Jump to content

I was an illegal immigrant. My thoughts on Adiós, America...


Recommended Posts

Posted
The book review of Adiós, America that Amazon censored...
 
I'm a Spanish speaking, salsa dancing, Reggaeton music loving former illegal immigrant.
 
I would be an understatement to say that I really enjoyed my new country...
I mastered a new language
I tried a bunch of new types of food
Made a lot of friends
Luckily avoided cops checking my passport
And well, to be honest...
I enjoyed a lot of bump'n grinding to Reggaeton music.
My social circle was about 50% countrymen of mine, a lot of them wasted incredible amounts of time and money becoming legal residents but a lot of them just procrastinated like me and had the same legal status.
After about 2 years my brother announced that he was getting married and as much as I enjoyed my life there certain things had grown to annoy me, I was homesick and longed to be back in the country and culture where I belonged, so I bought a flight to go home.
Just showing up at the airport would be a recipe for disaster so I went down to the immigration office and announced my status and presented my ticket home to a very bored clerk, I half expected to be thrown in handcuffs but apparently this was a VERY normal thing.
A week later I met with a surprisingly attractive state attorney, explained myself and she gave me the option of just being deported with a 1 year ban from visiting again, which I went with.
No fee. No jail time. No apparent consequences. No problemo!
When I entered my home country, I expected to be thoroughly questioned about my oblong absence abroad but instead the overwhelmed customs officer looked at my passport for all of about 9 seconds and waved me through.
 
But here's the thing; I was not an illegal immigrant in the United States, I was an illegal in Colombia. I'm from Colorado originally. I came to Colombia on a 90 day tourist VISA that I overstayed by 2 years.
 
When I lived in Colombia I had to be a very good immigrant and totally integrated myself into society because the Colombian government wasn’t giving me incentives to be lazy and irresponsible. Colombia didn’t...
Give me free healthcare
Give me free housing
Help me get a job
Give me free Spanish language classes
Offer to support any children that I had there
Give me cash support
Give me food stamps
Let me vote
Give me a drivers license
I had to be an adult and take care of myself.
 
Our government offers all of the above which encourages the worst immigrants to come.
In Colombia I had a number of Colombian friends who were smart, young, hardworking ambitious people and they all wanted to come to the United States but they couldn’t because our immigration system is so backed up dealing with lower quality immigrants and illegals.
 
In case it's not clear, I have great love for latino countries…
The friendly old people
The salsa dancing
The constant festivals
Las chicas lindas
The food
I’m headed back to the south of Spain in about a month to live it up!
But, there is a profound disfunctionality in these cultures, the anecdotal evidence of this is abundant if you’ve spent much time in these countries:
The rampant alcoholism
The manana, manana work ethic
The shoddy workmanship of everything
The very k-selected reproductive practices (family values and catholic chastity are a big joke!)
The utterly incompetent state-run electric, phone and internet service providers
The disregard for safe sex
The rampant prostitution
The terrible customer service in stores and restaurants
I had a couple of friends try to start businesses in LATAM and it was next to impossible for them to hire reliable employees
The general hedonistic imperative - everything is always less important than partying and  getting laid… Except for maybe futbol!
I would occasionally ask my latino friends about politics and their response was pretty consistent, they just thought all politicians were corrupt assholes, which is mostly true in their countries and also confirms the data in Stefan Molyneux's presentation The Truth About America’s Survival.
 
I meditate everyday there's an excellent book on mindfulness that I read and reviewed by the philosopher Sam Harris; who is probably best known for his strong criticism of Islam. I joined his forum to discuss mindfulness and science and I made the mistake of sharing my insights and observations of latino culture with some liberals in a discussion of America's changing demographics.
 
I was astounded by the willful ignorance, bigotry and refusal to think that I encountered on this issue. Here's how I ended the discussion...
 

 

I wouldn’t waste my time trying to convince…
A young earth creationist
A flat earther
A climate change denier
Using facts, data, rational arguments and relevant anecdotal experiences because they have great dogmatic faith in their crazy beliefs.

