http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...oyers/#content

Just as in Britain, the government talks tough on illegal immigration but in practice they encourage it. Has Obama forgotten that it is his duty to represent the people of the United States, not Mexico or corporate big business? If Arizona wants to punish companies who KNOWINGLY hire illegal immigrants, it is unconstitutional for the president to prevent that from happening.

I hope Arizona wins in court.

I don't think that is the case. It would seem that the Federal Govt is concerned that the State legislature is interfering in a federal issue and taking advantage of a loophole in the law.

I can see their point, if you allow States to set laws on things like immigration there is a risk that individual States will become akin to Autonomous entities within the US, this is something the Federal Govt will obviously attempt to discourage and understandably so.

So I think that is their major concern rather than the immigration policy itself.

Did anyone see the story about the state of California cutting economic ties with the state of Arizona? It turns out Los Angeles buys electricity from Arizona http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ty-supply.html

Politicians dumb the World over.

Democrats are always too soft on the immigration issue, sort of how Labour were in this country

The law seems to be quite clearly in Arizona's favour.

The 1986 law referred to in the report isn't part of the constitution. Congress could repeal the section in question and the Federal government could order Arizona to stop.

Anyway, this law seems pretty stupid. Are they planning to close every farm in the state? Not many people will toil in fields in the blazing heat in a state with no minimum wage.

Pay people enough and they'll do it - if labour is too expensive then the farm isn't viable.

they usually aren't.

that's why they all get subsidies to compensate for having to pay high wages compared to forigen competition.

I'm stunned you count Fox as a reliable news source.. Bear in mind fox is about as reliable a news source as The Sun, i.e. they'll swing and spin any which way they like and do whatever they fancy to pander to a particular audience. Only they make The Sun look like complete amateurs at it because in the US Fox managed to get legal precedent set that they can outright lie to their viewers (see http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html for a description of it, and always remember it when dealing with any american news. Both sides do it, outrageously.)

That said, this is just all part of the wrangling back and forth covering the 10th Amendment alongside other aspects of law. Arizona (along with many southern states) are 10th amendment minimalists, whist the norther states generally like the way things are.
Arizona's immigration law is far from ideal, if not in theory, but certainly in implementation. There are already significant reports of racial profiling coming out, but their recent changes are helping to relieve that. If the APD would adopt the practice of asking every single person they pull over to prove their citizenship that would resolve that problem. They don't want to however, because then people accuse the local government of being too intrusive.

Filching from wiki: The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Essentially that is there to stop huge bloated over-reaching from the Federal government. Each state is in effect an individual nation, but coming under an overall federal government. Kinda like the EU but a lot further along, and generally a lot better implemented.

Under the Bush administration immigration increased in complexity, and increased in timescales for processing, and increased in cost significantly (costs around $1k to do all the applications needed, and that's a one time fee. If you get even one mistake on one form the whole lot has to be re-done and re-filed and payed for again).

It's only towards the end of his administration that the USCIS implemented specialist centers that have cut application times down. Even so, in the UK you can get straightforward immigration cases dealt with in around a month. In the US it currently takes nearly 4-5 months to process even straight-forward cases. If you try to enter on the green card lottery (i.e. don't meet educational, job skill or family requirements) you're talking a year and a half.
The immigration system is so diverse and complex that even immigration specialist lawyers are starting to struggle to ensure all the paperwork is completed successfully. I consider myself to be reasonably smart and it threw me for six in a few areas, which our lawyer caught. In the entire time the application is being handled you get no status updates, until almost the very end. No ETA, nothing.

Is it any wonder people enter illegally? There are three things that are desperately needed:

1) Immigration reform. Make it simple, make it clear cut, make the forms straightforward. Cut out the numerous grey areas (like the one I used), many of which allow you to enter the country and stick around until the application is processed.
Reduce complexity should result in faster application processing, cheaper costs, and reduce the temptation for normally law abiding citizens to dodge the system.

2) Sort out the weak borders. (We're lucky in Hawaii!) Obama has already agreed to increase national guard significantly there. Not sure what else can be done practically short of Great Wall Of China..

3) Enforce existing laws. No brainer. If penalties are harsh for illegal immigrants (currently can be barred from entry for 10 years) and actually enforced, it would go a long way to discourage people from trying illegal entry.

Interesting story that emphasises attitudes in Arizona (and there are others):

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...al-debate.html

Do you really think this state is capable of handling their new immigration law in a non-racist manner?

Wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is racist now?

he's right, the shading on the face is terrible.

