Half of white liberals want less immigration

By Razib Khan | March 6, 2012 6:00 am

As I have mentioned elsewhere my espousal of conservatism at Moving Secularism Forward went well. Interestingly several people came up to me afterward and admitted a sympathy for the “conservative” position on immigration (i.e., restrictionism). The rationales were both environmentalist (population control types) and law & order. Just out of curiosity I wanted to see any possible changes in attitudes toward immigration for non-Hispanic whites by ideology and education since 2004, when the issue has become more polarized.

Attitude toward immigration levels
Demographic Increase a lot Increase a little Remain the same Reduce a little Reduce a lot
2004 Liberal 2 10 43 19 26
2004 Moderate 1 6 35 23 35
2004 Conservative 2 4 27 32 35
2006 Liberal 3 14 38 24 22
2006 Moderate 1 2 33 31 32
2006 Conservative 1 6 26 27 40
2008 Liberal 7 13 37 24 19
2008 Moderate 0 3 34 22 42
2008 Conservative 0 8 25 32 34
2010 Liberal 3 16 32 25 24
2010 Moderate 1 4 32 30 33
2010 Conservative 2 7 31 28 31
2004 No College 1 4 29 30 36
2004 College 3 9 44 25 18
2006 No College 1 4 28 28 39
2006 College 3 13 40 26 18
2008 No College 2 4 27 27 41
2008 College 3 15 39 26 17
2010 No College 2 6 29 26 37
2010 College 3 13 37 32 16

I suspect what we are seeing here is an inverse of the situation with free trade. On immigration and trade there is less of a Left/Right difference than an Outsider/Insider or Populist/Elite distinction. The Right elites tend to focus on trade to the point where they muffle or suppress much mobilization against this by their own grassroots (e.g., Pat Buchanan). Similarly, Left elites have come to a consensus that populist mobilization by their side against mass immigration is no longer acceptable. And of course no matter the rhetoric, the elites on both sides have traditionally favored the globalist position, though it seems since 2006 the Republican elites have lost control of the immigration issue in their party (though I’m 100% sure that Mitt Romney is simply making populist noises, and will continue with the status quo once on office). Since white liberals fear being perceived as racist (this sentiment was palpable from some of those who supported restrictionism at the conference) this is unlikely a major issue that will come up for them in the near future, and for various reasons the labor wing of the Left coalition no longer emphasizes opposition to immigration. Liberals and Democrats like to contend that the Right has better unity and coherency once a consensus is achieved, with the elite keeping the grassroots in line, but this is one position where for various structural reasons it is the Left which has remained more unified, despite wide ranges of opinions.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Politics, Uncategorized
MORE ABOUT: Immigration
  • Karl Zimmerman

    I’m honestly a bit surprised Razib, given your libertarian leanings (albeit closer to paleolibertarianism), that you support immigration restrictions. Virtually everyone I’ve ever met who espouses libertarian ideals more deeply thought out than “I personally want low taxes” has always claimed that, as free migration was one of the central tenants of The Wealth of Nations, one cannot talk about a free market without removing barriers to the movement of not only capital, but labor. Frankly though, those arguments have always left me cold, because they’re based upon forming an ideologically consistent worldview – more admirable by far than ad-hoc adoption of whatever ideas suit your preconceived prejudices, but inferior to actually attempting to study history and determine what the best course of action is.

    I’m of two minds on immigration. On one hand, I think it’s absolutely within the realms of sovereign nations to set the internal laws they wish. On the other hand, I recognize that immigration, like drugs and prostitution, are probably impossible to totally control in a modern society, given attempts to cut supply do not lessen demand. The U.S. recession, comparably strong economy in Mexico (minus the drug war debacle), and falling Mexican birthrate have accomplished what U.S. enforcement could not. So I don’t see a real policy solution – and unlike many conservatives, I don’t see the utility in having a law exist to show opposition to something when it’s impossible to actually enforce.

    I’ve grown more muddied, however, looking at the modern history of the U.S. and Europe. While I hold a number of unconventional views for the left on some social issues, within the U.S. context I am pretty far to the left, being a libertarian socialist who is primarily concerned with tilting the balance of power between capital and labor as far towards the latter as reasonably possible.