And I’ve wasted too much time here trying to convince the Demographic Disaster Deniers in this thread who are equally dogmatic in their naive beliefs.
If you are too triggered to watch a 60 minute presentation...
If you refuse to consider facts and data...
If you refuse to look at history...
If you disregard meaningful anecdotal information about a culture that you know nothing about...
That’s petty dogmatism. You are the regressive leftists that Sam Harris talks about constantly on his podcast.

Aristotle observed that there are people who simply cannot be convinced by information, they can only be convinced by their own personal experience and clever emotional persuasion - Rhetoric. I had hoped that here on the Sam Harris Forum I would find real intellectuals who are interested in complex ideas that are supported by facts, data and arguments.
Instead I’ve found a bunch of shinning examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect which is that low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. People who think they are experts on a topic that they actually know nothing about
I know nothing about how to pilot a helicopter, so if I met a helicopter pilot I wouldn’t argue with him about how to land his helicopter.
The poll numbers this week and preponderance of other significant signs are indicating strongly that this idiotic social experiment of turning the United States into a latino country is going to be ending.

 

 
 
Some other issues and complex topics that Adios, America addresses...
 
On Amnesty
Everyone knows that one amnesty begets more illegal aliens,  (239-240)
There have been a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more foreigners who broke our laws.(246-247) 
Amnesty is forever.  (267-268)
IQ Squared held an excellent debate on the topic of amnesty a few weeks prior to the US election. Remarkably, the anti-amnesty team's facts and arguments overcame the feelings and womanly sentiments of the pro-amnesty team and a very liberal New York crowd was convinced.

 
Self Interest vs Compassion
Wouldn’t any sane immigration policy be based on the principle that we want to bring in only immigrants who will benefit the people already here?  (274-275)
America takes in half the refugees of the entire world.  (284-285)
At what point will Americans remind their government that it has a responsibility to us, not to every sad person in the world?  (286-287) 
The answer to that final question was answered on November 8th, 2016.
 
Welfare Usage
I've often thought that the real problem with immigration was the welfare state. To paraphrase the the defining point of another IQ Squared debate on immigration:
You can't have open immigration and an open welfare state
Ann clarifies this issue:
immigrants use welfare only at 18 percent above the native-born rate. No, the fact that any immigrants are on welfare proves we’re not taking the right immigrants. It’s like saying, Only 18 percent of our cars burst into flames when you start them. (307-309)
Our government does such a terrific job at choosing who gets to immigrate to America that 52 percent of legal immigrant households with children are on government assistance.  (311-313)
Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance.  (3848-3849) 
it would be easier to repeal the law of gravity than to prevent immigrants from accessing welfare.  (325-326)
 
On White Guilt
America takes in half the refugees of the entire world.  (284-285) 
America is the only country to fight a revolution based on the principle that all men are equal before God, and it is the only country to fight a bloody civil war to end slavery and redeem that promise.  (946-947)
 
On Diversity
Putnam’s study showed that the greater the ethnic diversity, the less people trusted their neighbors, their local leaders, and even the news. People in diverse communities gave less to charity, voted less, had fewer friends, were more unhappy, and were more likely to describe television as “my most important form of entertainment.” It was not, Putnam said, that people in diverse communities trusted people of their own ethnicity more, and other races less. They didn’t trust anyone. (1127-1130)
no matter how many variables he accounted for, Putnam kept getting the same results: Diversity damages social cohesion. (1136-1137) 
Diversity from immigration harmed social harmony even more than America’s traditional black-white racial diversity.  (1141-1142)
Ann concludes
There’s nothing good about diversity, other than the food,  (1164-1165)
Too which I'll add I do enjoy the bump'n grinding!
 
Arguing with Liberals about Immigration
As I discovered on the Sam Harris forums facts, data and my relevant anecdotal experiences do almost nothing to change people's minds on this issue. I watched an excellent TEDx talk about how conservatives and liberals talk past each other because they make arguments based on fundamentally different values.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LrThf-Beq0

Liberal Values
Equality
Fairness
Protection from harm
Tolerance
Diversity
Multiculturalism
Conservative Values
Loyalty & Patriotism
Respect for Authority
Purity & Morality
Hard Work
Voluntarism 
So next time I find myself in an immigration debate with a liberal as opposed to going with an informational argument I'll say this...
 