There is nothing wrong with wanting for pictures to represent the reality.
In reality USA, just like Britain, is a historically, and currently predominantly, white country.

Take the video about the Olympic mascots, when they showed the kids playing and the people interviewed etc there was not a single white kid there, you would think we were in Africa and not in UK.

There is nothing racist about wanting the positive discrimination and political correctness BS to stop.

Many of Arizona's power plants including the Palo Verde nuclear power facility are actually owned by California Utilities.

Absolutely not, and I have never claimed that. Thank you for putting words in my mouth though, it's always appreciated.

Do you have any idea how soft the Republicans have been for the past 8 years? How they've screwed up the INS by integrating it with the USCIS and resulting in reduced funding for border patrols?
Governments full stop, left or right wing have a bad rep for immigration, the world over. That's not to say the INS was perfect, far from it. It became a corrupted mess but their 'solution' was nothing of the sort.
Whether McCain or Obama had gained government Arizona would still have put this law into place, only the commentators would be tackling it from different angles, e.g. Fox pushing the Federal response, and CNBC and the like blaming the continued mis-management by the administration.

That's one whole big complicated mess. California sells something like 75% of the power it generates in state to other states, and buys what it needs other neighbouring states. I'm not too sure quite how the economics of that works out, but I presume it does somehow or someone really is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

Ehm, the green card lottery has some minimum job experience and educational requirements (somethign equivalent to at least a highschool diploma and some work experience at a job that requires training).

What are the educational, job skill requirements that you refer to as in those that would allow you to enter the usa as an immigrant legally - without the use of the diversity visa programme? As far as I know there is simply no way to immigrate legally to the usa unless you are sponsored by the employer, or your are some sort of a nobel laureate or some kind of academic genius with a ton of publications (and of course if you own a business there).

I'd be interested in any info you have, as well as more details on the issue that you mentioned of "going there and staying there until your papers are sorted out".

cheers

kgi is entirely right afaik

DD you should get a job as a headline writer for the daily mail. The story and headline just do not match.

The obama administratrion are not defending businesses employing illegals but rather opposing the principle of a state controlling immigration policies.

Arizona is the number 2 top kidnapping place in the world, if the federal government won't enforce its own laws what did they expect the local government to do.

Arizona has had some of its proposed law blocked by a judge.

I thought I'd share this reader comment with you, from the NY Times website, which I think hits the nail on the head and is also a very similar situation to that which we face in Britain, with more and more immigrants putting a strain on our public services and infrastructure and making us more overcrowded. The reader rightly draws the parallels with Bernie Madoff - the idea that we can become better off by having an infinite growth population pyramid scheme is insanity.

http://community.nytimes.com/comment...on/29thu1.html

The lefties seem to love immigration, and I will never understand their position on why we should encourage people that we don't need to come

Perhaps if your views were more mature, you would understand that immigration is encouraged and desired by a lot of "righties" as well.

What are corn and wheat subsidies for then? I've never once seen a Mexican farm worker around here because it's all done with machinery, in fact at harvest time they bring in *legal* guys from South Africa to work the machines. The farmers still get subsidies though, which they seem to spend on massive houses, recreational boats/aircraft, and hunting trips to other countries.

The analogy of Madoff is completely irrelevant and nonsensical. I really can't see the parallel there.

More unskilled immigrant labour (legal or illegal doesn't matter) means lower wages for manufacturers and mass producers, which in turn means lower inflation as wages don't rise which means lower export prices. The latter helps the GDP grow instead of resorting to importing everything as you can actually compete in prices.

The strain on public services is put simply because the gov allows it to. There is no reason why immigrants (even legal ones) without indefinite leave to remain or citizenship should be allowed free access to any kind of benefits or public services. The strain could be reduced if immigrants were obliged to prove a high level of english before allowed any kind of non-immigrant status. So that point about strain on public services is pointless, it's not about them, it's about how the state provides for them.

Also, strain on the public transport? Why is that such a big deal? So you don't want immigrants because you have trouble riding the bus??? Besides most of transport is no longer public per se as they actually make their costs through ticketing - they can always expand that to make sure that they are no strain to public finances by reflecting actual costs on ticketing.

Overcrowded? perhaps but that is down to how the gov treats it as well by pushing decentralisation as well. London doesn't have to be the only business centre.

A Fox News post in Speaker's Corner? Are you taking the ****?

I think this is the main reason people don't want these immigrants:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/fugitives/...vc_murders.htm

I know it's the main motivator in my life to earn money, so I can afford not to live near them.

