@MPI - VA If you have a redpill folder you're in for some good stuff because I'm working on a massive curated list of immigration research plus other projects

I tried using the Center for Immigration Studies on my sjw sister and she said it doesn't count because it's a right-wing think tank and biased

If you guys want some arguments right now, you should listen to my immigration immigration speech that I gave my pubic speaking class.

@Isabella Locke-MT If you want, I can get you alternative sources to cite

If anyone wants citations on any immigration related topic, I'm your guy

I will take you up on that later

Great. Seriously, if you guys need data on anything immigration related, feel free to DM or tag me.

I like these hard stats for when liberals begin their condescending demands that we prove the sky is blue right after having spoken in platitudes or having quoted the lamestream media and subversive academics

Negative information about immigration is right wing therefore all think tanks and studies which produce data other than 'immigrants are rainbows and unicorns' are right wing

I've seen a few based youtube videos where they gave liberal actors some facts on immigration to read lol

the actors didn't know what they were getting themselves into

Absolutely. We need both emotions and facts. @TylerHess

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1069396212741222400?s=19

True Conservatives are incredibly based.

@missliterallywho Yes, it's generally not ideal to cite right wing think tanks directly. However, if you dig far enough, there is a lot of evidence that comes from "neutral" sources

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4h-lVyaP8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u4Vlgr2iHs

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

This is the article I recommend that everyone read. George Borjas is great because he's a Harvard economist, and his takes are pretty nuanced. He's not really "anti" immigration, however, what he says generally favors restrictions.

This article in particular is written in very simple language and is a good introduction.

https://gborjas.org

This is his blog, which has some more advanced writting on it. A lot of it is still pretty easy to understand, though.

@Nemets so the dotted line means non human? How come it comes from the "human" bubble though?

https://gborjas.org/2016/09/21/a-users-guide-to-the-2016-nas-immigration-report/

This is a pretty good guide to the 2016 NAS report on immigration. He explains the implications of the report so you don't have to read the whole thing yourself, and, if you get into an argument, you can just cite the report.

For immigration’s economics, read George Borjas. For immigration’s cultural impacts, read Robert Putnam. For immigration’s history, read Peter Brimelow. For current immigration politics, read Daniel Horowitz. For left wing criticism of immigration, read Jefferson Cowie and Angela Nagle.

That should fully cover you in the issue. Feel free to message me for more.

Jacob recommended him too

Liberals don't like Borjas because he's an "outlier" when it comes to economists, however, he has good explanations for why the other economists are wrong, so you can pretty easily shut down that argument.

@Nemets I would have thought it was the Khoi who would have that profile. In older schemes they were considered the most archaic humans and I think wiki still says that

@MPI - VA Putnam is good to read, however, it's important to be prepared for when liberals try to say that "that's just one study" or whatever

Bantus are the biggest movers in SA though so maybe it doesn't matter that they aren't human if they are pushing out Khoi and Whites. Truly Bantus are the superior lifeform.

The replication rates for Putnam's work aren't perfect, however, (1) there is much more research showing negative than positive effects of diversity, and (2) the studies that don't replicate his conclusion have shitty methodologies, like using kitchen sink regressions

@Jacob plenty of other good diversity and trust studies out there. See Koopmans and Veit study out of Germany, or James Lawrence and Lee Bentley’s study in the European sociological review from a couple years ago. Or Delhey and Newton in the same publication but it’s a bit older

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/

This is a pretty good list, however, I'm working on a better one. Stay tuned.

Full disclosure, though, mine is going to take a while to come out

I love it when chat gets big brained

My autism is so satisfied right now

@MPI - VA My favorite study on diversity is the one that cherry picked a non random sample of countries and concluded that diversity actually increases social cohesion after controlling for a bunch of variables

Lol

Basically all the "immigration = good" studies are hilariously bad if you actually read them

The Robert Putnam study has been replicated a number of times. The most consistent result was that Robert Putnam was right. Th second most consistent result was that, once you controlled for Hispanic and Africans, diversity had no effect.

TFW you realize destroying gender relations is a double-edged sword. (Couldn't archive it due to Bloomberg blocking archival requests.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

@Gimlet Based Mike Pence style business

@SeanVV lol that's not true

@Wood-Ape - OK/MN Right?

I’m a big fan of the “akshually immigrants are innovators” studies that don’t adjust for race. Like 90% of the current immigrant CEOs are Asians and the 20th century ones were Jews. Latinos are drastically underrepresented among immigrant entrepreneurs