The problem is not with the immigrants the problem is with our government.
So our current immigration system and policy is really unfair to other countries and actually disadvantages the individual immigrants. Here's why...
Firstly, the United States and Western countries steal the best people from all of these other countries. The greatest resource that any country has is it's most intelligent, inventive, ambitious and driven citizens. As long as we have wide open immigration policies, the countries most needing help will just get worse and worse as long as we enable the brain drain from these countries.
For example...
Take a country like Greece; for Greece to not just turn into a total hell hole that country needs the best Greek entrepreneurs to stay there and start companies, to invent new things, they need good Greeks who can become principled politicians that will fight corruption. All those Greeks are moving to Germany, England or the United States. Watch any of the documentaries about Greece and you'll see this.
What Greece badly needs right now is for the best Greek people to really fight for the future of that country and that's not happening because our governments make immigration such an appealing option.
How much better off would South Africa be if Elon Musk started Paypal and Tesla there?
It's fundamentally unfair to all the other countries and to the people in those countries that we encourage their best people - their best natural resource - to come to our country instead. It's like if we went and stole all of Venezuela's oil, all of Brazil's coffee, all of Italy's olives, all of Mexico's tequila, all of Africa's diamonds or all of Colombia's beautiful women. It's fundamentally wrong for our country to steal resources from another country.
Secondly, we really disadvantage the immigrants by giving them welfare. Immigrants have tremendous potential to really be productive members of society because when you move to a new country and are surrounded by a new culture and language it really sparks neuroplasticity which is the capacity of your mind to grow, adapt and invent awesome new stuff. But we blunt that potential by giving them so much free stuff.
Free healthcare
Free language classes
Free schooling of their children
Free vocational training
Free legal services 
Free groceries
Even free housing and cash support in some cases 
When people have no other option other than to succeed they become incredibly innovative, this is what really unlocks our limitless human potential, All of the success stories you hear about immigrants are evidence of this; they are people who came to a brand new country and out of desperation worked really hard to create something great. But when people are given a monthly stipend of a $1000 cash and a bunch of free stuff we make them way too comfortable to ever reach beyond mediocrity.
 
Not only does our immigration system steal the best people from the countries that need them the most it disadvantages them when they get here while at the same time attracting the worst people from these countries who just want to take advantage of our generous welfare system.
 
How's that for a fact free argument to appeal to womanly liberal feelings?

 

  • Upvote 3
Posted

If you are looking for an opening, there are plenty of openings right now in the new media for people on the progressive's victim hierarchy rebutting the victim hierarchy, e.g. Milo, Dave Rubin, C Hoff Summers, Raheem Kassam etc. I've never observed a Latino criticise immigration before.

Your experience on the Sam Harris forum is interesting. My current analysis of this phenomena is linked to your list of 'liberal' values:
 

Equality
Fairness
Protection from harm
Tolerance
Diversity
Multiculturalism

These values give strong leanings to supporting certain groups that can be wrapped into the 'liberal' side. Here are some groups that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' typically side with:

Screenshot_at_2016_11_19_18_47_28.png

You will no doubt have observed leftists side with unflinching loyalty to the groups in the left column. They may tend to ignore their groups' wrongs because they see them as being on their side. Just in the way you might take the side of a relative, even when they are in the wrong. Or at least treat them less harshly than you would have otherwise.

If you flip this on its head and think of white farmers in Zimbabwe, this minority group does not get wrapped in the protective values of the left, even though the group is a victim of people who abuse 'liberal' values. I have seen, in many cases, leftists say that these Zimbabwean farmers have got what they deserve, despite being victims of genocide and racially targeted property confiscation, which are against their values, allegedly. The white Zimbabwean farmers are not seen as part of their tribe and thus do not get the protection of its values. They have nothing to gain and something to loose by supporting them.
 
In short, the tribe is stronger than values. I would argue that the values are to a great extent a mirage used to leverage society into their desired path. The tribe, in this case, is people who demand resources be diverted to them as their strategy for survival; whether they be academics who want to cream government funding or single mothers who want their entire life fully subsidised. And they will take into their fold people they see as making their world more viable, even if they don't agree with some/all of their values. For example, a poor, low-IQ single mother probably won't have any real societal philosophy as to why she should get money for nothing, it works for her and as a result she may vote for those she sees as protecting her survival strategy - the left.