Righties want immigrants of high skill, lefties are happy to allow anyone in

Like I say, come back when your outlook has matured. Until then, I give up. :-)

So you believe that by stopping illegal (or even legal) immigration you will not have murderers anymore? Or is it ok if they only kill their own race, as long as it is far away from you and "your" country right? Apparently an American/British/xxxx life is worth more than a Mexican or otherwise.

You must be trolling, I can't fathom anything else.

To make sure farming is profitable enough that it's not worth outsourcing to Africa etc.

My outlook is mature, and describes exactly how the two sides (in both USA and UK) run things

No it doesn't, it's plain wrong - big business (the right) is interested in any source of cheap labour, high-skilled or not. The fact that the 'right' also portrays itself as 'tough on immigration' is an oft highlighted dichotomy, or hypocrisy to be less kind, within the right-wing political field.

Much like the right crows about 'US/British jobs for US/British people' - yet big business and unregulated consumerism is the biggest driver of outsourcing and importing cheap goods from abroad - again go figure.

But the right is not just the right economically (again talking about the big parties here, not the fringe ones)
Overall the right (Cons / GOP) are pro business, but anti low skilled immigration (and rightly so, we do not need to be building an economy on low skilled jobs)

High immigration creates a surplus of jobs.

A surplus of jobs creates a market where salaries can be pushed down.

Businesses like low salaries for their employees.

Right-wing parties tend to support businesses.

Yay for the free market.

That was my point, the dichotomy or hypocrisy of the right.

It's more a case that those in power in the right are pro-business, but throw a few bones now and then to their support on issues like immigration.

Except that you are only taking into account their economic policies, rather than what the party stands for as a whole.

What you say is true, but has far too many downsides. Pushing down salaries prevents people from having excess money, thus they are less able to spend. True you have plenty more people (due to the immigrants), but they also need more services (government wise). You put more strain on transport, health, education.

People are also far more likely to leave to other countries if they can earn a better wage, and not live in such crowded conditions.

This is before you consider the social issues due to immigration.

Which is why the right while being pro business, is not necessarily pro low skilled immigrants ... as any positives they might bring are out-weighted by the negatives.
It makes much more sense to build an economy on high skilled jobs, filled with nationals and immigrants, and with the lower skilled jobs being filled by nationals only.

Everything has to be balanced, you cannot be a party that takes things to the extreme, there is no hypocrisy in that. You are simply clever enough to understand that you have to balance things, and too much of one thing is bad ... something that Labour have FAILED to do for their entire history

The right tends to export work rather than import labour. (it's usually easier, quicker and more profitable)

We are all aware that a party is factionalised to some extent. Tell me though, how powerful is the voice of the social conservatives over the pro-business lobby? Not very!

The more strain applied to government services adds more credibility to narrative of "Government services aren't working. We need a private sector solution".

What "big business"? I don't see IBM or Boeing or even Kellogs using illegal Mexicans. I live in the US and all the Mexicans I see work at meat packing plants, very small lawncare/roofing/drywall companies or work for themselves doing odd jobs for people. Often it is one American roofer with 3 Mexicans helpers. Hardly big business.

The Mexican workers send all their money back to Mexico, $25 billion a year. How does that help American business? If you want cheap labour you are free to open a factory in Mexico. That's what Ford has done.

It's the LEFT who want illegal immigrants here because they are 99% democrat voters. They will vote for the freebies. That's why they refuse to make ID required to vote, and are pushing this amnesty so hard. An instant 20,000,000? new democrats.

The reason the right is soft on immigration is because they are scared of getting called racists. Anything remotely tough on immigration = BNP/Nazi/Fascist/Racist card pulled.

The left/right Labour/Tory Dem/GOP debate is a false one in my opinion, because if you look at their policies and their actions when in power, they act as one. Sometimes they might talk the talk on immigration but they never implement policies which put those words into action, when they are in power. Just as Obama is weak on immigration controls, so was Bush.

This is where the term LibLabCon comes from. It isn't a crazy conspiracy theory, just look at when the 'left' or the 'right' are in power - what's the big difference? Apart from a subtle difference in tone or a few insignificant policy differences at the margins, it's business as usual.

While us plebs argue between ourselves about 'left' and 'right' they are laughing at us and doing as they please, in a virtual single party dictatorship.

