Biology: Genetics

>>8399040
No. Immigrants the make it through fairly strict vetting programs tend to be more successful than locals regardless of background

explain how all mexicans are lazy braindead indians living off welfare then

File: 1457311653242.jpg (8KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x237px

>>8399043
>Immigrants the make it through fairly strict vetting programs
>He actually believes all immigrants go through a vetting process
>He actually believes the vetting process is good

File: pepesad.jpg (39KB, 540x368px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x368px

>>8399040
i always knew /pol/ is where high ranking dems come to speak their minds.

>>8399040
He's right. It's good to know that Democrats are just pretending to be retarded while actually being /pol/acks.

>>8399040
> Why do people from cultures that promote hard or smart work have more success than people from cultures that promote selfishness, religiosity*, and anti-intellectualism?
> Must be genetics.

Note that the only group he refers to that is genetically rather than culturally defined, is black people. The same black people that create no issue in the UK or east Asia, or anywhere else they aren't either culturally African or the descendents of slaves with the associated cultural baggage.

If you look at Europe, especially as it was a century ago, you'll find similarly huge prejudices across comparatively tiny genetic differences, seemingly because of cultural separation and prejudice.

Racial genetic differences are an unnecessary hypothesis. It would fit in the data, especially where genetically distant Blacks and Australian Aboriginals are concerned, but there isn't enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

* A lifestyle where personal choice is considered less important than divine plans. Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam.

>>8399054
There is a good vetting process in place in most Western countries. Problem is they do little to act against people who dodge the system or refuse to leave after being rejected.

>>8399072
No you dipshit. UK blacks are recent immigrants, and are screened. American Blacks are descended from a representative sample of the West African population.

Blacks are still a problem population all over Europe.

>>8399077
There have been blacks in the UK for hundreds of years

>>8399079
Ok, now I know you're trolling. They were less than 1% of the population.

>>8399082
So?

>>8399082

That doesn't mean they weren't there, retard. We're not debating statistics he just said they were there even if they were 1% of the population that still means they are fucking there. Jesus pal turn your fucking brain on for 2 fucking seconds.

>>8399072
>Racial genetic differences are an unnecessary hypothesis.
why do you retards try so fucking hard to ignore genetics?

you would be laughed out of any reputable university if you tried to argue that the reason gorillas are dumber than humans is completely environmental.

>>8399077
They might be recent but they really weren't screened. At the end of the second world war, the government need people, and since there were no restrictions on subjects of the empire migrating to other parts of the empire; when the Empire Windrush docked in Kingston the only barrier was if they could afford the £50 ticket.

The first immigration controls didn't come into effect until the early 60's.

>>8399117
And you'd be laughed out of any reputable university for draw an analogy between a discussion of two different human populations and two different species.