals close and schools are overwhelmed. Very political, and many harbor irredentist and revanchist (in particular) aims on the US Southwest, which many claim as a part of Mexico. This treasonous mindset has also been adopted by the Left and is highly disturbing.

Cities with many Mexicans may quickly become very corrupt. Mexican farm labor contractors utilize employer-employee relations out of the Third World. Cities taken over by Mexicans come to more resemble Tijuana than American cities. Many are hostile towards the US and especially towards Whites. This group, viewed as a whole, is a total catastrophe, and is the main source of immigration problems in the US today.

At the same time, many older Mexican illegals are hard-working, pleasant, polite, generous, family-oriented, religious and very well-behaved, but their children are typically a horror.

There is also a large group of Mexicans who have been here a while, in some cases for over 100 years as the original residents of the US Southwest. In most cases, they are assimilated and doing very well.

Another group came more recently and has assimilated well, though they continue to speak Spanish a lot. Their English is also often fine, and many are light-skinned. This group could be classed as the White Mexicans, and they tend to form a bit of an elite in these Mexican communities, although the extreme racial stratification of Mexico seems to be breaking down in the US. They are often very well-behaved and so are their children.

There is another group that are not necessarily White Mexicans, but are also also assimilating and doing very well.

As you can see, this is a very complex group that is split in two huge classes, one a good-functioning and assimilating group that causes few to no problems and the other a vast Underclass that is a total clusterfuck. There are also probably many that are floating somewhere in between these two vast sets in a transition zone, or into one set and out of another, or back and forth into the transition zone.

At the very least, illegals need to be tossed out or encouraged to leave, Mexican legal immigration must be lowered, and we urgently need to do a lot of research on which Mexican immigrants are likely to join the positive assimilating group and which are going to augment our Mexican Underclass horror.

Continued mass immigration of this group will cause a continuation and vast deepening of the gang and Underclass horrorshow in the US, along with an increasingly radical and militant Mexican politics in the US. As they get into power in some states, Mexicans will tend to promote Open Borders with Mexico.

If they ever get into power, expect to see Spanish made into an official language at the state level at least. If they get into power at the national level, expect Spanish as an official language in the US and an open border with Mexico.

Abortion may be made illegal. Women's rights may nosedive. We may develop a much more corrupt society. Human rights and basic liberties may go out the window in favor of the usual Latin American authoritarianism and lack of respect for the individual.

We may get a politics of either the Hard Left or Hard Right, as in Latin America. Gay rights will take a nosedive. The result of open borders with Mexico would quickly be 1/2 of Mexico in the US, and the US would be transformed just another Latin American country.

This endgame must be resisted at all costs and with all of our might. This is an issue that transcends Left, Right and Center and needs to be put front and center by US patriots of all ethnicities across the spectrum.


Conclusion: There is an urgent need for more research on the immigrant groups that are performing poorly, or at least those have large sections that are performing poorly. Some of these groups, such as Mexicans, have large groups that are doing well, large groups that are doing horribly, and probably a large group drifting in between or in and out of the two main groups.

It is essential to determine the characteristics of those sections of Caribbean and Mesoamerican immigrants that are causing so many problems for our society. This research will be difficult to do because the usual suspects will scream racism at the very mention of it.

No one is talking about keeping certain ethnicities off of the immigration rolls altogether. We are only trying to determine a set of characteristics that winnows the successful from the unsuccessful and then hopefully proceed to a saner immigration policy from there.

Problems with native citizens are bad enough, but you can hardly keep them out of the country - you are more or less stuck with them. Immigrants are guests at best; they are here at our whim and can be expelled or denied entry in the first place as we see fit.

It is sheer madness to import large numbers of persons who are bad for the nation. By that definition, America has been an insane nation for many years now. It's time for some treatment. Time is of the essence and we have little time to wait.

We also need to seriously reconsider family reunification immigration.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Immigration - A Question of Quality

It is quite common in the US for the debate on immigration to be split into polar opposites. On the pro-immigrant side is an utterly insane Open Borders group that seems to more or less argue for unfettered immigration into the US. The overwhelming majority of the US business class supports this for the sole reason of cheap and easily intimidated labor.