    While immigrants to the U.S. have invariably become assimilated within a few generations, it cannot be ignored that the period U.S. labor was the strongest was the period of highest ethnic unity in the U.S. The U.S. enacted three increasingly restrictive immigration laws from 1917 to 1924, and within a decade mass labor organizing, which was difficult even during former deep recessions, had a huge upswing. One could argue since bosses were denied the use of new immigrant workers to pit against the native born, class-based solidarity became much easier to achieve. The reasons for the decline are more complicated, and not worth listing here.

    In addition, one can look at the dramatic political changes in Europe over the past few decades, where mass migration was all but unknown until then, outside of a few nations like the UK and France. Many nations which previously had a social-democratic consensus have seen the rise of right-wing populist politics, arguing for immigration restrictions and “law-and-order” platforms. Indeed, I’d actually argue for the most part in Europe the left-right political spectrum is dead, replaced by an establishment/populist axis similar to what you note, with the “Social Democratic” and “Christian Democratic” parties in broad agreement (pro-Europe, pro-deregulation, pro-austerity, socially liberal, etc) and the right populists filling the hole in national rhetoric because there are no other opposing forces. Which makes me wonder if high levels of social cohesion are ultimately needed in order to get a left/right or worker/owner split to be the dominant political force in a nation state.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp Razib Khan

    outside of a few nations like the UK and to a lesser degree France.

    lesser degree? france started having immigrants in the early 19th century due to population problems (from poland and southern europe). the british had irish, but they weren’t immigrants (since ireland was part of the UK then). almost no americans seem to be aware that france is a country of immigration too, and has been for nearly 2 centuries….

  • Karl Zimmerman

    Edited to take your point into account, it was a poor choice of words on my part. For the record, I’m more than aware that France had a longer history of mass migration than Britain. However, this early pulse (promoted due to the historically low French birth rate) peaked during the interwar period. The second pulse was much more similar to the UK’s postwar migration boom, as it came largely from former colonies.

  • http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com ohwilleke

    To summarize the mass of numbers: immigration has become a bigger issue for those in the political middle than for either the left or the right, and is also a bigger political issue for those without college educations.

    Indeed, the relationships may not be independent. Those without college educations, who are perceived to be harder hit economically by immigration than those with college educations are less likely to have clear political ideologies.

    The law and order argument in based mostly on misperception – as undocumented immigrant populations are empirically associated with less crime than comparable native born populations. I’ve always found envrionmentalist arguments on population growth and immigration a bit fishy.

    The real issues in immigration, whether or not acknowledged, are economics and culture (including language), with perceived economic self-interest being more powerful than culture. The empirical literature on the economic impact of immigration is mixed. Most economics would agree that more voluntary immigration increases GDP and per capita GDP.

    The public finance impact of immigration (legal and illegal) is absolutely far less than immigration opponents claim and believe – undocumented immigrants contribute to the tax base far more than most people realize, and don’t consume as much in public services as they pay in taxes.

    More skilled workers, rightly or wrongly, aren’t too worried for the most part about their economic self-interests being hurt by immigrants – in part because high skilled wokers are doing pretty well in the economy so they care more about aggregate GDP which they have managed to secure most of the growth in. Less skilled workers, especially men, have been very squeezed for decades and see offshoring and immigrants as two sides of the same coin putting them in an economic squeeze.

    Several studies have suggested that that documented and undocumented unskilled labor has less of an impact on the market for less skilled native workers than widely believed by immigration opponents but measuring the impact of ten million overwhelmingly unskilled laborers in a labor force of about 110 million people, where the immigrant work force has been large for a long time, in a country where local economies are quite diverse is problematic. It is easy to have your blinders on looking at narrow “natural experiments” or “statistical trends” and miss bigger picture impacts that are hard to see since they are so integral to the economy.

  • Joseph

    “Which makes me wonder if high levels of social cohesion are ultimately needed in order to get a left/right or worker/owner split to be the dominant political force in a nation state.”

    Are you saying this social arrangement is an objective we should attempt to achieve?

    The argument that immigration weakens social cohesion is like the argument of conservatives that modern popular culture is causing moral decline. Where is the evidence of this decline?

  • pconroy


    The solution would be to export feminism to Mexico and other countries clamoring for entry to the US… then watch the birth rate tumble in a few decades… while espousing a pro-natalist/anti-feminist agenda back home in the US. 😉

  • Matt Simpson

    Razib, is there a nutshell (or longer) version of your argument against open immigration somewhere? Thanks.

