"A common pattern in the United States is for companies to hire Indians to get a leg up on the competition, only for them to take over and shut non-Indians out."
The meme is just as true in Britain.
I wonder if Hindu support for the Conservative Party, which is slightly less leftwing than Labour, is mostly explained by Labour being seen as the Muslim party.
"I am not suggesting running for election on a platform of limiting immigration from India specifically. General restrictionism is popular, singling out specific countries is not, and Indians are generally better received than Latin Americans or Muslims. I am suggesting that would-be restrictionists make restricting Indian immigration a top priority behind the scenes, and that the loose collection of intellectuals and pamphleteers that form the Internet right talk about it in those terms."
One idea that has occurred to me is a platform aiming to limit immigration according to some statistical measurement of within-population consanguinity--i.e. aiming for immigrants who are less clannish. I think this would not be unpopular, because it would appeal to individualist Westerners.
Your point about criminality is incorrect. You say “. . . and (at least in the second generation and beyond) are more criminal than American whites.” Please review the graph to which you link. You will see that 2nd generation immigrants have basically identical (though slightly lower) criminality than native born Americans, while 1st generation immigrants commit dramatically fewer crimes than either other group
I think the article is an argument for MORE immigration from India. We need doctors, for example, as there is a drastic shortage in our healthcare system.
Very interesting piece, but there is no distinction between north and south Indians here. Most Indians in America are north Indians, but south Indians are especially likely to end up in high prestige professions like lawyer, engineer, doctor, professor, etc. while north Indians are more likely to own motels, gas stations, restaurants, etc. There definitely is a rich tradition of socialist tendencies in India, but the persistence of this trend likely has to do with how overwhelmingly Indians (of all types) attend college since college predisposes all people who attend towards progressivism. Also, I was under the impression that some of the most ardent opponents of affirmative action were Indians since it screws us (and east Asians) over in college admissions.
I'm south Indian, and I'm increasingly bewildered by how different I am from so many other Indians despite being heavily exposed to higher education and doing well within it. I really dislike nepotism, vehemently oppose socialism (intrusions upon the institution of private property), prefer whites/latinos facially, identify somewhat with the right-wing, take ethnic/cultural differences seriously, and socially associate most with native-born Americans.
Also Indian IQ should be disaggregated by caste as well since the speciation the caste system induced likely produced marked differences in psychological attributes including intelligence. I wouldn't be surprised if Kshatriyas and Brahmins, after eliminating environmental hurdles, ended up being decently more intelligent than American whites. Of course it's more likely to manifest spatially/mathematically than verbally; we're not Jews after all. But what I will say is that assimilating Indians among more old-school whites might be a way to temper some of the more extreme ethnic differences. I grew up in the south surrounded by mostly country folk, and I was accepted very quickly. Perhaps this shaped some of my preferences and dispositional qualities.
It was spelled out in notes that high class Indians are still lower iq than general European populations, which would make sense when factoring in cultural history.
Something I’ve been wondering is, to what extent is there a correlation between one’s ethnicity and caste throughout India? Are any high-correlation overlaps mostly regional, or are there nation-wide trends?
We don't live in a post-Malthusian world. It only seems that way because the consequences of overshoot and overpopulation aren't immediately noticeable. Instead, they tend to happen all at once. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs
The "dissident right" generally tends to have a dismissive attitude towards problems stemming from overpopulation on the basis that "previous warnings didn't come true", general contrarianism and religiosity ("be fruitful and multiply").
i actually hoped this article would be an excellent read but the blatant lie in just the second sentence RE second generation crime was an unfortunate signifier that this piece is lazy interpretist drivel.
There is a serious problem with the H1B visa's implications on native workers, and Indian immigrant enclavism both economic and culturally.
But in many (i would actually argue everything except for the selectivity section) you've lazily misinterpreted data or turned unrelated data into your own soapbox
Guyana, Mauritius, Singapore have sizable Indian population, and have had Indian immigration for centuries compared to the Anglosphere (post Y2K).
In about a decade from now, with AI infused white collar professionals, most Indians moving overseas will be blue collar who will find East Asia, China & Middle East more attractive than the Europe or US.
Also the possibility of an amicable relationship between India & China in two decades from now is guaranteed creating an infinite labor source for both countries.
The point is having these restrictions for a decade or even less, after which Indian immigration to the West will organically reduce will not make any material difference.
No, 3rd world immigration into Europe is not natural at all. It will be completely stopped and reversed, there won't be a sustained mixing, which would turn the rest of the world into India.
I know many immigrants, over half of them Indian, and every single one of them is a good person whose presence improves our country and does not detract from our culture and principles whatsoever.
Fear-mongering about immigrants accomplishes nothing.
Columbus believed he had discovered an area near India and the native peoples were named Indians in the British colonies, so it would be fitting if 400 million Indians migrated to the USA and then Columbus really would have discovered India. 😎
I’m interested in your comment about immigration lowering IQ in every country bar Australia. Do you think the points-based Australian immigration system would avoid the longer term pitfalls you see for the US?
