The 41 nations more migrant than this 'nation of immigrants'

Since the phrase "nation of immigrants" was first used in reference to the United States 80 years ago, it's regularly been invoked by politicians, chambers of commerce, journalists, charities, and ethnic activist groups as the most vitally important aspect of our collective national character.

Here is a list of countries who put us to shame by outdoing America and its Dreamers by boasting higher shares of immigrants in their contemporary populations than we do: Andorra, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Monaco, Kuwait, Macau, Palestine, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bahrain, Jordan, Nauru, Israel, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Brunei, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Switzerland, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Latvia, Canada, Gabon, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Gambia, Estonia, Belize, Palau, Austria, the Ukraine, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Norway, the Ivory Coast, and Moldova.

I wonder if Bryan Caplan is more troubled by how far down we are on this list or how far down we are in the PISA rankings, because going up in one means going down in the other. As the economist well knows, life is about trade offs, after all.

The culture war rages on

Watch this video and then take your best stab at what religious tradition these guys hail from:



Yep, that's their idea of shaking things up. Still unsure? A few hints: They are less likely to see the US as "structurally unjust" than other Americans are, they express high levels of contentment with the communities they live in; their younger members are actually more politically conservative than their older members are; they are more likely than members of any other (ir)religious tradition in the US to express support for a smaller government providing fewer services and opposition to a larger government providing more services; they find abortion, drinking, and sex outside of marriage all more off-putting than members of any other (ir)religious tradition do; their reproductive tendencies are uniquely eugenic; and when their tradition is singled out for mockery, rather than issuing death threats in response, they playfully use the derision as an impetus for others to gain a deeper understanding of their worldview.

These hidebound archaics, of course, contrast starkly with today's chic groups, like the shrieking, violent feminist harpies (via Mangan's):



And their somewhat overlapping allies, the puerile, immodest LGBTXQRBUGGERYJIMOAIDSRYWers:

Since members of the West's greatest last hope won't unsheathe their swords and go for the jugulars of modernity's degenerates, allow this willing assassin from the ranks of the darkly enlightened to do so in their stead. First, borrowing from the inestimable Phyllis Schlafly:

 And then with an AE original:

Total fertility rate

It seems to be a widely accepted fact among demographers--professionals and amateurs alike (and of amateurs taking an interest in demography, too)--that, assuming net migration of zero, a TFR of 2.1 is the threshold a society must reach if it is to maintain its current population size going into the future. A TFR lower than that portends a numerically attenuated future; a TFR higher than that a correspondingly accentuated posterity. Since first seriously thinking about differential fertility rates after reading Pat Buchanan's Death of the West as undergraduate, I've lazily accepted the 2.1 figure without making an effort to grasp why it is such instead of being the putatively far more easily comprehensible 2.0. People much smarter than myself took no issue with the figure, so why should I?

Resolved to have at least three kids so that I can go to grave knowing that while my side has lost the war of the womb (yeah, I'm engaging in some oh-so audacious augury, I know) at least I'll know that on my little square of turf I advanced the cause, fait accompli be damned. Still, natal thoughts prodded me to finally want to understand why having two apparently wouldn't even qualify as fighting the forces of desolation to a draw.

Well, for fans of industrialized, developed, first-world East Asian- and European-descended modern market-oriented countries, the news, at least with regards to the figure required for replacement (actually realizing said slightly reduced figure is another story entirely) is good. Our replacement figures actually fall in between 2.0 and 2.1, and are, sans immigration, moving closer to the former and away from the latter with each passing day, thanks in large part to steadily increasing life expectancies and declining infant mortality rates. On the other hand, in more vibrant parts of the world, 2.1 doesn't cut it. In sub-Saharan Africa, in fact, it doesn't come close.

The lower maintenance mark for Icy places relative to Sunny spots results because TFR is a synthetic figure (meaning it is a statistical artifice rather than a measure of any specific population segment at any given time) defined succinctly by Wikipedia as "a measure of the fertility of an imaginary woman who passes through her reproductive life subject to all the age-specific fertility rates for ages 15–49 that were recorded for a given population in a given year". In other words, women who live to at least their fiftieth birthdays not only have to pull their own weight but also have to pick up the slack of those who bite the dust before hitting the half-century mark; more slack for the unfortunate ones who die in infancy and in prepubescence, but also some slack accounted for by those, in decreasing order, who die in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties.