On the liberal side of the spectrum, many liberals simply feel it is cruel to keep anyone out of the US who wants to come here. Many others have swallowed the pro-diversity propaganda whole. There is a whole industry out there that is promoting diversity and multiculturalism.

These things are human norms, and human societies have been diverse and multicultural since the beginning of time, so it is insane to argue that these things are unnatural, which is a typical White nationalist argument.

The problem is that diversity, while normal, is not necessarily such a great thing per se. For one thing, various immigrant groups can be poor quality and create many problems for a society. Hispanic immigrants and their offspring are vastly more criminal and problematic that other immigrant groups, or than, say, White Americans.

Long-term resident Hispanics often cause few problems, but the recent immigrants and their children have been a total nightmare. New evidence shows that diversity reduces trust at the neighborhood level. It is common sense that high-diversity societies are often more unstable that monocultural societies.

I am not saying any of this to be a xenophobe. I am just pointing out that it makes little sense to shill for diversity as if it were automatically a good thing in and of itself.

We also have minority groups, in particular Hispanics, who are now pro-immigrant simply out of ethnocentrism and for no other reason. On this, the Left is utterly bonkers. Black and Hispanic ethnocentrism is cheered on wildly, while Whites are forbidden to be ethnocentric themselves.

This Identity Politics has been the curse of the Left since the 1960's. It is now backfiring as a new White nationalist movement comes into being. This movement is nothing but the logical result of Whites creating their own Identity Politics movement after the Left fertilized society with this nonsense cult.

Also, now that the Open Borders crowd has, in the past 15 years, cleverly conned society into thinking that anti-immigrant sentiment (even anti-illegal immigrant sentiment!) is de facto racist, you have many guilt-ridden folks, especially liberals and Centrists, who support even illegal immigration out of fear of being called a racist.

Nearly the entire US environmental movement has gone over to Open Borders, including Earth First and the Center for Biological Diversity. Sierra Club lost its anti-immigrant battle long ago. Since CBD is focussed on endangered species, their position seems particularly insane.

Habitat loss by overpopulation is obviously one of the major causes of environmental damage and the extinction crisis. Anyone who cannot see this is blind. The environmental movement has come out for Open Borders simply out of terror of being labeled racist and for no other reason.

On the opposite side, we have a lot of sensible folks, especially those who want to limit illegal immigration. Even 14 years ago, the debate was much more sensible. In 1994, 40% of California Hispanics voted for Proposition 187 to limit social services to illegals. Now, things have gotten so polarized that I think many of those Hispanics are probably Open Borders folks.

We also have lots of nasty racists, especially White nationalists, on the anti-immigrant side. These people simply do not want any non-White immigration whatsoever, though they are not opposed to the immigration of European Whites (However arbitrarily they may define that group!).

Most of these folks actively dislike everyone who is not White; there are others who do not, but just want to "preserve the declining White race" as if it were an animal subspecies on the Endangered Species List.

There are also the xenophobes. Vdare is a good example of these folks. They just don't like any furriners period. Most people here are not White nationalists at all - they just oppose non-Americans coming to our land.

In general, most of the hardcore anti-immigrant crowd is on the political Right. The Left has granted this entire field to the Right, even on illegal immigration, which, incredibly, almost the entire liberal wing of the Democratic Party seems to support.

There may be less ulterior motives for this. Democrats need Hispanics votes to win, and the only way to get those these days is to support amnesty for 12 million illegals. More cynically, Democrats are supporting illegals as a way to get 12 million new Democratic voters into the US, since 80% of Mesoamerican immigrants are voting Democratic.

Hence it is nice to see someone step out of the box on immigration, like this progressive, Randall Burns, on Vdare actually coming out against illegal immigrants, but focusing his anger on the businesses who hire them. He also makes an argument similar to the one I have made - that mass illegal immigration has been a major factor in both the screwing of the US worker and in the wild inequality gap of the past 35 years .

We need some sense on the immigration debate. In particular, we on the Left and in the environmental movement need to open up some space for the progressives and environmentalists to take sane positions on immigration without fear of being called racists.