We'd certainly have a lot less. 30% less at least. And let's not go in to the 50.1% of murders committed by blacks. White "Anglos" only account for perhaps 20% of murder arrests in the USA.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.html

Notice how Mexicans, etc. are counted as "white" to massage the numbers in to something more politically correct. Look at the Most Wanted list I posted before and you will figure out how many are actually Latino.

When they commit a crime they are counted as white.
When they are the victim of a crime they are counted as Hispanic.

As for Mexicans murdering Mexicans or Africans murdering Africans, I don't care at all. I don't live there (yet).

The problem is that murder is not a race trait, so by getting rid of immigrants you are not going to end up with less murders. Maybe so in the short term but that is until another social group is marginalised and takes their place.

Criminal behaviour is bred through social inequalities, poverty and lack of opportunities in addition to racism etc. Therefore, it's not as if immigrants have murder in their blood, it's because they are marginalised, mistreated and have no recourse most of the times to make a living that they adopt such behaviours (although you do get the bad apples who simply try to evade their own country's laws). What I'm getting at is that when immigrants leave someone else will take their place and emulate their criminal behaviour.

Of course, on the other hand, keeping iimmigrants and simply improving their life quality is not going to solve the problem. The answer is integration, unless you can get people to integrate and stop the racial seggregation that breeds apathy and criminal behaviours you will get nowhere. I believe that the reason why crime rates were usually lower before heavy immigration into some countries was simply because of the integration that existed there. When immigrants came seggregation began and threw everything off balance. Mind you that's just my theory.

hmm, i wonder if this has anything to do with "white 'anglos'" wielding disproportionately large economic, social and political power??

why not look at the other side of the coin and look at the racial breakdown of statistics for preventable deaths, drug addiction, being the victim of homicide, etc. (tip: you'll see exactly the same correlation. it's almost as if being poor in america is a horrible life!)


well aren't you just delightful

Haha, as if. The general wealth/quality of life/health bell curve would just shift to fill the gap left by the immigrants and the whites at the bottom would pick up the slack in murdering.

Except wealth / quality of life is not the only thing that causes crime.
Plenty of places have poor people who are very friendly and not criminals.


Other social issues contribute to crime beyond just wealth

So being poor is a valid excuse for murdering people?

Are you saying if we imported 20,00,000 people from a country with an extremely high murder rate, then made them leave, there would be some sort of residual murder rate increase left behind?? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Yes, my "bell curve" was intended to capture a variety of societal factors to much the same end as you're describing.

No, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid explanation for it.

No, and I'm really not sure how on earth you're drawing that conclusion from what I said.

I suppose places like Yemen and Singapore have such low crimes rates because they are bastions of equality and opportunity.

Blacks have had 40+ years to integrate, affirmative action, employment preference, racial quotas, free housing, free money, free college, and every other liberal equality benefit you could possibly give them, yet they still account for 50% of murders.

What sort of integration time frame are we looking at here? 10,000 years?

40+ years? That's barely a generation, and when you look at the prejudice they face it's barely a wonder that some of them are struggling.

What prejudice?

and 40+ years is plenty, other parts of the world have integrated in less than that.

The general wealth/quality of life/health bell curve would just shift to fill the gap left by the immigrants and the whites at the bottom would pick up the slack in murdering.

You're saying if all the immigrants left, whites would some how take over their crime?

"Hey Chuck, Hector Gonzales said he was going to stab his girlfriend tonight but he got deported back to Guatemala, you better go stab yours to cover for him."

[quote=rypt;17080803]What prejudice?[quote]

You're seriously asking me what prejudice black people face?

Meh, I figured you'd leap on it from a time perspective and claim I meant it would happen instantaneously.

Short of some major social engineering you can never remove the "bottom" from society so crime will continue to occur.

[quote=vonhelmet;17080941][quote=rypt;17080803]What prejudice?No more than the Jews who came to the US from absolute poverty and prejudice in the Polish/Ukrainian/German ghettos after WW2.

Yet they some how managed to avoid murdering at a rate of 4 times their population. In fact many of them became wealthy, productive members of society in the US despite facing rampant antisemitism.

Something is not adding up with these excuses you're giving me.

So what exactly are you saying kwerk, that the more melanin you have increases the inherence of criminality? ROFL

I read half the thread, and I didn't see it mentioned, the single worst thing is that Obama is asking the Supreme Court to do something, which is completely against the idea behind the Supreme court, you can get a guy elected onto the Supreme court but they are supposed to be independant, and not at all influencable by outside sources directly on any specific cases, its almost certainly not as cut and dry as that, everyone feels pressure, but the President certainly shouldn't in ANY way be pushing his agenda on the courts.