In the US, more than 95% of women who were born fifty years ago are still alive today (so those of you Xers and millennials who spend an inordinate amount of time speculating on eschatological matters--you know who you are!--stop it, there'll be plenty of time for that later, for now, worry about breeding). A societal collapse notwithstanding, the percentage of those born today who will reach the big 5-0 will be even higher than that. And while 19 in 20 American women born fifty years ago are still around today, nearly 199 in 200 babies born in the US today will make it through infancy.

Sex-selective abortions are another factor pushing the TFR replacement threshold up in other places relative to where it rests in the West, a non-negligible factor in the world's two most populous countries, China and India, nations where the total population sex ratio is more skewed in favor of men over women than nearly any other country on earth, the few exceptions being mostly small islands with large laboring populations like Bahrain (and the norm being a total sex ratio favoring women over men). Oversimplifying, if your tribe has 60 men and 40 women, if each woman has two kids during her lifetime, when the next generation turns over, your population will have declined from 100 people to 80. Conversely, if your tribe has 40 men and 60 women, and each woman has two kids, your tribe will have grown from 100 to 120. The female sex is the limiting factor when it comes to reproduction, after all.

Per capita debt + unfunded pension liabilities by state

Randall Parker points to a CNBC article focused on unfunded pension liabilities at the state level that is packed with quite a bit of data on the financial condition of the fifty. I've been after something like this for several years.

There are multiple ways to view the numbers, but probably the most broadly informative involves adding together current state debt and unfunded pension liabilities going forward and then looking at these on a per capita basis. That is, determine the dollars each resident of a state is putatively on the hook for at present to pay what the state currently owes and will expect to additionally owe beyond its projected funds on hand. Of course, debt can be defaulted on and promises reneged--realistically, that, in tandem with some combination of currency devaluation, is my best guess for how this unsustainable situation eventually resolves itself, with varying levels of disruption at varying times in the future.

The following table shows per capita debt-plus-future-obligations ("debt" going forward), with the financially healthiest states at the top of the list and the least solvent states at the bottom:

State	PerCap$
1. South Dakota	513
2. Tennessee	847
3. Idaho	969
4. Nebraska	1,046
5. North Carolina	1,138
6. Texas	1,514
7. Wyoming	1,982
8. Wisconsin	1,982
9. Iowa	2,296
10. Florida	2,320
11. Missouri	2,426
12. Georgia	2,436
13. Vermont	2,688
14. Arkansas	2,695
15. Indiana	2,707
16. North Dakota	2,726
17. Maine	2,756
18. Utah	2,785
19. Arizona	2,939
20. Washington	2,961
21. Oklahoma	3,237
22. Delaware	3,265
23. South Carolina	3,487
24. Michigan	3,535
25. New York	3,548
26. Minnesota	3,606
27. Alabama	3,746
28. New Hampshire	3,762
29. Virginia	4,035
30. Montana	4,042
31. West Virginia	4,223
32. Pennsylvania	4,284
33. Kansas	4,402
34. Oregon	4,611
35. Nevada	4,801
36. Maryland	4,864
37. Colorado	4,996
38. Louisiana	5,205
39. California	5,650
40. Mississippi	5,882
41. Rhode Island	5,901
42. New Mexico	6,554
43. Ohio	7,025
44. Kentucky	7,322
45. Massachusetts	7,455
46. New Jersey	8,480
47. Illinois	9,056
48. Hawaii	9,878
49. Connecticut	10,776
50. Alaska	12,363

A visualization of the data with figures is available here, and is reproduced without interaction below:

No blatant trends jump out. Sparsely populated, mostly white flyover states in close proximity of Canada tend to be in the best shape, with the major exception of Alaska. Thank goodness for that petroleum dividend--suspend payouts for a decade or so and the problem is solved!

Illinois, the nation's most demographically representative state, similarly serves as one of the states that comes closest to serving as a microcosm for the nation as a whole, though even it comes up well short. While Illinois' residents are looking at a little north of $9,000 in debt peonage per, these state-level obligations pale in comparison to the debts and empty promises of the federal government, for which debt alone is currently running over $50,000 per person.

The article opens by attributing Detroit's municipal bankruptcy to "underfunded retirement promises to public sector workers". Tautologically so, but no doubt haters have made attributions of their own that are hatefully racist and racially hateful. The correlation between a state's Ice People (non-Hispanic white + Asian) population percentage and its debt is an inverse .21. It runs in the direction haters expect it to run in, though it's a tepid relationship.