First of all, not all immigrants are bad news. It is hard to make a case that legal immigration has been a terrible problem for this country, though we need to drop the numbers way down. The "limit" is now something like 1.1 million legal immigrants.

There is not a lot of evidence that even this level of legal immigration has harmed wages, created crime waves, or done much of anything other than harmed the environment. It is dubious whether legal immigrants take jobs for less wages than US citizens. Most legal immigrants come here and want to work for US wages.

H-1B and the gamut of other "temporary worker" visas are often simply outrageous. Businesses do indeed bring in foreign workers for just about every position imaginable generally for the sole reason of cheap labor. These visas are "non-immigrant temporary worker" visas and last for up to six years!

The whole temporary worker visa BS game needs to be pretty much scrapped. There is little evidence of any labor shortage in any field anywhere in this nation. Most stories about such shortages are simply lies.

Illegal immigration is a catastrophe because the immigrants are unscreened.

With legal immigration, we have a very strict process that winnows out a large number of prospective candidates. The process is so long and drawn out that only those determined to assimilate make it through the program. Once in, they need to be on very good behavior and can be deported for the slightest thing. Legal immigrants in general are not a serious problem in our nation.

With illegal immigration, you are simply importing entire slices of foreign countries wholesale. It's madness. We have no idea who these folks are, and many of them are criminals and bad folks indeed. Their whole time they are in the US they are breaking the law every day in myriad ways. Their employer is breaking the law. They are using fake ID.

When you import an illegal, you've just imported a criminal.

Refugees are another problematic group of immigrants, also because they are unscreened.

I do love SE Asians, but we have had quite a few problems here in California with Vietnamese, Lao, Khmu, Khmer and Hmong gangs. These groups also have huge rates of welfare use, even many years on. It's clear that they are hardly paying for themselves. I think most of these folks will eventually work out.

Yet even where SE Asian gangs are a problem, SE Asians have a low crime rate. Fresno is near here, and the city's crime statistics are interesting.

In Fresno, Blacks have a wildly elevated crime rate, the Hispanic rate is about 3 X the White rate, and the "Asian" rate is much lower than the White rate. But most Asians in Fresno are SE Asians. This implies that even with their gangs, SE Asians have a much lower crime rate than Whites.

Nevertheless, there are reports of Liberian and Somali refugees in the US committing a lot of crime and using a lot of welfare. In Australia, Sudanese refugees have been a nightmare.

In one town where many were settled, their crime rate is eight times the normal rate. At a meeting called by a bunch of liberal do-gooders to whitewash the problem of the Sudanese, a Sudanese refugee stole the briefcase of one of the top liberal presenters!

It seems to me that African refugees can be adequately resettled in other African lands. I do not think that many of these people are going to fit in well with our modern society.

It is interesting that other than some Caribbean and Mesoamerican immigrants, Hispanic immigrants have caused few problems.

We have sizable numbers of Brazilians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians, Costa Ricans, Hondurans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, Chileans, Argentines, Uruguayans and Bolivians in the US. Other than some Colombian drug dealers, most of these groups are causing few to no problems.

The reason is that they are not flooding in here as refugees or illegals. They are coming in as legal immigrants, and we are probably doing a good job of screening them.

On the other hand, Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans have been a nightmare. Vast numbers of all of these groups came here illegally, in the case of the Central Americans, as war refugees. So vast numbers of this group were simply unscreened immigrants. Unscreened means low quality, de facto.

Cubans are a problem in that this is an example of an ingrate immigrant. Since we outrageously automatically let them in as soon as they set foot on land since they are fleeing evil Communism, they have little motivation to assimilate.

Hence they have recreated 1958 Havana in Miami, complete with outrageous corruption, and insane gap between the rich and poor, a corrupt government serves only the rich and spits on everyone else, and a city where English is not necessary. One can go into nice stores and hotels in Miami and you will not find anyone who speaks English. The English language has for all intents and purposes disappeared from this vast city.

One gets the impression that almost no other country on Earth would put up with this sort of insane bullshit.