  • Clark

    I wish we had finer grained questions. I’m actually convinced that there is some latent racism in many stances towards immigration. My sense is that people who oppose immigration in general honestly don’t mind if educated Canadians immigrate for instance. (I say this as an educated Canadian who moved to the States)

    Even ignoring the racism question though there are pretty different stances towards immigration around the world depending upon who is immigrating. For instance Canada pretty well lets in only the highly educated and refugees. It’s quite hard to get in if you are a low skilled worker. The discrimination in Canada really isn’t racial but there clearly is discrimination. And it appears (although I’ve not lived in Canada for a while) that most Canadians favor the Canadian system. Returning to the racism issue I wonder how many people opposed to immigration in the US would favor it if high skilled workers made up the majority. Perhaps a lot that we judge as racial discrimination is actually more class issues.

    (And note that I’m obviously not saying people opposed to higher immigration do so for racial reasons – I think there are many principled arguments for lower immigration that have nothing to do with race or nationality)

  • Doug1

    Allowing continued high levels of legal and illegal immigration given the high levels of unemployment that have existed the last three years is really a disservice and unfair to American citizens. There should be greatly stepped up deportations in fact, including those that have anchor babies.

    Illegal Mexican and Central American immigration hurts working class citizens the most, especially blacks. H1-b visa immigration hurts middle and upper middle class American engineers etc. The first helps the upper middle class on up. The second helps business owning elites.

    Zimmerman, both immigration and outsourcing of middle class and up jobs has been a large part of what’s been hollowing out the middle class and upper working class in America. You should be opposed to both on those grounds.

    Even Milton Freedman said that free immigration doesn’t work well in a welfare state, which is really an additional argument against it. That is illegal immigrants especially, as well as the parents of legal ones brought in through expansive family reunification immigration are net tax eaters, not payers.

  • Kiwiguy

    ***Since white liberals fear being perceived as racist (this sentiment was palpable from some of those who supported restrictionism at the conference) ***

    A fear well illustrated within the conservation movement as discussed in this LA Times article:

    “As an astronomer who studies how stars develop over tens of millions of years, Ben Zuckerman instinctively takes the long view. What he sees in regard to future U.S. population numbers troubles his environmentalist’s heart: As many as a billion people on the American landscape by 2100, as many as 100 million in California, courtesy of liberal immigration policies…

    Throughout the 1970s and ’80s, the Sierra Club supported immigration curbs. In the 1990s, however, the club’s leadership grew shy of the issue as it waxed in controversy. In 1998, Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization, a group co-founded by Zuckerman, forced a club referendum on the matter. The leadership pushed for neutrality, Zuckerman’s faction for support of immigration curbs. The leadership’s position won, but Zuckerman faction’s received 40% of the vote.

    Now the club’s official posture is to focus on global, as opposed to U.S., population stabilization and to work for improved conditions in immigrant-producing countries.

    What really motivates the club leadership, Zuckerman says, is fear. Fear of being called racist. Fear of losing minority-group members and fear of forfeiting financial support from big business and foundations.”


  • pconroy

    I’m a “high skilled”, high IQ immigrant to the US – part of the “Brain Drain Irish” or “New Irish” of the late 1980’s – and yes I have experienced a lot of racism towards me, mostly in the early years.

    Unsurprisingly much of this came from urban minorities – Blacks, Puerto-Ricans; but maybe more surprisingly is that the remainder came mainly from a highly skilled, minority – Jews.

    Now I don’t mind really at this point, but it did delay my success for a few years at the outset, and I can see why these two groups would be somewhat adverse to someone like me. In the first case it’s just anti-White racism, in the second it’s just anti-White racism 😉

    A few years ago online, I got into a proxy race debate with Noel Ignatiev, over his racist books, where he tried to pin the Irish as being largely responsible for anti-Black racism – an absurdity. But then it dawned on me why many Jews from Freud on down, hate the Irish or are bewildered by them. It’s this; both the Jews and the Irish are some of the most astute politicians, due to their higher then average verbal IQ, and in the Irish case selection for certain Alpha traits, associated with widespread de facto polygamy till the modern era. The difference though between the Irish and the general Anglo population, is that the Irish are less idealistic and more pragmatic, so they are vastly less susceptible to Marxist brainwashing than the Anglos. Where are the Irish Marxists, where are the Irish Neo-Cons, I don’t see them.