How about something to Sean Hannity's taste? The correlation between debt and Obama's share of the 2012 presidential vote is a more robust .39. Blue states really do tend to be less fiscally responsible than red states even though blue states generally have more human capital to work with.

Speaking of human capital, the inverse correlation between debt and estimated state IQ is a statistically insignificant .06. The relationship between median age and debt is more feeble still, at .03. It might be nice to think that the states that have the most time to formulate viable solutions before the bills start coming due en masse are the ones who need that time the most, but alas it isn't so.

In addition to having, on average, modestly less intelligent populations than blue states, red states also tend to be fatter. In light (heh) of the above, then, it comes as little surprise that debt and obesity inversely correlate at .23. In this case, it looks like it's possible to have your cake and eat it, too--those public service health campaigns in Connecticut aren't doing the nutmeg state's bottom line any good!

Parenthetically, as a supporter of full Puerto Rican independence, I can now point to the fact that the island's per capita debt, at $12,487, is higher than that of any state in the union. While Puerto Ricans may not be as affluent as Americans, they're even better at spending money they don't have than we are. Really, what do they need us for?

Law alone?

With a victorious--if only symbolic, temporary, and ultimately futile--stand against amnesty looking to be secured thanks to the majority of Republicans in the House, the only part of the federal government I still have any hope at all in (and that hope is shaky to say the least), let's take a look at international sentiments towards the requirements for citizenship.

In the most recent wave conducted by the WVS, running from 2005-2008, respondents were asked about the importance of four factors in deciding whether or not a person should have citizenship conferred upon him. They were having ancestors from the country, being born in the country, adopting the customs of the country, and obeying the laws of the country. Pithily, the angles we're exploring here are blood, soil, culture, and law. The first table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who judged it to be "very important" that a person have ancestors from the country to be considered a citizen of it:

Blood	%VI
Mali	74.1
Morocco	66.9
Egypt	63.9
Burkina Faso	61.6
South Africa	61.1
Thailand	57.1
India	56.6
Jordan	54.2
Ghana	52.9
Indonesia	51.6
Ethiopia	51.3
Mexico	50.3
Malaysia	50.1
Vietnam	47.3
Georgia	46.2
Rwanda	46.1
Zambia	42.8
Cyprus	41.3
China	39.3
Uruguay	37.6
Poland	37.5
Turkey	34.4
Chile	33.4
Trinidad and Tobago	26.9
Bulgaria	26.6
Spain	25.3
South Korea	24.6
Serbia	24.0
Ukraine	22.9
Argentina	21.2
Moldova	20.8
Slovenia	19.4
Brazil	18.5
Romania	17.9
Italy	14.6
United States	14.1
Australia	11.3
Taiwan	10.2
Germany	9.6
Finland	9.4
Norway	6.7
Andorra	4.9
Switzerland	4.5
Sweden	3.3

People of northwestern European descent put the least emphasis on the blood bond of a nation's population. The US is no exception. After all, how can a nation of immigrants, which we've always been since we gained our independence from Great Britain in 1923, prefer that its citizens' family trees be rooted firmly in the land of amber waves of grain? To the contrary, those people are the ones we look down upon with the most superciliousness and disdain today. Northwestern Euros are followed by central, southern and eastern Europeans, then Asians and Latin Americans, and finally by Middle Easterners and Africans, who put the greatest amount of emphasis on it.

There's a pattern here that surely doesn't come as much of a surprise to regular readers of the chickadee's blog. Relatedly, this list looks like it proxies pretty well for a measure of national pride. Parenthetically, I plan on correlating these results with reported rates of consanguinity by country.

The paradox presented here for many like myself is that the places inspiring the warmest feelings and that I would like most to live in are the places that tend to put the least effort into maintaining what they have. It's tragic. It doesn't strike me as overly cynical to presume that this is almost inevitable, as though liberalism doesn't know when or where to stop and just keeps cruising along the progressive highway past the promised land and over the cliff. Unfortunately, the one nation that regularly pops up as an exception to the putative rule in discussions like this was not included in this battery of questions. But even Japan has started down the slippery slope towards open immigration, recently introducing a point system, akin to the policies employed in Australia and Canada, where preference is given to highly skilled prospective immigrants.

