Replies

your suspicions are both wrong and completely CONTRADICTORY to what I have ALREADY written above — - Post 164: “they SHOULD BE MADE to accept the societal mores and culture of the culture they move to.” - Post 147: “There must be strict education in American culture and values.” - Post 141: “Education must be harsher - a very detailed study of history, civics and “ways to behave in this society” coupled with detailed language studies - not just reading 10+ books a year in English but also learning Latin, possibly Greek and at least one other language (can be Czech, can be Cantonese, can be Xhosa) along with more complex maths and science and kids to be FAILED in a year.”

What about the much-simpler solution of not letting them in in the first place?

If we agreed that the U.S. has no choice but to let in droves of Third-World migrants (and I most certainly do not!), then, of course, the policies and measures might be worthy of consideration

But I don't accept your (as-yet justified) premise that the U.S. has no choice but to allow itself to be inundated with peoples who could be "integrated" only using such measures!

Regards,

You are proposing a solution (exclusion) based on the premise you introduced in your earlier posts: that these populations are biologically 'lesser' and therefore inherently unassimilable.

You cannot bypass the fact that your entire argument for why they shouldn't be let in is rooted in your initial claim that they are genetically incapable of meeting the standards I proposed.

If, as you claimed earlier, their intelligence is fixed and their 'nature' is the problem, then your exclusion policy is just a downstream effect of your biological essentialism.

First, you should acknowledge the inaccuracy of your biological claims before we move further to any sensible discussion

So, let's stop jumping around:

Do you concede that your initial claims regarding separate gene pools, fixed IQ, and inherent biological limitations were scientifically incorrect?

Or,
do you stand by your claim regarding biological limitations

If you stand by them, then the debate is about biology, not immigration policy, and you need to provide evidence that holds up to scrutiny.

Address this first before we mvoe on