    I should say that today, 20+ years on, most of my friends are Jewish, as all my interests seem to overlap with theirs…

  • Paul Rain

    “undocumented immigrant populations are empirically associated with less crime than comparable native born populations.” Well, yeah, that’s great. The US just needs more illegal Hispanic immigrants.. obviously their presence will make locally-born Hispanics behave better. Perhaps they will even behave as well as WASPs, or even better, legal immigrants. If twenty million illegal immigrants aren’t enough to do that, just import every mestizo in the Americas. Great fairy tale.

  • Paul Rain

    “A few years ago online, I got into a proxy race debate with Noel Ignatiev, over his racist books, where he tried to pin the Irish as being largely responsible for anti-Black racism – an absurdity.”

    Not really- if you’re a massive New York-chauvinist, or are Jewish (but I repeat myself), it makes perfect sense. Lots of Irish people were against being made to fight in the Civil War, and the Civil War was fought because the North was full of nice people (like Abraham Lincoln and WASPs absolved of their WASPness and Republicanism for the holy cause) who liked African-Americans, and the South was and still is full of nasty people who hated blacks. Therefore, the Irish are nasty people who hate blacks.

  • Kiwiguy

    *** I don’t see the utility in having a law exist to show opposition to something when it’s impossible to actually enforce.***

    I thought that Arizona and Alabama had some success in this respect with their legal initiatives?


    Also, barriers seem to work according to Krauthammer:

    “Despite the success of the border barrier in the San Diego area, it appears to be very important that this success not be repeated. The current Senate bill provides for the fencing of no more than one-fifth of the border and the placing of vehicle barriers in no more than one-ninth.

    Instead, we are promised all kinds of fancy, high-tech substitutes — sensors, cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles — and lots more armed chaps on the ground to go chasing those who get through.

    Why? A barrier is a very simple thing to do. The technology is well tested. The Chinese had success with it, as did Hadrian. In our time, the barrier Israel has built has been so effective in keeping out intruders that suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.”


  • jb

    The law and order argument in based mostly on misperception – as undocumented immigrant populations are empirically associated with less crime than comparable native born populations.

    Poor Hispanic immigrants, whether legal or illegal, tend to come from traditional village societies, and are therefore reasonably well behaved when they get here. So yes, if you just look at the immigrants themselves, the picture doesn’t look that bad. It’s their children who are the problem! Their fathers think picking produce for ten dollars an hour is really great, they never made so much money, and besides, they’re eventually going to go back home to Mexico, aren’t they? Their kids know themselves to be dirt poor, and stuck at the bottom of the barrel, with little hope of advancement, and they find the back breaking jobs that attracted their parents to be much less attractive. California has thousand and thousands of gang members who are children of Mexican and Central American immigrants who never should have been allowed to come here.

    A related problem is that immigration can create impenetrable ethnic mafias. The current violence in Mexico scares the hell out of me, because I see nothing to prevent it from expanding into the United States. That would be really bad! Even the Italian Mafia didn’t go around wacking whole families!!!

  • chris w

    Wasn’t the news media blasting us with articles a couple months back reporting that net immigration from Latin America is now negative? The issue might become moot in the future, given demographic trends in both Latin America and east Asia (namely smaller families) combined with robust economic growth in countries like Brazil and China (which might attract immigrants themselves, and actually are, in the case of Brazil). Sub-Saharan Africa, Yemen and Afghanistan are really the only places with a fertility rate to support sustained mass emigration in the near future, and they have a much longer distance to travel in order to reach North America. I guess the other issue is that the U.S. now lacks the “pull” factor that we once had, as the housing boom was responsible for much of the demand for manual labor that attracted Latin American immigration. The question is whether or not the next period of economic growth will require high manual labor inputs, thus attracting large numbers of uneducated immigrants.

  • pconroy

    Yeah, Irish immigrants were allegedly press-ganged into the Union army, some went straight from the boat to a waiting southward bound train to the front lines, to be killed a few days after arriving in the US. Now I’m more patriotic and willing to fight than most, but I would object to that and possibly riot. But to excoriate the Irish for rioting over this is absurd.