I’d thought the Canadians had something similar as well?
Yes not a bad idea but I don't know if it would deter the white collar types--and they are presently the real threat, at least where subcontinental immigration is concerned.
The other thing is that higher taxation probably *does* (I don;t have stats) result in more pressure towards offshoring. If you tax immigrants hard, companies who want to employ them might be more inclined to go direct to the countries of origin.
Good point. I propose that the tax rate is based on the per capita income disparity. That implicitly selects against Indians, Africans, Asians, and Central/South Americans while staying fair about it. Offshoring can be mitigated with tariffs.
Disclaimer I'm Indian and thus necessarily biased. Really appreciate your attention to detail and focus on population level data.
Mainly just one question. The thrust of your argument is "restrict Indian immigration because Indian Americans have bad (lefty) politics". Regardless of any quibbles I may have it's a fundamentally sound argument. Tailoring immigration policy to optimize long term political outcomes is absolutely justifiable.
But if you truly believe your argument, you have to be sensitive to evolving evidence. Are you open to changing your mind on restricting Indian immigration if, say, Indian Americans vote 55-45 for JD Vance over AOC in 2028? What about if Indian CEOs throw in their lot with Republicans like Elon?
None of us knows the future and I'm not saying Indian Americans going Republican is inevitable or even necessarily likely. But it is true that Indian American neighborhoods swung massively rightward in 2024 and that in the one country with a longstanding well established Indian immigrant community (the UK) Indians have a strong right-wing tilt.
Would Indian immigrants evolving to have a net rightward effect on US politics change your desire to restrict Indian immigration?
Glad someone bit the bullet.
My thoughts exactly. Please don't do the same things as we have done here in Australia.
"A common pattern in the United States is for companies to hire Indians to get a leg up on the competition, only for them to take over and shut non-Indians out."
The meme is just as true in Britain.
I wonder if Hindu support for the Conservative Party, which is slightly less leftwing than Labour, is mostly explained by Labour being seen as the Muslim party.
"I am not suggesting running for election on a platform of limiting immigration from India specifically. General restrictionism is popular, singling out specific countries is not, and Indians are generally better received than Latin Americans or Muslims. I am suggesting that would-be restrictionists make restricting Indian immigration a top priority behind the scenes, and that the loose collection of intellectuals and pamphleteers that form the Internet right talk about it in those terms."
One idea that has occurred to me is a platform aiming to limit immigration according to some statistical measurement of within-population consanguinity--i.e. aiming for immigrants who are less clannish. I think this would not be unpopular, because it would appeal to individualist Westerners.
Muslims also with the heavy charm deficit
Latinos at least have the chix and the music (well some of it is ok)
#1.) they’re ugly
Jesus fucking Christ dude
Your point about criminality is incorrect. You say “. . . and (at least in the second generation and beyond) are more criminal than American whites.” Please review the graph to which you link. You will see that 2nd generation immigrants have basically identical (though slightly lower) criminality than native born Americans, while 1st generation immigrants commit dramatically fewer crimes than either other group
Both statements are correct.
the crime rate is higher among second-generation immigrants than it is among white Americans
the crime rate is the same among second-generation immigrants as it is among native-born Americans.
Do I have to explain why both statements are correct?
I think the article is an argument for MORE immigration from India. We need doctors, for example, as there is a drastic shortage in our healthcare system.
Suprisingly to no one, foriegn doctors are far more likely to commit malpractice.
You are brown. Fuck off subhuman
Fuck you bitch
More Black than Brown. Sicilian roots.
Then stop shilling for pajeets for no reason
Very interesting piece, but there is no distinction between north and south Indians here. Most Indians in America are north Indians, but south Indians are especially likely to end up in high prestige professions like lawyer, engineer, doctor, professor, etc. while north Indians are more likely to own motels, gas stations, restaurants, etc. There definitely is a rich tradition of socialist tendencies in India, but the persistence of this trend likely has to do with how overwhelmingly Indians (of all types) attend college since college predisposes all people who attend towards progressivism. Also, I was under the impression that some of the most ardent opponents of affirmative action were Indians since it screws us (and east Asians) over in college admissions.
I'm south Indian, and I'm increasingly bewildered by how different I am from so many other Indians despite being heavily exposed to higher education and doing well within it. I really dislike nepotism, vehemently oppose socialism (intrusions upon the institution of private property), prefer whites/latinos facially, identify somewhat with the right-wing, take ethnic/cultural differences seriously, and socially associate most with native-born Americans.
Also Indian IQ should be disaggregated by caste as well since the speciation the caste system induced likely produced marked differences in psychological attributes including intelligence. I wouldn't be surprised if Kshatriyas and Brahmins, after eliminating environmental hurdles, ended up being decently more intelligent than American whites. Of course it's more likely to manifest spatially/mathematically than verbally; we're not Jews after all. But what I will say is that assimilating Indians among more old-school whites might be a way to temper some of the more extreme ethnic differences. I grew up in the south surrounded by mostly country folk, and I was accepted very quickly. Perhaps this shaped some of my preferences and dispositional qualities.