What of birthright citizenship? Our own 14th amendment has been read by the courts in such a way that if one is able to spawn somewhere in the country, through hook, crook or otherwise, then said spawn is, jus soli, a child of the land he was born on.

The next table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who deemed it very important that a person be born in the country if he is to be entitled to citizenship:

Soil	%VI
Mali	68.5
South Africa	67.8
Ghana	67.7
India	66.3
Zambia	63.0
Malaysia	60.1
Thailand	59.4
Egypt	58.6
Mexico	58.5
Jordan	58.3
Indonesia	56.9
Ethiopia	53.9
Rwanda	52.3
Morocco	51.0
Burkina Faso	48.9
Chile	47.5
Georgia	45.5
Trinidad and Tobago	44.1
Uruguay	43.2
Vietnam	42.6
Poland	40.4
Spain	39.2
China	38.4
Cyprus	37.5
Turkey	34.3
Italy	32.1
Moldova	31.9
Serbia	28.4
Ukraine	28.3
Bulgaria	26.9
Romania	25.5
United States	25.3
Argentina	24.9
Brazil	23.5
Slovenia	22.9
South Korea	20.5
Andorra	17.7
Taiwan	16.0
Australia	15.7
Finland	15.7
Germany	11.4
Switzerland	8.4
Norway	7.9
Sweden	5.0

Keep in mind that the four categories considered here are not mutually exclusive, but can and do layer upon one another. It appears that most Malians, for example, feel it of great importance that citizens be born in the country, to people who have previously established ancestral ties to it, adopt Malian cultural norms, and that they respect the law of the great trading empire.

The following table shows the percentages of respondents in each participating country who deemed it very important that a person adopt the customs of the country to become a citizen of it:

Culture	%VI
Georgia	83.6
Mali	73.3
Egypt	68.7
Morocco	68.4
Australia	68.0
Ghana	66.5
Thailand	65.0
Turkey	63.6
Vietnam	63.4
Jordan	61.9
Indonesia	61.9
Malaysia	60.4
South Africa	59.4
Burkina Faso	59.4
United States	59.4
India	58.4
Mexico	58.2
Zambia	56.8
Ethiopia	53.9
Germany	53.4
Bulgaria	53.3
Chile	50.3
Slovenia	48.2
Spain	47.2
Rwanda	46.8
Finland	46.6
China	44.1
Uruguay	43.3
Cyprus	43.0
Trinidad and Tobago	42.8
Switzerland	42.1
Taiwan	39.9
Ukraine	39.5
Moldova	38.5
Norway	36.7
Romania	35.7
Poland	34.7
Italy	34.7
Argentina	33.6
Serbia	33.5
Andorra	30.4
South Korea	27.1
Brazil	26.3
Sweden	24.1

Are we all Georgians now, senator?

I've always felt a special affinity for Australia. If I were to leave the US, I'd head down under (Switzerland would be a close second, but the cultural and linguistic distances would probably be too far). It may not count for much of anything in the grand scheme of things, but they are one of the few Occidental nations whose population still maintains, with some pride, a semblance of a revered, historically-rooted national identity (the others being Israel, Ireland--dare I say--these United States, and possibly Germany). That shows up here.

With the importance of blood ties to citizenship being an idea entertained only by the most reprobate--hell, even the idea of citizenship is becoming beyond the pale--the concept of a national culture is the next wall the forces of the Cathedral are determined to scale. They've already infiltrated so far that only the most 'extreme' talkers on the mainstream right would call for a national policy resting on the three xenophobic pillars of borders, language, and, most germanely for us, culture!

Up to this point, our Scandinavian representatives haven't shown support for any standards on citizenship at all. But we have yet to discuss governmental policies. The Golem will keep the baddies out, we just need to equip him with the right tools. And then make sure he doesn't strike out against refugees--political, economic, religious, or otherwise--or those offended by depictions of Muhammad, or undocumented workers, or visa overstayers, or asylum seekers, or those looking for a better life, or those who love to feed from the public trough, or...