Unfortunately, Puerto Ricans and Samoans have been problem ethnic groups. This is because they are unscreened! Puerto Rico and American Samoa are colonies of the United States in a world that has decolonized. Because they are US colonies, just about any Puerto Rican and American Samoan gets to come to the US as easily as I can move to New York.

Both groups have a high crime rate and have fallen into Underclass gang culture. The solution is to completely decolonize the US. American Samoa and Puerto Rico need to be set free and cut off the welfare gravy train and Puerto Ricans and American Samoans need to get into the normal immigration line like everyone else.

After 1965, huge numbers of Dominicans from the Dominican Republic flooded into the US as legal immigrants. Now, I like Dominicans just fine and have known a couple of them, but the available information indicates that they have caused a lot of crime, ghettoization and an Underclass in Upper Manhattan - Washington Heights and Inwood - and in much of the Bronx, though legal immigrants.

This is a case where mass immigration of a national group, in this case Dominicans, has not worked out well. The only solution is to get a lot stricter about which Dominicans we allow to immigrate to the US.

It's also true that mass legal immigration of Mexicans to the US has not worked out well. The available data show that even in the 4th and 5th generation, Chicanos have very high rates of high school dropout and gang involvement. They have very low rates of college graduation. We obviously are not doing a very good job of selecting legal Mexican immigrants to the US and we need to be a lot more selective.

For Mexicans and Dominicans, studies should be undertaken to determine which ones are likely to work out well and which are likely to join the Underclass. Perhaps even IQ tests could be used to screen. This is a difficult area and I do not have all the answers.

Immigrants to your country are like visitors to your house. If an immigrant group is causing problems, it's time to evaluate our criteria for letting them in, the same way you deal with troublemakers in your home. By definition, legal immigrants should be a benefit to our nation. Groups are likely to create more problems than benefits are not good for America and need to be subject to a more selective immigration process.

There are some Jamaican gangs, but in general, we do not have a Jamaican Underclass seething in our cities. I do not know much about Haitian immigrants. I am not aware that a teeming Haitian Underclass is a threat to the republic.

White nationalist racists like to say that the problem with some immigrant groups is that they are a genetically low quality group. There is nothing to this. Perhaps if we let whole populations flood in unscreened, we could have this discussion.

East Indians, Filipinos and Black Africans are three groups that do not have extremely high IQ's. All of these places are steaming Third World wrecks. Yet Filipino, Black African and East Indian immigrants have been some of the most wildly successful immigrants of them all. The reason is simple - screening.

No ethnic group is "low quality" per se. Certainly, properly screened, one can find immigrant gold in any race or ethnic group. This ought to be a principle of a sane immigration policy.

On the other hand, letting Black Africans and East Indians flood in here unscreened would probably be a nightmare. They would simply tend to recreate Calcutta or Lagos in the US.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

US Hispanic Racial Dynamics

This is an update to an earlier post, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. For background on the issue, please refer to the previous post.

This post will mostly deal with Hispanics in California, because that is where I live.

In the previous post, we noted that Hispanics seemed to be getting darker (more Indian and Black and less White) with time in California and the Southwest. The first study, done in the early 80's in San Diego, showed CA Chicanos to be 68% White, 30% Indian and 2% Black.

The second study, done in 1998, that show Arizona Chicanos were 57% White, 39% Indian and 4% Black. That figure is about the same as for California 14 years prior. This is because the Mexicans who go to Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have traditionally been lighter than the ones who come to California.

We now have a new study showing that by the year 2000, California Hispanics (overwhelmingly Mexicans and Chicanos) have become much darker over 16 years. The new study includes two surveys - one shows CA Hispanics at 46% White, 43% Indian and 11% Black, while the other shows them at 48% White, 38% Indian and 13% Black. Taken together, the studies show CA Hispanics at 47% White, 40.5% Indian and 12% Black.

CA Hispanics

   White  Indian  Black
              
1984    68     30      2
2000    47     40.5    12

Two new studies were reported in the Southwest US as a whole from 2000. The first found admixture of 64% White and 36% Indian and the second found 66% White and 34% Indian. Another study of the border county of Starr County, Texas (97% Mexican) showed the typical Southwestern mix of 65% White, 35% Indian. No Black DNA was found in any of these studies.