Obama's a douchebag though, while I don't agree on some stuff Kwerk is saying his post on the immigrants, left wing, potential voters is spot on, Democrats want to make them all legal and get them all onboard, Obama in particular but democrats, rather like Labour, think borrowing any amount of money to pay for everyone to get everything is the way forward, no matter how badly the debt ruins the country, democrats completely irresponsibly will be completely behind housing and giving benefits to all the illegal immigrants if they get the chance, they know this and its obvious who they'd all vote for.

Obama is so ultra left wing its a joke, and he's doing all kinds of things, like directly asking the supreme court to do as he wishes. I can't stand the guy because he's downright running the USA into the ground economically, which is killing the UK aswell.

Imagine Labour, with 1trillion of debt, deciding to massively massively increase funding in the NHS to give everyone massively better healthcare(of which almost all of it will be wasted as per usual) to the point we'd be 2trillion in debt within a few years, thats Obama's great "healthcare plan".

Yes its a lovely idea, and no I don't think a single republican is against more healthcare for free and for everyone, however, its completely irresponsible, the USA can't afford an NHS, neither can the UK right now in its current massively over staffed situation. The UK is desparate to reduce debt/deficit and is actively trying to do so, the USA is desparate to reduce their deficit but is actively trying to increase it.

Everything the guys done has been essentially, wrong, I hate that just because he talks about renewable energy, is black, and talks about free healthcare for all he is seen as unable to do anything wrong. A white democrat ultra left winger would be ripped to shreds for what he's doing as president.

I assume you believe in Darwin and evolution and all that.

There are a group of people who evolved in an environment where they had a harsh winter each year (Japan) which killed off everyone who didn't delay gratification and store away food for the winter. Eventually a people would evolve who are good at planning and long term strategy. They can easily connect long term consequences with short term actions.

There are another group of people who evolved in a tropical climate with no real discernible seasons (Congo). They eat what they catch as soon as they catch it, because they've never had an environmental force to do otherwise. Those people evolve with a less strategic mind.

Fast forward to a place in modern times with a western style law enforcement system. Which of these two groups are going to be more likely to connect short term gratifying action (murdering someone you hate), with the long term consequence (going to prison). The Japanese or the Congolese? The Polish Jews or the Honduran Indians?

It explains why certain groups in the same society:

Are more prone to committing crime.
Place less value on education.
Have a higher reliance on state benefits.
Default on financial obligations at a much higher rate.
Have higher instances of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other self-inflicted long term health problems.

The statistics definitely support this idea. Now you can go ahead and try to dispute it with soft social science babble you read out of a sociology book, but the hard science is on my side.

'Hard' science was on your side about 50 years ago, but you're way out of date now.

The concept that this:

Can be equated with this:

Is frankly laughable.

I'd love to see your 'hard science' that shows genetic links to the latter category. Gotta love the token pseudo-scientific justifications for racial supremacism though, it's up there with "black people run fast because they used to chase cheetahs hurf durf"

I am indeed asking what prejudice they face in modern UK or USA (who have a black president)

You are kidding, right? You think because their president is black somehow racism has suddenly disappeared? You only have to look at how many black people are in their senate to see things still aren't equal.

That is not a measure of racism or prejudice though, or was UK sexist due to lack of female MPs?

Why mention they have a black president as a sign that there is no racism or prejudice then? Or is the logic only applicable if they're president?

The statistics are there, look them up. Black Americans typically do not think long term about their health. They have higher rates of obesity, diabetes, STDs and heart disease from unhealthy eating, smoking and risky sexual practices.

There is a massive bulk of statistical evidence on my side and it fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.

All you have is the baseless claim that all groups are physiologically and by extension, intellectually equal in potential ability. There's a reason you don't see the Chinese team winning Olympic relay races, it's the same reason for the stuff I described above.

Oh but wait... I suppose the running track is culturally biased towards Chinese people, or maybe they don't get enough vitamins growing up, or maybe relay races simply aren't valued in Chinese culture, or maybe they don't have a dad around to teach them how to run fast. That must be it.

Or do you just believe the earth was made by god 6000 years ago and all that evolution stuff is satan's lies?

A lack of black senators simply means that members of that community may be lacking some of the oratory or whatever skills to get that far in politics.

