"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.
This post might be more important than your Baby Boom post.
The declining fertility rate, while interesting and impactful, is probably intractable due to being culturally-driven. Immigration, especially narrow-aimed immigration restrictions, are theoretically possible (though the actual track record over the last fifty years...hasn't been good).
One thing that I'm surprised you didn't mention is that even high IQ Indians bring with them low trust/clannish habits. This allows them to quickly and ruthlessly climb corporate hierarchies. But these strategies are parasitic, dependent on high trust people who contribute to the commons more than they are getting back. While Indians might make for great corporate CEOs, I'm skeptical that a high-value company can be populated by a majority-Indian workforce.
Don't take that Indian household income seriously, they live 10 to a house in multigenerational homes. Their average household size is higher, so the income is higher.
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
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.
In regards to Indian average IQ, it's probably significantly depressed by things such as parasitic disease load, malnutrition, and/or iodine deficiency and that the actual Indian average IQ at its full potential would be in the 95 range or so. Roughly comparable to US Hispanics, I would suspect. British Indians have an average IQ of 96 or 97 (depending on the data source) when they were born in Britain or at least lived in Britain since childhood and an average IQ of only 86 when they were born in India. It's the Indian-born cohorts among them, with their environmental deprivations, that explain British Indians' relatively low average IQ.
"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.
Glad someone bit the bullet.
This post might be more important than your Baby Boom post.
The declining fertility rate, while interesting and impactful, is probably intractable due to being culturally-driven. Immigration, especially narrow-aimed immigration restrictions, are theoretically possible (though the actual track record over the last fifty years...hasn't been good).
One thing that I'm surprised you didn't mention is that even high IQ Indians bring with them low trust/clannish habits. This allows them to quickly and ruthlessly climb corporate hierarchies. But these strategies are parasitic, dependent on high trust people who contribute to the commons more than they are getting back. While Indians might make for great corporate CEOs, I'm skeptical that a high-value company can be populated by a majority-Indian workforce.
Don't take that Indian household income seriously, they live 10 to a house in multigenerational homes. Their average household size is higher, so the income is higher.
I propose an immigrant tax: immigrants should pay (much?) more income tax than their host citizens.
eminently sensible article
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’ll take Hindus over muslim.
Also read this: https://jewishcurrents.org/the-hindu-nationalists-using-the-pro-israel-playbook
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.
In regards to Indian average IQ, it's probably significantly depressed by things such as parasitic disease load, malnutrition, and/or iodine deficiency and that the actual Indian average IQ at its full potential would be in the 95 range or so. Roughly comparable to US Hispanics, I would suspect. British Indians have an average IQ of 96 or 97 (depending on the data source) when they were born in Britain or at least lived in Britain since childhood and an average IQ of only 86 when they were born in India. It's the Indian-born cohorts among them, with their environmental deprivations, that explain British Indians' relatively low average IQ.