Gene for nose shape found

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0516/190516-nose-shape

Figured I’d remind you this exists in light of  How To Judge People By What They Look Like’s detractors.

The four genes mainly affect the width and ‘pointiness’ of noses which vary greatly between different populations.

Populations = races

Pic or it didn’t happen

Compare to Marquardt’s work, which should be compared to character traits and faults in a meta-analysis.

Are people who fit this mask just good-looking or good people, period?

The researchers identified five genes which play a role in controlling the shape of specific facial features. DCHS2, RUNX2, GLI3 and PAX1 affect the width and pointiness of the nose and another gene – EDAR – affects chin protrusion.

See attractiveness tag.
Perception is invaluable.

“Few studies have looked at how normal facial features develop and those that have only looked at European populations, which show less diversity than the group we studied. What we’ve found are specific genes which influence the shape and size of individual features, which hasn’t been seen before.

try looking

“Finding out the role each gene plays helps us to piece together the evolutionary path from Neanderthal to modern humans. It brings us closer to understanding how genes influence the way we look, which is important for forensics applications,” said the first author of the report, Dr Kaustubh Adhikari, (UCL Cell & Developmental Biology).

Isn’t it a little superficial to assume the genes just code for appearance of the face and not the brain behind it? What about forehead size and brain size?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/28/research.health

The study identified genes that are involved in bone and cartilage growth and the development of the face. GLI3, DCHS2 and PAX1 are all genes known to drive cartilage growth – GLI3 gave the strongest signal for controlling the breadth of nostrils, DCHS2 was found to control nose ‘pointiness’ and PAX1 also influences nostril breadth. RUNX2 which drives bone growth was seen to control nose bridge width.

hooks?

The genes GLI3, DCHS2 and RUNX2 are known to show strong signals of recent selection in modern humans compared to archaic humans such as Neanderthals and Denisovans; GLI3 in particular undergoing rapid evolution.

You should be forced to disclose any and all plastic surgeries before marriage, with photos of the real face. Otherwise it’s genetic fraud.

Guardian quote

Proper nourishment in early life and providing a stimulating intellectual environment are vital for achieving good brain growth and development and this lasts through life. In other words, brain growth in childhood is important not only in determining how bright you become but how bright you stay,‘ said Martyn.

‘That is the real message from this study: that we have to ensure infants and children are brought up in conditions that optimise brain growth – partly to provide us with lots of bright young adults but also to reduce risk of decline in higher mental function in old age.’

When I object to poverty, I see the long-time consequences.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/08/but-foreign-aid-is-important/

Lower national IQ. We’re sending all those nutrients overseas.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/population-r-selection-food-supply-and-famine/

Literally.

Gen Z grew up with organic food. Coincidence?

Alcohol, DNA mutation and evolution

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/alcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet

Michael Douglas’ cancer was probably caused by alcohol.

All alcohol causes permanent DNA mutation. Over time it builds up.

Researchers have identified multiple ways that alcohol may increase the risk of cancer, including:

Alcoholic beverages may also contain a variety of carcinogenic contaminants that are introduced during fermentation and production, such as nitrosaminesasbestos fibers, phenols, and hydrocarbons.

Is there a racial difference?

You bet.

Can a person’s genes affect their risk of alcohol-related cancers?

A person’s risk of alcohol-related cancers is influenced by their genes, specifically the genes that encode enzymes involved in metabolizing (breaking down) alcohol (13).

For example, one way the body metabolizes alcohol is through the activity of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH. Many individuals of Chinese, Korean, and especially Japanese descent carry a version of the gene for ADH that codes for a “superactive” form of the enzyme. This superactive ADH enzyme speeds the conversion of alcohol (ethanol) to toxic acetaldehyde. As a result, when people who have the superactive enzyme drink alcohol, acetaldehyde builds up. Among people of Japanese descent, those who have this superactive ADH have a higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those with the more common form of ADH (14).

Another enzyme, called aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2), metabolizes toxic acetaldehyde to non-toxic substances. Some people, particularly those of East Asian descent, carry a variant of the gene for ALDH2 that codes for a defective form of the enzyme. In people who have the defective enzyme, acetaldehyde builds up when they drink alcohol. The accumulation of acetaldehyde has such unpleasant effects (including facial flushing and heart palpitations) that most people who have inherited the ALDH2 variant are unable to consume large amounts of alcohol. Therefore, most people with the defective form of ALDH2 have a low risk of developing alcohol-related cancers.