One of the reasons I think that the left is going nuts shouting racist, sexist etc. is because they need the threat of such things to round up voting blocks and justify social and governmental structures to create the society they desire. It is a society in which people like themselves who don't want to or can't survive in a free market get to live in a bubble of other people's labour and resources.

Of all theories I have heard on what drives society, the most compelling is the r/K selection theory. There are people who make long-term decisions, conserve, build the blocks of civilisation (k-selective); and there are people who do the opposite of that, but see the wealth produced as a result of k-selective people and have evolved strategies to give themselves the fruits of the k-selective people. Some of the strategies are: outright theft, social democracy and Marxism.

In short, the reason why people on the Sam Harris forum will refuse to look at your evidence and hear your arguments is because you are threatening the method through which they (want to) obtain their resources: subsidised or debt-powered universities, academic funding, quangos, government jobs - anything that doesn't face the market. Of course, they are not consciously aware of this. Its reactionary behaviour, like a moth flying into a lamp.

This is why they get so angry with people like Milo. He is literally taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of their resource gathering strategy.

 
Posted

Would you be interested/willing to edit (or allow others to edit this) to make suitable for sharing on social media?

If you think my experience might change someone's mind on this issue I would totally welcome anyone's edits or suggestions...

Posted

Your experience on the Sam Harris forum is interesting. My current analysis of this phenomena is linked to your list of 'liberal' values:
 

Equality
Fairness
Protection from harm
Tolerance
Diversity
Multiculturalism

These values give strong leanings to supporting certain groups that can be wrapped into the 'liberal' side. Here are some groups that 'liberals' and 'conservatives' typically side with:

Screenshot_at_2016_11_19_18_47_28.png

You will no doubt have observed leftists side with unflinching loyalty to the groups in the left column. They may tend to ignore their groups' wrongs because they see them as being on their side. Just in the way you might take the side of a relative, even when they are in the wrong. Or at least treat them less harshly than you would have otherwise.

If you flip this on its head and think of white farmers in Zimbabwe, this minority group does not get wrapped in the protective values of the left, even though the group is a victim of people who abuse 'liberal' values. I have seen, in many cases, leftists say that these Zimbabwean farmers have got what they deserve, despite being victims of genocide and racially targeted property confiscation, which are against their values, allegedly. The white Zimbabwean farmers are not seen as part of their tribe and thus do not get the protection of its values. They have nothing to gain and something to loose by supporting them.
 
In short, the tribe is stronger than values. I would argue that the values are to a great extent a mirage used to leverage society into their desired path. The tribe, in this case, is people who demand resources be diverted to them as their strategy for survival; whether they be academics who want to cream government funding or single mothers who want their entire life fully subsidised. And they will take into their fold people they see as making their world more viable, even if they don't agree with some/all of their values. For example, a poor, low-IQ single mother probably won't have any real societal philosophy as to why she should get money for nothing, it works for her and as a result she may vote for those she sees as protecting her survival strategy - the left.

One of the reasons I think that the left is going nuts shouting racist, sexist etc. is because they need the threat of such things to round up voting blocks and justify social and governmental structures to create the society they desire. It is a society in which people like themselves who don't want to or can't survive in a free market get to live in a bubble of other people's labour and resources.

Of all theories I have heard on what drives society, the most compelling is the r/K selection theory. There are people who make long-term decisions, conserve, build the blocks of civilisation (k-selective); and there are people who do the opposite of that, but see the wealth produced as a result of k-selective people and have evolved strategies to give themselves the fruits of the k-selective people. Some of the strategies are: outright theft, social democracy and Marxism.

In short, the reason why people on the Sam Harris forum will refuse to look at your evidence and hear your arguments is because you are threatening the method through which they (want to) obtain their resources: subsidised or debt-powered universities, academic funding, quangos, government jobs - anything that doesn't face the market. Of course, they are not consciously aware of this. Its reactionary behaviour, like a moth flying into a lamp.

This is why they get so angry with people like Milo. He is literally taking a wrecking ball to the foundations of their resource gathering strategy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.