The combined total for the three studies was 65% White and 35% Indian. This is about along the lines with what previous studies had found.

Studies of Hispanic admixture in California, Nevada and the US Southwest represented as pie charts. All charts are from a recent study done in 2000.

What this indicates in that the Chicanos and Mexicans in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado are much Whiter, less Indian and dramatically less Black than those in California. This may be because of California's huge agricultural crops that attract many largely-Indian Mexicans from Guerrero and Oaxaca.

There is evidence that in general, the flow of Mexican immigrants to the US is the same as it has always been - they are coming from the same states as they have always come from:

In general, therefore, we do not find a "changing profile" of Mexican migrants during the 1980s. Rather, despite a few changes, we perceive a remarkable continuity in trends and patterns.

Maintaining a pattern that dates back at least to the 1940s and perhaps even to 1900, recent outflows continue to be dominated by migrants from a handful of western states: principally Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán, and to a lesser extent Durango, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas.

Together these six states have consistently accounted for about half of all Mexico-U.S. migrants, with the border states comprising another 30 percent and the central states making up the remaining 20 percent. Over time, emigration has also become less selective with respect to education, suggesting that the outflow has increasingly been one of the rural and urban poor, predominantly from the western states.

Most Mexican immigrants continue to come from the Northern, North-Central and the West-Central part of the country, traditionally Mestizo areas. Look at these pics of Tejano singers whose ancestors came from those places.

Chihuahua in Northern Mexico has traditionally sent many immigrants to the US. Check out these photos of Chihuahua hotties and see how they are a lot more White than Indian. This phenotype is so common in my town that it is almost ubiquitous.

A typical Mexican-American in the US. They have, in general, a light brown skin color that is well within the range of Mediterranean White populations. Mexicans in Mexico tend to be much darker due to less White admixture (but it varies by region - see below). Mexican-Americans who have been in the US for longer tend to be Whiter, while recent immigrants tend to be more Indian.

Once again, to reiterate, 50% of Mexico's historic immigration has come from the more Euro-Mestizo (Zacatecas is actually the most Mestizo state in Mexico - it has almost no Whites or Indians) rural areas of Jalisco, Zacatecas, Sinaloa, Guanajuato, Michoacan, San Luis Potosi and Durango. These states are Western Mexico or North-Central Mexico.

The border states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Nuevo Leon and Coahuila have traditionally made up 30% of Mexico's immigration. Mexicans in these states are some of the Whitest (Mestizos) in all Mexico.

The reason that those states are Whiter is because they had fewer Amerindians from the very start.

Admixture studies from Mexico as a whole. The only areas with majority-White genes in this chart are in Nuevo Leon, Jalisco and Mexico City. All of these areas also have negligible to zero Black genes. The other areas are generally mostly-Indian or plurality-Indian, except in Veracruz, where Indian and White constitute the largest groups, followed closely by Blacks. In Veracruz, Mexico State, Campeche and Tabasco, there is a substantial Black element totalling around 15-25%.

Combined totals of the three heavily Cuban (and Venezuelan and Nicaraguan upper class in Florida) areas of Florida, New Jersey and the SE US show a population that is 83% White, 10% Indian and 7% Black. This indicates that Hispanics in this area are de facto mostly-White people, though they are mixed race.

Hispanics in Pennsylvania are 83% White and 13% Black, with no Indian. There is a good guess that these are mostly Puerto Ricans and possibly Dominicans.

The Hispanic population of Virginia is hard to characterize - it is 64% White, 21% Indian and 15% Black. There are many Salvadorans in this state, but that does not sound like a Salvadoran racial mix - Salvadorans have little to no Black in them. This group is probably mixed Salvadoran, Puerto Rican, Dominican and Mexican.

All told, the total on the East Coast is 79% White, 10% Indian and 11% Black. The Hispanics on the East Coast are clearly an overwhelmingly-White group of mixed race persons.

Let us look at these figures as a chart:

US Hispanics

         White  Indian  Black

East Coast    79     10      11
Southwest     65     35      0
California    47     40.5    12

Hispanics on the East Coast and in the US Southwest are to this day a mostly-White ethnic group, despite the fevered blatherings of White nationalists.