However, some individuals with the defective form of ALDH2 can become tolerant to the unpleasant effects of acetaldehyde and consume large amounts of alcohol. Epidemiologic studies have shown that such individuals have a higher risk of alcohol-related esophageal cancer, as well as of head and neck cancers, than individuals with the fully active enzyme who drink comparable amounts of alcohol (15). These increased risks are seen only among people who carry the ALDH2 variant and drink alcohol—they are not observed in people who carry the variant but do not drink alcohol.

Few epidemiologic studies have looked specifically at the association between red wine consumption and cancer risk in humans.

East Asian beauty demands

https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/global-currents/unmasking-east-asias-beauty-ideals

With over 270 million monthly users, Chinese technology company Meitu is in the business of vanity. The company has several apps, but their most famous one is MeituPic – China’s number one photo retouching app. It gives users the ability to alter their appearance with surprising flexibility and specificity.

Yet what is most notable about Meitu Pic is its uniquely Asian features and filters. There are functions to smooth skin, slim the face, add makeup, attach cute stickers, and enlarge one’s eyes.

And change their eye shape, by rounding it out, there’s no other way to do that.

And you thought Snapchat was weird.

I’m starting to think the guys who claimed a lot of makeup was witchcraft might’ve been right. If you’re trying to look like a whole other person… something ain’t right in the head.

Similar to MeituPic, Japan’s Line Camera and South Korea’s Snow also offer facial enhancement features.

catfishing premium

While these selfie apps may differ in terms of functionality, they all help users to beautify themselves in ways that are telling about the markets they serve. They provide an interesting lens on how women in three East Asian countries view beauty ideals – and why certain beauty products succeed in an increasingly influential region…..

look more white has always been their ideal, prior to any contact with white people

paler women have higher oestrogen

thinner faces are more feminine (especially the curve of the jaw) and White women have mathematically thinner faces than Asians

There are studies.

recessed chin there, in case you wanted to know what that was called

nose is similar to African, which has slightly more flared nostrils

European nose is straighter, stronger bridge, pointed, nasal tip can point up

Do they mention this?

Heavens, no!

“Traditionally, East Asian women have been held to a standard of feminine beauty that suggests they should be sweet and gentle. “

Geisha were prostitutes, see other posts.

No.

They were hookers. Not just strippers, there is plenty of art depicting them rolling around with men, penis out.

If they weren’t hookers, nobody would have paid that much for tea. Why did men never learn such a respectable ceremony, hm? Nor would they be depicted with their genitals exposed, like a hooker.

Asian men are broader too, it’s a racial thing before you go there.

Oh, did you think these studies didn’t exist? Yeah, MSM never mentions them huh?
There is categorically less sexual dimorphism in Asians i.e. the men look more feminine, technically, and the women more masculine, since their range is closer in both cases to the androgynous mean.

Eyebrows also vary by race, Asians have that garish Audrey brow but naturally, softer. Flat as a ruler and pointing upward in surprise. Asian women do a lot to change this about their brows (normally by cropping the Shock Tail) because otherwise their eye shape looks more extreme (and alien to Western eyes).

Is this right? That isn’t the point, they do it.

This is the female mask, most beautiful of all races.

Which sex does that resemble to you? Now, which race?

Neither hips nor mathematics lie.

Koreans do though.

https://www.koreaboo.com/buzz/scientists-generated-perfect-faceand-looks-like-kim-tae-hee-irene/

You can’t use plastic surgery women in a study of natural (genetic) beauty. Don’t be absurd.

Europe used to be full of those women. This is a Louis Vuitton advert.

It was the ideal of beauty for millennia.

You don’t get to claim that because someone got creative with a scalpel.

Asians don’t have eyes like that. Stop embarrassing yourselves.

I find it suspicious that whenever Asians study beauty, the result is always pedomorphic. There is never any sexual maturity (sexual dimorphism + maturity) in the features, which must be a deliberate, false omission of: high cheekbones, but gracile jawline (rare combination), cherry chin (strong teeth), larger philtrum than men (see Marilyn), smooth but not baby nose, full but not huge mouth, soft brows, higher forehead than men.

They erase all the masculinized features of their own women, it’s unfair. That’s an unrealistic standard.

The method is completely wrong, the aim of the studies is to search for an adult model, a real model. It’s disturbing many of their supposed results could be in primary school.

Compare with similar high contrast (pale, dark hair) but sexually mature.

Please tell me you can see a difference. Only the sexual opinion of (non-pedophilic) normal men (within a race) counts for these types of study into NATURAL, ADULT FEMALE BEAUTY (not popularity, classic beauty). It’s been proven you can only really perceive accurately your own race best. Nudging it into other categories is…morally dubious. Is it right to expect an Asian woman to look European? Is it right to expect every Italian woman to resemble Monica?