    150,000 Irish born soldiers fought in the Union Army, and tens of thousands of them died before they had a chance to be discriminated against by the same people who forced them to fight.

  • pconroy

    The thing about China and Brazil is for the most part they are Third World hellholes, who are not very inviting to foreigners, except if you live in a Western enclave, shielded from the harshness/brutality of the common people’s lives. I speak as someone who has close family living in both countries.

    The US is, and will be for a long time, the destination of choice of any highly-skilled entrepreneur emigrant…

  • chris w

    18, Being acquainted with people who live in a country doesn’t make you an expert. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate China’s is extremely low, 1.12 per 100,000 people. It’s regarded as a safe country, even if much of the population is poor. Brazil is much dicier, with 23-25 homicides per 100,000, but it also has a high GDP growth rate and low unemployment rate. It surpassed France this year in terms of total GDP. There are high paying jobs available there, and educated Portuguese, who have to deal with a high unemployment rate at home, have been taking advantage of them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/portuguese-migrants-brazil-economic-boom

  • Karl Zimmerman

    Sorry it took me awhile to respond – I had a few very busy days at work.

    5 –

    Yes, I’d say that. It might be my erstwhile Marxist roots showing of course, but you don’t need to be of a pinkish tilt to consider issues of class to be more salient to policy than issues of culture. David Brin, who comes from a leftish libertarian perspective, notes that the biggest threat to the idealized free market has never been socialism or its derivatives, but the tendency of the wealthy to use their power to eliminate risk for themselves and their progeny.

    6 –

    While I know your response was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to an extent this has happened. The birth rate in Mexico has fallen dramatically over the past 20 years, and in large part the slowing of migration from Mexico is because the differential between the number of jobs and number of new young workers entering the workforce has shrunk. I saw an estimate a few years back which suggested Mexico could become a destination for migrants as soon as 2016. Admittedly, this was pre-recession however, so one would expect the transition point to be pushed back until some time in the 2020s at the earliest.

    14 –

    I have a big issue with that article’s claim that the immigration bill in Alabama cut unemployment, considering nationwide job growth rose dramatically during the concurrent period. It may just be covariation, not correlation. There have been unintended consequences, like the devastating of agricultural labor in several southern states, and the repeated arrests of German auto executives who “forget their papers” in Alabama. And even to the extent these laws work (in scaring immigrants to leave), one needs to remember they mainly just cross into another state. Thus the same solution on a nationwide basis may be unfeasible, even if the tradeoffs were embraced.

    15 –

    The Cartels are terrifying, but keep in mind that despite being just across the border from one another, El Paso has one of the lowest murder rates for a large city in the U.S., while Juarez has the highest in Mexico (in the world, up until recently). So there are no signs, despite proximity and essentially identical ethnic backgrounds now, that the northern Mexican culture of lawlessness is crossing the border.

    18 –

    I’ve spent some time in China, and had friends who lived there for years, some in remote rural areas. I wouldn’t call it a hellhole by any means, although it is an incredibly polluted place which is developing more than a few cultural element reminiscent of Gilded Age America. Indeed, as a Westerner, one of the things that struck me the most about China was how the harsh government policies towards crime changed the geography. There was no separation of the classes, for example, with shanties next to middle-class apartment blocks next to new luxury apartments. Admittedly, this might be partially due to both the tremendous frothiness of the Chinese property market, and the degree to which central planning, rather than market forces, is determining the location of said ritzy housing blocks.

  • Antonio

    pconroy 1 – just don’t talk about what you have no clue; 2 – don’t be gratuitously offensive about other people’s countries – specially given your own irrelevant country; 3 – don’t bullshit us claiming you suffered “racism”. In brief, learn how to be polity: you may don’t need it in you original hole but in US is different.

  • Dan

    It seems to me that immigration is a somewhat separate issue from illegal immigration, is it not? I don’t see the point is pretending they are one and the same, unless there is some agenda to be promoted by this sort of thing.