This can no longer be said about California's Hispanics. California's Hispanic population is now the least White, the most Indian and the most Black of any major region in the US, and it has become much less White, more Indian and dramatically more Black in the past few decades.

References

Peterson, B.L., Su, B. and Chakraborty, R. et al. 2000. World population data for the HLA-DQA1, PM® and D1S80 loci with least and most common profile frequencies for combinations of loci estimated following NRC II guidelines. J. Forensic Sci. 45:118–146.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Cavewomen and Wormboys

A fellow named Zsidozas comments on the Race, Gender and Masculinity/Femininity post. My comments follow:

Zsidozas comments: A personal story - as a White American male I've encountered much hostility from White females because I am not an effete and feminized White American male like so many of the others are these days. I am more aggressive, dominant, and masculine than the majority of White males for sure, but I try to temper this by my strong orientation toward reason, rationality, and learning.

So yeah, I've encountered problems with White women because many view me as an overly aggressive, pushy, and angry asshole / jerk / brute / prick / Viking / Neanderthal, of which I am not at all, but they only view me that way because I am quite a bit more masculine than most White men (who I agree are, on the whole, far too wimpy and resigned for their own good).

I am not a bodybuilder or football player or anything like that, so it's not like I am afflicted by the 'macho male complex' that men like that suffer from.

So I've noticed that many White women think of me as something a bit unnatural or strange and view me with some contempt and suspicion because I am not easily dominated and controlled like the rest of White men.

In fact, I'll argue and bicker with women (of whatever ethnicity) until we are all blue in the face if I believe something strongly as I'm not afraid to back down like so many modern men are -- and I usually win those arguments.

And when I do win those arguments, believe it or not I've had women get violent with me either playfully or for real, like they are trying to get back at me physically for 'beating them' mentally and emotionally in an argument when they are just so used to lording over modern men.

It seems as if many White women, if they date or marry White men as most do, actually sort-of want or prefer a push-over who they can easily control, manipulate, and dominate in many ways (though they still want the man to bring them home some money, of course).

I think this is a rather recent development and a major reason why gender relations are so screwed up in the modern Western White world, particularly in America.

A quick story: I was at a party with my girlfriend the other night that was mostly populated by a bunch of drunken lesbians and overly masculine (but straight) White females, along with their feminized male lackeys. And one of them, in a drunken and pilled-up stupor actually said to me and me girlfriend as we were talking to her [paraphrasing]: "I love to emasculate men. I just like it. It's fun. I do it all the time at work."

And she said it sort-of at me and my girlfriend, like almost a veiled insult toward me or something. I continued to laugh with her and joked around and such, but still I think it was like a veiled insult toward me because she recognized in me a man who refused to be emasculated and feminized like so many modern men.

So I laughed and joked (but was secretly disgusted toward her that she would actually take pleasure in mentally emasculating men and fucking with their egos).

Lame story, but I think it illustrates a decent point about the attitude of most modern White women.

Also, you didn't mention Semitic peoples here like Jews and Arabs. But just a thought: Jewish males are certainly very effeminate (as effeminate as many Asian men, often more), and Jewish females very masculine (maybe even as masculine as Black women).

Ditto with Arabs -- and maybe this is why Arab men are so severe toward their women, like they want to keep them in check or something? Most Jewish and Arab females have, I've noticed, many masculine physical traits like deep/husky voices and hairy bodies, while many Jewish/Arab men have many feminine traits like higher pitched voices and moodiness/high emotionality.

Many men in Arab countries also engage in some behaviors that are considered effeminate or even gayish here in The West like holding hands as they walk together and kissing each other a lot, but they don't think anything of it over there.

However, there is still something that is just intrinsically aggressive about both Jews and Arabs that I can't pin down yet, though I'm looking for reasons -- maybe it's their rather fanatical ethnocentrism? So, if possible, I'd like your thoughts on Semitics (however brief) as well if you don't mind.

Ok, first of all, I do not understand why women would hate an overly aggressive or masculine man, even in the feminized US. But I won't deny you the reality of your experiences. Around here, most of the White guys are pretty machoed out.