Yet I know sexually who men would SELECT – and that’s the problem, Asian variations of this study are prone to emphasize surgery and popularity. It isn’t historical or evolutionary (therefore instantly wrong, you cannot study it without this context). This is Darwin, accept it or don’t pretend to study it.

Some Western studies make the same mistake, fixating on Hollywood (celebrity, popularity) like they’re the best looking people you’ll ever meet (they are not, travel, they are actually subpar even within their own races historically).

Back to Asians.

They choose the Asian-specific features and say that’s the ideal, of all times and periods. …No? It reminds me of fat acceptance. If that were true, they wouldn’t be getting quite so much surgery to resemble a mulatto, at best (philtrum reduction). Both women listed in the Korean article have entirely the wrong bone structure, it is impossible to change the eyes and they are the root of the face. Bad nose jobs aside (like Paris Hilton’s and many stupid women, they got them done too small) their faces are too broad to fit (a racial trait), their mouth is ghoulish (too broad, too wide and fat lipped, Asians shouldn’t get injections it makes their eyes look tiny) and the face is too flat looking since it’s difficult to add (structure) where there’s nothing there.

For comparison, since I’m not denying Asian women can get very good quality surgery, power to them for hoodwinking the stupid marks with a fetish, here is a woman who resembles their template better.

Wang Fei Fei, but she is Chinese so they instantly discount her. Asians hate other Asians.

The stellar example of surgical improvement I have ever seen is this woman.

Im Ji Hye

but she made it obvious with cleavage work so despite being Korean… they immediately discount her.

Again, who is beautiful in the sexual selection sense, little Miss Nine Year Old or Tits McGee?

Their children won’t look like this and it isn’t hard to guess who they’re trying to look like.

Here’s a morph of Asian celebrities (mostly actresses).

Not that they’re getting surgery at all, no. I’m sure Scarlett Johansson’s nose is untouched, like Angelina Jolie’s….

so this isn’t a racial thing but a natural beauty point. None of these bitches have it.

They must wear contacts, for example, to hide the dead-eyed stare. Like a serial killer.

Pic or it didn’t creep me out:

 

Same huge-breasted woman as above. Instant loss of two points imho once she stops appropriating white women’s eye colours (phenotype range is important to classification). I would be scared to encounter that in an alley, she reminds me of a sexbot. Her neutral there looks murderous. On the contrary, as you can see, getting fuckdoll surgery makes a woman look far less innocent.

The entire purpose in all those cases to purposefully get surgery is sexual enticement (one husband or lots of boyfriends, doesn’t matter).

The breast work just makes it obvious to foreigners.

The so-called perfect Asian face is based on a genetic lie (surgery).

Let’s look at method

One Korean researcher decided to apply Asian features through computer graphics on top of the mask layout, giving the results of the “perfect Asian face”.

No. That isn’t how the mask works, the data is already infused INTO the mask, which can be separated by RACE and SEX. He has essentially scribbled over the truth with only the positive features of surgical, trendy women he wants to fuck. Is that science?

When I say scribbled

I mean scribbled. And with the exclusions (so the whole thing is a sham), it fits white women better.

Yes, very Asian…..

The “perfect face” has an egg-shaped head, big bright eyes, a narrow and sharp nose, and medium-sized lips.

Because the sampled women were all trying to look like THAT.

You can even see through the mask to the way it discounts Asian female features.

The Asian mouth is broader than the mask (mouth corners upturned, width remains constant), the Asian nostrils and nose are bigger than the mask, the Asian face size is bigger than the sketch and should be horizontally broader, the mask brows are lower and curved than the (cropped) Asian ones, the nasal tip and chin of the mask are more defined than the Asian girl, it’s all right there!

I hate noticing things, really. It’s such a burden.

Look at this horse-shit.

“Chinese herbalists have concocted special tinctures, tonics and elixirs for over 5,000 years to specifically address individual skin concerns. This knowledge has passed down from generation to generation and is what we use today to formulate many of our beauty concoctions,” Brian explains.

No, you’ve been giving them plastic surgery, developed in the West, not rubbing their face with tiger’s nuts. Next you’ll claim you invented pearls (Scotland’s had a roaring trade in them too before China stole cultivation methods in the last century).

http://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2017/04/an-illustrated-old-english-herbal.html

Anglo-Saxons had herbalism too, you didn’t invent shit (you can’t take credit for inventing a fucking PLANT) but Cheryl Cole’s face is still pumped full of plastic shit. As it is, Europe has better biodiversity of plants and more (most) useful ones for skincare e.g. rosehip, lavender, orange blossom…

why lie?

As for Fan Bing Bing (what kinda name…) any woman who relies on eye makeup to get her eyes to look that beautiful way…, isn’t actually beautiful?