It was spelled out in notes that high class Indians are still lower iq than general European populations, which would make sense when factoring in cultural history.
Something I’ve been wondering is, to what extent is there a correlation between one’s ethnicity and caste throughout India? Are any high-correlation overlaps mostly regional, or are there nation-wide trends?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ABCDesis/comments/mkbaao/mapping_the_single_largest_ancestral_component_in/
Most Indians are black - the ones who aren't are mostly Muslim.
The Sword is the solution to this.
ਅਕਾਲ
Appreciate the reply, Jatt.
We don't live in a post-Malthusian world. It only seems that way because the consequences of overshoot and overpopulation aren't immediately noticeable. Instead, they tend to happen all at once. https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs
New Link: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation
There is a decent chance that you are correct.
The "dissident right" generally tends to have a dismissive attitude towards problems stemming from overpopulation on the basis that "previous warnings didn't come true", general contrarianism and religiosity ("be fruitful and multiply").
i actually hoped this article would be an excellent read but the blatant lie in just the second sentence RE second generation crime was an unfortunate signifier that this piece is lazy interpretist drivel.
There is a serious problem with the H1B visa's implications on native workers, and Indian immigrant enclavism both economic and culturally.
But in many (i would actually argue everything except for the selectivity section) you've lazily misinterpreted data or turned unrelated data into your own soapbox
😂 Cry harder whitey.
We will genocide you
ok
Guyana, Mauritius, Singapore have sizable Indian population, and have had Indian immigration for centuries compared to the Anglosphere (post Y2K).
In about a decade from now, with AI infused white collar professionals, most Indians moving overseas will be blue collar who will find East Asia, China & Middle East more attractive than the Europe or US.
Also the possibility of an amicable relationship between India & China in two decades from now is guaranteed creating an infinite labor source for both countries.
The point is having these restrictions for a decade or even less, after which Indian immigration to the West will organically reduce will not make any material difference.
No, 3rd world immigration into Europe is not natural at all. It will be completely stopped and reversed, there won't be a sustained mixing, which would turn the rest of the world into India.
Yes restrictions will have to be permanent
I know many immigrants, over half of them Indian, and every single one of them is a good person whose presence improves our country and does not detract from our culture and principles whatsoever.
Fear-mongering about immigrants accomplishes nothing.
Columbus believed he had discovered an area near India and the native peoples were named Indians in the British colonies, so it would be fitting if 400 million Indians migrated to the USA and then Columbus really would have discovered India. 😎
I’m interested in your comment about immigration lowering IQ in every country bar Australia. Do you think the points-based Australian immigration system would avoid the longer term pitfalls you see for the US?
I’d thought the Canadians had something similar as well?
I propose an immigrant tax: immigrants should pay (much?) more income tax than their host citizens.
Yes not a bad idea but I don't know if it would deter the white collar types--and they are presently the real threat, at least where subcontinental immigration is concerned.
The other thing is that higher taxation probably *does* (I don;t have stats) result in more pressure towards offshoring. If you tax immigrants hard, companies who want to employ them might be more inclined to go direct to the countries of origin.
Good point. I propose that the tax rate is based on the per capita income disparity. That implicitly selects against Indians, Africans, Asians, and Central/South Americans while staying fair about it. Offshoring can be mitigated with tariffs.
Yes
It must be fair and data-driven to be acceptable (I'm not being sarcastic). The old dictation test won't work now.
Disclaimer I'm Indian and thus necessarily biased. Really appreciate your attention to detail and focus on population level data.
Mainly just one question. The thrust of your argument is "restrict Indian immigration because Indian Americans have bad (lefty) politics". Regardless of any quibbles I may have it's a fundamentally sound argument. Tailoring immigration policy to optimize long term political outcomes is absolutely justifiable.
But if you truly believe your argument, you have to be sensitive to evolving evidence. Are you open to changing your mind on restricting Indian immigration if, say, Indian Americans vote 55-45 for JD Vance over AOC in 2028? What about if Indian CEOs throw in their lot with Republicans like Elon?
None of us knows the future and I'm not saying Indian Americans going Republican is inevitable or even necessarily likely. But it is true that Indian American neighborhoods swung massively rightward in 2024 and that in the one country with a longstanding well established Indian immigrant community (the UK) Indians have a strong right-wing tilt.
Would Indian immigrants evolving to have a net rightward effect on US politics change your desire to restrict Indian immigration?
Also just in case there ARE in fact genuine, honest "tailor immigration policy to ensure better policy outcomes" believers here, you should update very seriously on evidence like this: https://x.com/WakeUp2Politics/status/1902002584795148320?t=oS2PFfNG1HuO7gFm7kketg&s=19