Now if you go over to San Francisco, it is a totally different story. The Northern California male is said to be so feminized that many people think that they are gay. Convsersely, the women are often said to be quite masculinized. I never heard this too much when I was in Southern California.

I do not know why this is, but for instance, my brother knows this older guy was paints his toenails like a woman. I heard that and freaked out. I said, "Is he gay?!" Because I think it sucks for a guy to paint his toenails. My brother answered, "No, he is just a Northern California male."

There are some others like that, including a guy well-known to both of us. I will note: "Sometime he acts like a total fag! What the Hell is the matter with him anyway?!" And then I will imitate his ridiculously faggy behavior. My brother responds that this guy is a Northern California male.

Now this guy hooked up with and later lived with a woman for a while who was quite masculine, and I'm not sure what kind of a relationship they had, but they did seem to be happy, so I was very, very happy for them and especially for him, as I have known him forever.

At one point, the relationship started ending, and I heard she was bi or lesbian or something and she had moved her girlfriend into the house with our friend.

Now, this could be fun if they guy got into the sex, but I do not think so. Last I heard she has living with her lez girlfriend.

There is another older guy close to us who has many extremely faggy characteristics: walks like a fag, talks like a fag, etc. I will say: "That guy acts gay!!" and someone will chide me, responding that he's been married five times.

He has some kind of weird relationship with his wife now where he acts all feminine or like a little boy or something, and she thinks it's really cute, and I guess afterwards they fuck like crazy. Whatever. I am happy for both of them though, because she has made a lifetime project out of being miserable, and the guy is at least getting laid, and I cheer that on in all males.

There is another one living in San Francisco married to someone close to us. Everyone (all my close relatives) insists that he acts gay but I do not think he does at all. I just think he acts like me. Hmmmm. But they are very happy together also, so I am happy for them too.

I do not know about Arabs. I dated an Arab woman once, a woman from Egypt who was part Black. She was quite submissive, not bossy or aggressive or anything like that. She was Muslim, but that never got in the way of sex. In fact, she was so incredible that I think I want another one of those Arab women!

I do not think that Arab women are bossy or domineering in their relationships with men, though some are. Saddam's Hussein's Dad was supposedly horribly pussy-whipped by his Mom. I suspect it is probably more common that one might think.

The Philippines has a reputation for being a very sexist place where the males are very macho and do not really treat women all that well. Like Arabs, they frequently beat their women. However, a Filipina I know told me that there is a saying called, "under the saya", which means that a Filipino man is basically pussy-whipped. Saya is skirt.

So he's under his wife's skirt and she controls him. I asked if this was common, and she said it was very common. Keep in mind that in the Philippines, the Arab World and Asia, the woman rules the home. The man just needs to keep out of there.

I read an interview with an Egyptian man and his sons living at home in Cairo. The living room was decorated in frilly pink feminine stuff and the interviewer asked this macho Arab husband if he liked it this way, and he said basically, "Well, it's her house and she can decorate it any way she wants to." I assume the males have some control over the way they want their particular inhabited spaces decorated.

In these places, often the woman controls all the money for the couple, and makes all decisions about household expenditures. My Mom told me a story about a Japanese couple who came to look at a house a friend of hers was selling. The seller asked the Japanese man if he was interested, and he said something like, "That decision is left up to her."

In other words, this poor oppressed Japanese woman actually gets decide what house they buy! It seems to me that these women are not as oppressed as we think that they are, and many Japanese and Arab women resent Westerners and feminists sticking their noses in Japanese or Arab culture and telling them that they are oppressed.

You're often going to get people's patriotic backs up when you do that. Better to let some folks negotiate their way to liberation by themselves.

Jews and Arabs are both highly emotional probably because that is a "Mediterraneanism". In other words, most of the folks in that part of the world tend to act that way.

Arab guys put their arms around each other because this is common in many parts of the world. I had a friend from China who was always trying to put his arm around me in public.

