Anti-Mexican immigration thread. Many American right-wingers have started defending Mexican immigration, often by comparison with MENA types in Europe. This is a mistake. First, Mexicans are just not very smart. On white American norms, they tend to score around 90.
Mexicans are most responsible for the racial transformation and hence dumbing down of America; for roughly 30 years (until 2008) hundreds of thousands crossed the border annually (mostly illegally, about 1/2 of total immigration) and they also had exceptionally high TFR.
Mexican immigrants to the United States are actually negatively selected, and those that return to Mexico are positively selected. It would be too strong to say we're getting Mexico's dregs, but they really aren't sending their best.
As a result, it's not a shock that Mexicans tend to be poor (about as poor as blacks) and not very educated, even by comparison to other Hispanic groups. Keep this in mind for future charts that refer to Hispanics rather than Mexicans (about 60% of US Hispanics are Mexican).
Mexicans are roughly as poor as blacks, but have more kids and live longer than whites, and hence are a huge fiscal drain given the extreme redistribution towards the poor and old plus high public education costs in the US.
Hispanics are not as criminal as blacks, but are still around twice as criminal as white Americans, even with 1/4 of Hispanic criminals classified as white in official stats.
As such, it's not shocking Mexicans tend to distrust everyone (including other Mexicans) and areas in the US they move to tend to become less trustworthy.
Often times you see people saying Mexicans are Western Christians and hence more assimilable than (usually) Muslims and sometimes Hindus. Mexicans themselves tend not to see it this way. In early 2025, there were weeks of Mexican race riots in Los Angeles.
Like many groups, Mexicans have a self-serving mythology of US history in which half their country was stolen by gringos but built and populated by Mexicans after 1848. Reality is the Mexican cession was almost empty and ~all Mexican-Americans descend from post-1900 migrants.
Mexico itself is corrupt, dysfunctional, and half-run by cartels, which spills over here through the diaspora. The iron law of immigration is that it makes receiving countries more like sending ones. You can see this in, for example, the conduct of both political parties.
One effect of this is that successful firms really struggle to grow in Mexico, which screws up the entire economy.
Politically, Hispanics are not as anti-white or anti-American as blacks/Asians tend to be, but are still quite left-wing and pro-socialism, affirmative action, immigration, and redistribution. Them moving more Republican doesn't change this, it changes the party.
Hispanics (mostly Mexican) are not especially "socially conservative" [a term I hate, but most understand] either. Similar views on abortion/LGBT to whites, and very high rates of bastardry.
Almost $60B in remittances annually, which makes the US forex balance (the main reason to care about a structural trade deficit) worse to no benefit. The Mexican govt publicly views the diaspora as a fifth column within the US.
In my view, the negative impacts of Mexican immigration have been muted by the fact that Mexicans often stick to Spanish-language enclaves and are not very involved in national politics or culture. But this will change in generations born here.
As a matter of pragmatism, there are too many Mexicans for anti-Mexican rhetoric to be electorally viable (it makes sense to try to integrate those that can be into coalition, who tend to be whiter, upwardly mobile, and often Protestant) and most of the damage already happened due to ultra-high immigration and fertility 1977-2007 or so. But I feel the need to set the record straight.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread with excerpts from the 1976 essay "On Meritocracy and Equality." I want to clear up some misconceptions around the idea of "meritocracy." The word was initially coined as a *pejorative* in 1958 to describe presently-existing Anglo-American society.
What characterized WWII and postwar Anglo-American society that made the word "meritocracy" appropriate? That talent (as measured by heavily genetic IQ) and technical skill, rather than hereditary privilege or some other mechanism, led to status and wealth.
But by 1976, this had already been successfully attacked and overthrown by the New Left/Civil Rights state, which replaced talent with hereditary privilege (race, sex) as the ideal arbiter of status.
The California Racial Justice Act of 2020 allows defendants (in practice, blacks and Hispanics) to claim racial discrimination and overturn convictions explicitly in the absence of intentional discrimination, off of disparate impact alone.
Supposed discrimination can be used to reverse a judgment even if said "racial bias" is harmless and did not actually impact the decision.
Successes of the racial justice act: getting murderous gang members lower sentences because they are black and blacks are more likely to be charged as gang members [because they are more likely to be gang members].
In 2022, 45% of high schoolers polled say they were taught that "America is built on stolen land" in class at school, and another 22% heard it from an adult there.
Students taught all of the "critical social justice" (CSJ) concepts were in fact more likely to agree with them; among those taught "America is built on stolen land" 73% agreed.
Among those students taught 5 CSJ concepts, 75% believed whites are responsible for the inferior social position of black people and 44% support preferential hiring and promotion of blacks.
Thread with excerpts from Boris Sax's "Stealing Fire", a book of the author reckoning with his discovery (after his father's death) that his father, Saville Sax, had been a major Soviet atomic spy, stealing important info on the A-bomb and likely the H-bomb and going unpunished.
The author was initially devastated, but eventually relieved at this discovery as partly explaining his father's awful lifetime behavior (living in black slums, beating his wife and kids, torturing dogs, never getting a stable job, dropping out of Harvard twice).
Saville's mother (author's paternal grandmother) was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. According to the author, she, like many Jews, became a Communist as a way to partly recreate an idealized version of her Russian village without the Ukrainian pogromists in America.
No it wasn't. We know exactly what the key decisionmakers (eg Bill Clinton) and intellectuals at the time were saying: China will become rich (benefitting everyone else in the process), and this will make them liberal, democratic, and peaceful.
"Globalist Americans are just trying to turn China into a cheap labor sweatshop" was a conspiracy theory promulgated by the last remnants of the Western laborist left (think anti-WTO riots) in the early 2000s, to reconcile "this is hurting Western workers and unions" with hating nationalism by arguing the REAL victims of outsourcing were workers around the world. Never based in reality.
Here is the full text of Bill Clinton's speech on opening trade to China. Read it. iatp.org/sites/default/…
The obvious historical comparison here is Nazi Germany, which pursued similar policies of suppressing labor (by eg destroying independent unions) in favor of capital to allow for investment and exports while still successfully raising worker's living standards.
Mexico not growing much since 1990 isn't because it "knows its place," it's because Mexico, being a New World country, escaped the Malthusian trap centuries prior and thus already had high living standards [comparable to China today] befitting its human capital.
When you're growing at 10% YoY, suppressing worker's incomes rises to only 5% YoY (the Chinese situation for roughly 30 years) via eliminating unions, forced savings etc still makes for a massive and very fast rise in incomes.