  • pconroy

    @21 Antoni0,

    Let me be more specific about Racism:

    When I was a student in Hunter College, I maintained a 4.0 GPA and was a star pupil, and was the only white person in my classes in Computer Science – one other white guy left to go to Carnegie Mellon. As I mentioned previously the other pupils in my class were 7 Asian girls (South and East) and about 45 other guys (some Arabs, some South Asians, but mostly East Asians). I did my work every week, but everyone else split along ethnic lines – except for the girls – to complete what were essentially group projects – instead of working independently – and handed them in as their own work. This was cheating, and was expressly forbidden by the college, we even had to sign paperwork agreeing not to cheat, or risk being expelled – but professors largely turned a blind eye to it.
    I was especially interested in Artificial Intelligence, and had in an intro course to it had the highest marks. The Prof involved said that depending on our TEST SCORES, she would select 5 pupils for advanced study in this field. But near the end of semester when you had to register for the more advanced courses, she stipulated that you needed a document stamped by the department to register for these courses. I filled out the document and the department told me that the Prof herself needed to stamp it, to approve my registration. I approached her a few times in class and she kept saying I needed to make an appointment and she had no office hours free. Finally I got an appointment time of 8:00 AM and got there at 8:02, and she wasn’t there. 2 weeks later I had another 8:00 AM appointment and got there at 7:40 AM, and she never showed. I complained about this, and a week later she gave me another 8:00 Am appointment, and at 8:15 she hadn’t shown, so I checked her lecture schedule, and hung out outside her classroom. When she came out she never apologized for not showing up for 3 appointments and said she was busy and couldn’t talk. I pleaded with her that this was the final week I had to register for the advanced course, that it was now or never, to get her stamp on the form. So she looked at me straight in the face and said, “I’m not going to stamp it, that’s it.” So I said why, and she looked at me a few moments and said, “You’re too old”. So I said, “What do you mean, I’m 25 yo, how can that be too old?”. She moved away and just said, “No more questions, I’m busy”. Next day in class, she called on one of the Arab students for something, and as he answered she said, “What’s your name again?” He says, “Omar (something or other)”, and she stopped him and said, “‘OMAR’, what a beautiful name, you’re exactly the kind of student I want in my advanced class”. He was a fairly good student, though a cheat, and next day he was the 5th and final student allowed to register for her course – despite his test scores being much lower than mine.

    That’s straight up Racism!!!

    If you want to see what a Racist looks like, this same person has now been promoted to the Chair of the Computer Science Dept in Hunter College:

    (I won ‘t included her name here, as I don’t want to get anyone in trouble, as racists like to litigate – so just click on the link)

  • Karl Zimmerman

    pconroy –

    While your situation certainly sounds unfair. The decision doesn’t appear to have been made on the basis of merit, and even on the rationales of affirmative action it is difficult to understand, as there’s never been any requirement 100% of accepted applicants anywhere be non-white. That said, she could have made the arbitrary decision for any number of reasons, including just not having liked you on a personal level.

  • Antonio

    Pconroy, I am sorry about your story. I don’t like to comment on that just because this is personal. But I tend to agree with Zimmerman that though unfair and arbitrary it doesn’t sound necessarily racism. A more general point is that racism, specially in the US context generally refer to a “white” against a “non-white” even when the non-white is actually white, as in the past US history. Being a european descend with a european northwestern looking born and raised in Brazil I can assert that I was target for “brown-black” people in Brazil on occasion. Yet, I am reluctant to describe these as racism – at least not without further qualifications – as these “racist” were in many ways victim of the system. Moreover, I am not sure whether these people reacted against me because I was white or just because I was “rich”.

  • Kiwiguy

    ***Yet, I am reluctant to describe these as racism – at least not without further qualifications – as these “racist” were in many ways victim of the system.***

    How does the fact someone is a “victim of the system” affect whether their actions are racist? You are either discriminating against someone on the basis of their race/ethnicity, or you are not.

    Unless you’re adopting the definition of racism that requires “prejudice + power” (in which case the “victims of the system” can’t be racist as they don’t have any reinforcement from institutionalized power). Although I think that definition might be described as cultural marxist silliness.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Gene Expression

This blog is about evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices. Please beware that comments are aggressively moderated. Uncivil or churlish comments will likely get you banned immediately, so make any contribution count!

About Razib Khan

I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. In relation to nationality I'm a American Northwesterner, in politics I'm a reactionary, and as for religion I have none (I'm an atheist). If you want to know more, see the links at http://www.razib.com


See More


RSS Razib’s Pinboard

Edifying books

Collapse bottom bar