Law	%VI
Sweden	95.6
Norway	93.5
Australia	93.1
Finland	88.4
Switzerland	87.6
Taiwan	86.7
United States	85.0
Georgia	84.6
Germany	83.5
Trinidad and Tobago	83.2
Indonesia	82.9
Turkey	82.4
Bulgaria	82.1
Mali	81.7
Mexico	80.8
Ghana	80.4
Romania	78.7
China	78.2
Burkina Faso	78.1
Vietnam	78.0
Italy	77.7
Jordan	77.3
Egypt	76.9
Malaysia	74.8
Morocco	74.6
Uruguay	74.1
South Africa	72.9
Chile	71.3
Slovenia	71.2
India	70.9
Zambia	70.4
Moldova	68.1
Poland	68.1
Ethiopia	64.7
Argentina	63.5
Rwanda	62.1
Ukraine	58.7
Cyprus	58.2
Spain	58.1
Serbia	55.0
Thailand	54.4
Andorra	49.4
Brazil	43.5
South Korea	40.4

Several charts in rapid succession there, so here's an overall "standards" index that simply sums the percentages of "very important" responses across the four dimensions considered previously. How curious that Mexicans make greater demands of their citizens than Americans do of their's:

Standards	Index
Mali	297.6
Egypt	268.1
Ghana	267.5
South Africa	261.2
Morocco	260.9
Georgia	259.9
Indonesia	253.3
India	252.2
Jordan	251.7
Burkina Faso	248.0
Mexico	247.8
Malaysia	245.4
Thailand	235.9
Zambia	233.0
Vietnam	231.3
Ethiopia	223.8
Turkey	214.7
Rwanda	207.3
Chile	202.5
China	200.0
Uruguay	198.2
Trinidad and Tobago	197.0
Bulgaria	188.9
Australia	188.1
United States	183.8
Poland	180.7
Cyprus	180.0
Spain	169.8
Slovenia	161.7
Finland	160.1
Moldova	159.3
Italy	159.1
Germany	157.9
Romania	157.8
Taiwan	152.8
Ukraine	149.4
Norway	144.8
Argentina	143.2
Switzerland	142.6
Serbia	140.9
Sweden	128.0
South Korea	112.6
Brazil	111.8
Andorra	102.4

Things are grim on this side of the pond, but they're even grimmer in Europe. With the rise of nationalist parties in several European countries, I wonder when (or if) we'll begin to see the same.

SWPLs, stop emulating the Swedes and start taking after the Andorrans!

WVS variables used: V217, V218, V219, V220

Amnesty redux

Today, in tandem with the legislative push for open borders, NPR ran a segment on the Dillingham Commission that, in 1911, found that immigration into the US from northwestern Europe was preferable toimmigration from southern and eastern Europe. It served as a segue into how it is illegitimate to empirically and clinically track and measure differences in tendencies and behaviors of various population groups. Reporter Audie Cornish quoted a professor of sociology who "studies the immigrant experience". Says one professor Alba:

If we could, if you will, rank groups in terms of their desirability, in terms of their ability to assimilate--that kind of thinking is still present. ... [The Dillingham Commission] was overtly racist. There can be little question about the importance of scientific racism in the early twentieth century and the degree to which it shaped the thinking that went into the Dillingham commission report. And we are not as racist today, but that doesn't mean that we are today altogether free of this thinking that some immigrant groups are superior to other immigrant groups."

Census data make it quite easy to rank immigrant groups into the US (see here and here). That Alba and others like him would rather plug their ears, cover their eyes, and reminisce about the stories their grandparents told them about Ellis Island than face reality doesn't change this.

Incidentally, isn't it just wonderful how there is always a bipartisan gang of congress critters glowing eagerly in the limelight as they wait to introduce amnesty X.0? Let's take a look at the lifetime immigration grade cards that NumbersUSA gives members of the sensible, even-keeled, putatively middle-of-the-road party of amnesty-pushers this time around:

John McCain, AZ (R) -- D
Marco Rubio, FL (R) -- C-
Jeff Flake, AZ (R) -- C
Lindsey Graham, SC (R) -- C
Michael Bennet, CO (D) -- F-
Dick Durbin, IL (D) -- F
Robert Menendez, NJ (D) -- F-
Charles Schumer, NY (D) -- F

The group gets an F+. Congress as a whole earns a C. Not one of the eight are to the restrictionist side of the Congressional center, while six of eight are on the open borders side of the spectrum. When Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake are your immigration hard-liners, you know you have trouble.

