ddd00001

Have you read any Lee Kuan Yew? I have. He has very specifically said he learned from going back to London that having a multi-ethnic population erodes trust. That's why he realized he needed harsh/authoritarian laws. Did you even read my comment before jumping to reply? It seems like you just wanted to have a "gotcha" without even reading the words that I had written.

Multiculturalism No consequences for anti-social behavior Maintaining orderly streets

"Choose two".

USA (driven by progressives taking control of urban politics) has essentially chosen the first 2 and eschewed the third.

Your commentary here puts you in line with DSA-types. Do you consider yourself a socialist? Because you definitely act like it.

"I most definitely don't see myself as anti-social"

Are you a progressive? Do you think that petty crimes in the U.S. are overpoliced or underpoliced?

If you answer "Yes" to the first and "overpoliced" to the second, then you are anti-social - or at least support anti-social public policies.

Lee Kuan Yew's whole thesis re: Singapore was that multicultural societies need strict laws and punishments for those that step out of line because people don't naturally look out for each other. He learned this from going back to the UK in the 60s and seeing how social trust had degraded due to immigration.

Again, you live in a world whereby immigrant culture (your ingroup) is replacing white native culture (your outgroup). I am absolutely certain you would not consider the reverse "enriching" culture. Progressives have to tie themselves in a pretzel to keep from admitting they just don't like white, WASP culture and would like to see it gone.

Also, I wonder what you would think if 100k Connecticut WASPs moved to a town of 50k hispanic Americans. I'm willing to guess you would not think that the culture was "enhanced". Simply because of the fact that - as a progressive - middle class immigrants are part of your ingroup (and therefore intrinsically "good") and upper class native WASPy whites are part of your outgroup (and therefore intrinsically "bad").

I think progressives like you are afraid of calling it a spectrum for fear of being called racist or xenophobic. I am an immigrant to the U.S. from Europe though my parents are originally Middle Eastern. My father will tell you point blank that he moved to the U.S. because he thinks American, white (his words), anglo culture is the best in the world. I don't think he would just shrug it off if - for example - the town he lives in of 40k people suddenly had an influx of 150k Japanese people, directly from Japan. If it was 500 people from Japan, that would be much different.

But good progressives like you (who think being called racist is literally worse than being a murderer), cannot make that distinction.

Once adjusted for demographics I meant - d'oh.

I've spoken to dctoedt before, he's the type of reddit-tier, resist-liberal that thinks that the reason America's crime rate is so high is that rednecks in MAGA hats are running around shooting people up in rural areas.

If the U.S. was filled with Swiss-Americans, the country's homicide rate would be in line with Switzerland. Switzerland doesn't have gangs actively warring in urban areas.

On a per-county level, homicide rate is something like 0.8 correlated to % black. The large county with the lowest black homicide rate is Collins County, TX - also ironically the most conservative large county by vote.

When I ran the numbers I had the expectation that there would be a positive correlation between how conservative a county is and homicides per capita once adjusted for inflation. There is zero correlation - and when you remove NYC counties (arguably not indicative of leftist counties, because there is mass surveillance and a heavy police presence, both things that the left vehemently opposes), the correlation actually runs the opposite way. More conservative counties have a lower black homicide rate!

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you just said "not impossible", then admitted that culture would change with influx of migrants.

This is incredible. You really think that American public bathrooms can't be nice because of redneck MAGA Republicans? Let me guess, you also think that red states are more dangerous because there is an epidemic of rednecks in trailer trucks driving around randomly killing folks, right?

The reason we can't have nice public bathrooms in the U.S. is because progressive politicians have decided that drug addict vagrants are the one group in society that cannot be allowed to face any repercussions for their actions.

Public bathrooms in conservative suburbs in America are actually fairly nice (as are they in liberal suburbs!). The difference is that the floor price point of living in a suburb keeps out drug addicts and vagrants who would destroy the place instantly.

"This is one major reason why BART boarded up their restrooms in downtown SF."

We live in a society where we can't have public restrooms and progressives (including virtually half the commenters here!) think that we're being too mean to vagrants. Just incredible.

Why are Tokyo and Singapore nice cities? What would they do if someone was shooting up in the streets in front of children?