I see Mexican Indian farm workers in town who often walk around with their arms around each other, especially when drunk. I think it is an "Indianism", as you don't see the other Mexicans doing that. This male buddiness does not seem associated with homosexuality in these Indians and it is not in the Chinese.

The Arab World is quite complex. In the Levant and Mesopotamia, homosexuality is despised and treated very harshly, not uncommonly with death. In the Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, opportunistic or even preferential bisexuality is very common and in fact, the religious police often look the other way, as they are more concerned about men and women together! Stupid or what?!

In Egypt, there is fairly free and easy bisexuality among unmarried males, which they may continue after marriage. This is a lot more common in Nubia in Southern Egypt, where people are a lot Blacker, and there is actually a long tradition of that stuff.

In Cairo and in Morocco, many males will play the male role in homosexual sex with a "gay" male, who plays the female role. In many cultures, it's not considered gay to play the male role in gay sex. Most guys who do this are young unmarried males. This is what happens when you forbid young males with a stratospheric sex drive female outlets: they screw each other.

I don't find Arab males feminine at all. In fact, I find them ultra-macho.

The commenter asks about Jewish men and women. Well, I don't think Jewish guys have a reputation for being feminine so much as wimpy. Wimpy and oversexed at the same time! So that is not quite the same thing.

And there is the stereotype of the Jewish woman as neurotic, insecure (she hates her looks and longs to be a blond), controlling, addicted to cheap, tacky and gaudy clothing and jewelry, domineering, histrionic (drama queen), and in particular constantly badgering him to make more money.

There were horror stories by Jewish men about Jewish women dating all the way back 100 years ago to the early Jewish press on the East Coast of the US. In many ways, this stereotype has not changed. The Jewish guy is supposed to marry a Jewish girl, but he often resents their domineering nature, and the stereotype is he wants a blonde shiska. Jewish women, like Black women, complain that their men don't want them.

But most Jews do still marry their own. On the plus side, Jewish women can be very nurturing, and in my opinion, they can be real Stand By Your Man types. I had a Jewish girlfriend who everyone thought was a bitch. People thought she treated me like crap in public and would say, "I hate the way she talks to you!"

Well, in the relationship, she started out as a bitch sometimes, but I turned the tables on that pretty quickly!

I forgot her birthday, forgot our anniversary, got in a big fight with her on her birthday (The most evil, cruel, mean, horrible and insensitive thing I could have done!), calmly laughed in her face at her horrible insults, made her cry repeatedly, called her a bitch and a cunt and all sorts of other horrible names I have never called any woman, and this was one of the best relationships of my life.

She hated me at times, but she hated me for being a man. She called me cruel, mean, asshole, jerk, evil and wicked, and at the end she called me Hitler.

She would horribly insult me to my face. I would respond, "Shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt. Shut up, you dumb bitch, etc., etc," real calm and assured-like.

After a few minutes of that, she would be blubbering like a little girl, "Oh, I adore you so much. Oh, I love you so much. I love you baby. Let's get married, etc. etc."

Oh man! Isn't love grand!

It's a horrible cliche, but a lot of these real bitchy types are really looking for a hard, masculine man to put them in their place and turn them into a feminine, blubbering little schoolgirl in love again. These bitches always go after wimpy guys, because they love to dominate them, or they think they love to dominate them, but that just doesn't seem to work, as it violates nature.

I don't like to be Mr. Advice Column on here, but at 50, it has occurred to me someone is going to wear the pants in a heterosexual relationship.

If you don't, she will.

If she suspects you have taken off the pants for a while, she will try to make a power grab to put the pants on herself. This must be stopped, often harshly, with profanities, harsh words, meanness, threats to leave, etc.

Usually she will back down completely and start bubbering and even whimpering apologetically and asking, "Are you mad? You're not mad, are you?" Assure you that you are not but issue an order that she is not to speak to you like that anymore, as you really, really hate it.

Women want to take control, but really a lot of times they hate it, because at the same time, I think that even masculinized Western women are disgusted by their vaginized metrosexual wormboy partners. You can wage cultural revolution and gender bend til the cows come home, but at the end of the day, I am convinced that you can't fool Mother Nature.

Of course we are products of our evolution. In many ways, we are also prisoners. < Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.