Having grown wary of this seemingly perennial amnesty push, I was at risk of apathy this time around, but tripe like the NPR segment has prodded me into action. I've contacted both my senators and my house member expressing my opposition to 'comprehensive' immigration reform. Pithily, I stated that unemployment is high, the need for low-skilled labor has never been lower, and a path to citizenship is a path to more Democratic voters (all three of my representatives are Republicans) with bastard children in one hand while the other hand stretches out to Uncle Sam.

If you're of a similar mind, please do the same. We've risen up and body-slammed the Establishment before. Let's do it again.

Where to be born vs. where people are being born

The Economist's "sister" company has made an earnest, contemporary attempt to determine which countries are the most and least propitious ones to be born into. Check out the list and notes on the methodology there.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that the best places to be born are doing the least birthing, while the worst places are doing more than their fair share of it. The correlation between a country's where-to-be-born index score and its total fertility rate is a statistically significant .49. A couple of tweaks could easily make that moderately robust relationship considerably stronger still.

Firstly, give sub-Saharan Africa more reasonable representation. Of the 80 countries included, only four--including the 'crown jewel', South Africa (#53)--make the cut. The other three--Angola, Kenya, and Nigeria--rank 76th, 79th, and 80th on the ranking of where it's best to be born, respectively. They rank 1st, 3rd, and 2nd when it comes to procreation, however.

Secondly, reduce Eastern Europe's and central Asia's representation. There are a lot of old Soviet countries included that tend to be, rather uniquely, both crappy places to be born and places where there isn't much birthing occurring. A lot of attention is given to the question of which countries will be the globe's prime movers in the 21st century, but a less frequently inquired about question (and one with a clearer set of answers) is which places will be bit players.

That said, as constructed an observable pattern still emerges:

At one remove, the list paints a dysgenic global picture. Of course, the right-thinking editors at the august magazine don't actually mention anything about fertility (the closest they come is a parenthetical "demography", devoid of any expounding), but Economist readers can surely read between the lines (with quantification to boot if they visit this our humble online outpost here!).

It has become unfashionable for the Establishment to push population reduction as a policy goal even with the ascent of green thinking because of the rather obvious implication that the hardest hit if such a goal was realized would be NAMs--especially immigrants--domestically and third-worlders internationally. Even when the subject is bandied about in the more politically incorrect parts of the media world, the racial and ethnic ramifications are often glossed over.

Recently, Randall Parker wondered how to best sell leftists on how to cut the demand for low-skilled labor and, by implication, thus reduce illegal immigration from south of the border. Similarly, how best to sell them on promoting eugenic birthing?

Egalitarianism seems like the most plausible avenue to pursue. A simple thought experiment demonstrates. In the real world scenario, Mr. and Mrs. Rich, worth $10 million, have one kid, while Ms. Poor, worth $10k, has five. Kid Richie gets $10 million passed on to him, while each of the Poories get $2k. He's worth 5,000 times more than they are. In the Ideal World, Mr. and Mrs. Rich have five kids while Ms. Poor has one. Each of the Richies get $2 million, while Poorie gets $10k. Now a Rich kid is only worth 200 times as much. Presto, a 25 fold reduction in the wealth gap!

What else is wrong with Wong?

++Addition++Coldequation does a better job of expressing my sentiments than I'm able to. These professions are all ancillary, supporting roles, entirely contingent upon the wealth created by others, but not parasitic in the sense that they suck the lifeblood out of the host (although professors of anything that ends in "studies" can probably be accurately described as such).

---

I realize it's way late, but after multiple exposures to the story of UCLA professor Kent Wong celebrating the presumed ethnic replacement of whites by non-whites, I find some humor in reflecting on how totally clueless these racialist zealots are about wealth creation:

When that day happens, the young people of the DREAM Act movement will go on to accomplish and do great things with our lives. You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the U.S. Congress [my emphasis] to replace those old white men. You are the hope and future of this country. You represent the hope and future of your generation.

Set aside the realistic consequences to the salaries of parasites like Wong as productive whites continue their exodus from California. The occupations he celebrates, even if NAMs suddenly became as productive as the whites it is ordained for them to replace, are all as parasitic as his own. A nation of lawyers, teachers, doctors, and legislators is a nation that doesn't produce or develop anything of value.

Mangan's thread is full of comments from people wondering what Wang expects the dwindling proportion of whites who he and others like him leech off of will do going forward. Better hope they all go into engineering, research, and software development to work 80 hours a week!

The progressive worldview is deeply opposed to the progression of humanity's collective standard of living.