$500 says you live in a suburb as soon as you have a child. People like you who think it's alright for there to be massive disorder in cities because you have a nice exit plan are truly the most vile of society.

"disproportionately likely to be brutalized or killed by law enforcement"

Hi woodruffw - what group is disproportionaly likely to kill or brutalize law enforcement? What happens when you correct for that?

Your reply is a complete and utter non-sequitur. Conservatives are not why homeless drug addicts are given free reign to camp out and harass every day, hard working tax payers in San Francisco. That's entirely due to a single veto point (a progressive judge who doesn't even live in the city), despite there finally being some local government push against such activities.

One of the main issues is our system of government. It is set up in a way that even one veto-point allows it to default to lawlessness. In many urban areas you have that veto point in the form of a progressive Board of Supervisors/local government, progressive District Attorney or very commonly, progressive judges. Just one progressive in the chain of command and it results in everything being progressive and no consequences for disorder.

Yes and that's a very midwit belief. Evidence time over time shows that most people are sincere in their beliefs and that those right of center actually understand opposite positions better than the reverse.

You can always find an example of what you think is people "voting against their own interests" (i.e. black Americans voting for pro-crime politicians even though they face the brunt of crime), but it's usually simply because people value things differently than you do.

If you've seen government intervention in markets be absolutely destructive then it makes sense to vote for the party that is more pro-market.

Not to mention that national Dems are significantly to the left of the median Hispanic American in terms of social policy (especially on gender and race).

Ah the old "people only disagree with my politics because they are tricked".

You would utterly faily an ideological turing test.

Democrats are in a weird position where they're relatively moderate in terms of economics, but arguably the furthest left major party in the world in terms of social issues. The latter is turning off non-college educated of all ethnicities.

Not sure what you're talking about re: "criminal justice reform" - we've had an experiment on that in the last decade that has led to absolute disaster. Low level crime has increased, and now violent crime is increasing.

For an opposite story, my family emigrated from the Mid East to Europe then USA and it was by far the best thing that could have ever happened. My QOL would have been so much worse in Mid East, and even in Europe (developed, Northern Europe at that), vs. what it is today in the US. It's the number one thing I am most grateful for.

Suggest reading some Garett Jones. Hive Mind is a great book.

We have decades of hard evidence that only a certain type of immigrant is successful and increases overall productivity. You want to ignore the wealth of data because "America was bad in the past".

Simple game theory: we have two choices - A. focus immigration on high skill or B. focus immigration on low skill. If by some possibility you're right, and all people are blank slates and genetics is fake, then either choice is correct. If I am correct (suggested by ~50 years of hard data), then choice A is a huge boon to the country, while choice B bankrupts the country.

It is astonishing that you are pushing for choice B with this knowledge. Like I said before, the worst thing for those left-of-center is thinking that there may be some inherent differences in different populations. It's the worst thought that could enter their mind. They live their entire lives trying to prove to people that they don't think this. This (plus knowing that you have enough money to shield yourself if the ideas that you advocate end up being destructive), allows you to virtue signal without a care.

Your argument is "America did bad things in the past therefore we should adopt hard leftist policies even if its not in our best interest". That is the logic of unwashed, tattooed community college dropouts.

A question dctoedt - I assume you're from DC (per your name). Do you live in Columbia Heights since you think all people are equally interchangeable? Why not? Are you one of those limousine liberals that advocates for policies you know could be destructive but know you have the money to shield yourself from?

Wow you convinced me, there is no difference between any group of people and we should just take in the entire population of Central America. There will be no negative effects whatsoever. In fact you could swap the population of Beijing with that of Guatemala and you would see no difference whatsoever. You are so smart dctoedt.

By the way, I'm totally fine with allowing some number of people that we know are going to be fiscal negatives (likely into perpetuity) come to the country. There does need to be some aspect of empathy in the immigration system. That being said, those left of center are just so naive about this topic. Noticing differences in groups is so taboo that they throw common sense out of the window.

"As a group they tend to be great Americans"

There is not a single group of Central Americans that have positive fiscal impact over their lifetime. Their kids are also not becoming doctors and engineers.