Having a black president shows that the people in America have no problem voting for a black person (in fact, during the last election it was the blacks who were racist with the MAJORITY voting for Obama [which was not the case to the same extent in previous elections with respect to the GOP/Dem split], while the white vote was evenly split)

So high melanin levels mean poor oration skills now? I've heard it all now.

Being black maybe isn't the barrier to achievement it once was, but to suggest everything is now fine is truly laughable.

It comes down to lack of money and lack of social mobility, guess what, if your black in the states (here in Britain as well I imagine) you are far more likely to come from an impoverished background. Is it then any wonder that blacks are over represented in jail (partly due to barbaric drug laws, but that's another issue entirely), I think you'll find it has far more to do with poverty than melanin.

I never said it was due to melanin, but for whatever reason blacks are not achieving as well as whites - education numbers show that - despite them having access to the same level/standard of state education

You think they have access to the same level and standard of education?

Go on, tell another one...

They do though, what causes problems is the fact that they join gangs, and so on
It is a social problem of their own making, and not a prejudice problem

Do you think that schools in deprived areas offer the same level of education than a rich area?

Then even if they manage to get through school there is always the massive barrier in cost to further education.

Also you need to realise growing up in destitute conditions, some have little choice but to join those gangs. Gangs that get young children to work for them as look outs, it is a brutal cycle.

Baloney, the local communities shield the gangs and often dont help the police to bust the gangs.

Again, none of this is prejudice ... it is all their own doing

Believe what you want, and be happy in your bubble.

The government bends over backwards trying to spend money on minority students. Look how much "diverse" places like NY and Michigan spend per student compared to places like Washington or Idaho. It's almost double in some cases. They get free breakfast, free lunch, free laptops, free school supplies, free tutoring etc.

Then the universities have racial quotas, racial scholarships, government minority grants, everything possible.

If you want a really in depth look at the situation you should research the KC magnet schools fiasco. They basically went "full retard" on education, building Olympic pools, small class sizes, fencing classes, shipping teachers in from Europe, building a mock UN, video editing labs, mock court room, everything you can imagine. Then they bussed in poor minority students to make use of this stuff. It was a total failure and waste of money.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

Actually black people seem to be better orators and communicators. Look at richest black Americans, nearly all of them gained their fortune through entertainment or sports. Of the 10 richest black Americans, all but 1 are in *shock horror* entertainment and sports. Two areas which would support my evolutionary short-term thinkers vs long-term thinkers post. Minimal long term thinking required for sports and entertainment.

1. Oprah - TV
2. Tiger woods - sports
3. Robert Johnson - TV
4. Michael Jordan - sports
5. Magic Johnson - sports
6. Bill Cosby - TV
7. Sheila Johnson - TV
8. Berry Gordy Jr - music
9. Don King - sports
10. Janice Bryant Howroyd - business

The poverty thing is a chicken and egg scenario. Are they poor because they fail at school, or do they fail at school because they are poor?

Like I said there are plenty of Jews who came from much worse conditions (i.e. the Holocaust) and excelled. George Soros for example.

Or alternatively, rather than some crack-pot (r)evolutionary theory you've come up with, sports and entertainment have always traditionally been ways in which less-well off and less-educated areas of society have managed to find success, regardless of race.

Case in point - most soccer players, regardless of race, would likely be in the factories or in the dole queue if it wasn't for their sporting talent. Likewise, entertainment is famously egalitarian or even biased against the dominant successful sections of society, because as a rule, rich people aren't that funny nor do people, apart from certain demographics and shows (antique roadshow etc) - most 'broad-appeal' entertainers tend to be from lower-class demographics.

Somehow I find the above far more likely than somewhere lurking in the 'black' genotype is a set of genes which prevent black people from being 'long-term' thinkers, or that black man jive-talkin' is hard-coded which makes them such popular entertainers - the concept is such pseudo-scientific rubbish forgive me if I don't take the time to look at your 'hard science' in too much detail - but perhaps that can be attributed to my lack of genes for racial supremacy/separatism?

So everything can be explained with sociology? The reason blacks dominate sports is purely cultural/social and has nothing to do with evolutionary physiology? That if they were given exactly the same upbringing, Chinese people could dominate the world of sport too?

As soon as you can come up with peer reviewed studies showing that blacks are inherently violent, we'll take your word for it.

Off you go.

Change the word "Black" to "Poor" and the same is true...

I am suprised that there is so much crime in the town that I live in considering how few black people live here.

Who the hell is going to make that career ending move?

You'd have more luck like finding a peer reviewed report during the Spanish Inquisition saying Jesus was gay.