White example

Asian example

The problem with so much deep, structural surgery is that with less makeup, it looks Uncanny Valley.

If you’re going to go to such great lengths to look like us, be decent enough to admit it?

Artist’s “Asian” inspiration, now VS. Victorian Valentine, typical face.

Update: let’s throw this in, why not? re the philtrum and smaller mouth

http://buism.com/facebody.htm

 When it comes to the face there’s just one shape-shifter and that’s the entire mouth area (i.e. upper lip, lips, and chin). The mouth area is capable of articulating many, many distinct sounds. Just like frequently using the hands, frequently using the mouth results in a slender, lean, and petite mouth, including the upper lip and chin. Also like the hands, disusing the mouth produces a loose, flabby, and enlarged mouth area.

speaking better, being classier = more feminine mouth (small range possible, muscular on top of genetic)

The main muscle involved here is the one surrounding the lips, the orbicularis oris. If you’re trying to achieve a feminine face, I suggest speaking speak with great frequency and articulation. Not all languages are equal though—some neglect the orbicularis oris while others heavily rely on it. French, for example, seems to have a lot of words with the “oo” sound, like “beaucoup.”

dialect too

Many more muscles that attach to the orbicularis oris (mouth) and I believe they are all gender-neutral, or slightly favored by males. This is my conclusion after observing many faces and seeing little to no sexual dimorphism in this area. This is much like limbs, between the chest and fingers or between the butt and toes. They are not nearly as sexually-dimorphic as breasts are to a male chest, but the muscles seem to be slightly favored by males. So the updated picture now shows the orbicularis oculi and masseter muscles in opaque blue to denote that they are greatly favored by men.

but cheekbones are bone structure, literally

zygomatic arch

The final archetypal male and female faces.

                Unlike muscles of the body, some facial muscles aren’t attached to bone at all; some muscles are attached to other muscles. This means that tighter, more-developed muscles can pull on weaker muscles and facial organs. Tight midface muscles (in translucent blue) can enlarge the mouth area—including the base/wing of the nose—if the mouth muscles are weak. The average male partially uses some of the midface muscles and disuses/underuses the mouth muscles. Thus, the average male develops a wider mouth and nose than the average female.

well hold on the jaw is broader, larger and the lips thicken

The average female underuses the midface muscles and fully uses mouth muscles, which results in a pull towards the mouth. This produces a narrow nose, defined philtrum, small mouth, and narrow chin.

smooth nose (defined structure from bridge to tip), higher (length) or more well-shaped philtrum, rosebud lips and cherry chin

but philtrum especially is genetic in pronouncement and an indicator of fertility (men are under-studied)

The entire mouth area is large and loose for men and compact and tight for women.

This is not my opinion as you can see but plainly observable fact. Women have a longer philtrum and smaller mouth by breadth than men. Ah, some troll demands, wouldn’t we observe this in Marquardt’s masks?

We would.

That is the most feminine face humanly possible.

Britons little changed in DNA since Ice Age

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today’s white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.

In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

Note the precision of language. That is a scientist.

Technically, there’s no such thing as British.

There was no British Empire, it was the English Empire. You didn’t see the Welsh fucking up anyone.

Despite all the Guardian articles trying to make out we were awful, the People aren’t fooled.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

 

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

The same poll also asked about whether the British Empire was a good thing or a bad thing: 43 per cent said it was good, while only 19 per cent said it was bad. 25 per cent responded that it was “neither”.

Americans don’t understand how political and meaningless the term British is.

Since the collapse of the Empire, it’s been meaningless.

People are either English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. Sometimes a combination.

There are also little islands like Jersey that have their own flags.

Cooler than ours but derived from England’s original Three Lions heraldry.

The British is typically, Great Britain, and the union of the four countries is incredibly recent (Union Act 1707, 1800). It’s a term about what the Queen owns, similar to the UK but without pesky parts of Ireland.  Jane Austen’s novels are older than Great Britain. England is a country in its own right, Parliament and the Queen are based there. It’s the central country.

The British Isles covers the most landmass. It’s huge. It’s geographic and includes a lot of tiny islands.

So again, if you’re discussing where a person is from, to say they’re from Britain is technically incorrect. At least, what Britain? Great? Isles? What? It’s like saying someone is European, unless you mean the continent (correct but vague) you cannot mean the legal construct (EU) because nobody’s DNA originates from a legal fiction. There is no such physical PLACE. There is no DNA for Britain, (sometimes ancient Briton, as in the study above) but it’s either English from England, Irish from Ireland, Scottish from Scotland or Welsh from Wales. British is meant to be from Britain but nowadays everybody has a British passport, a passport grants citizenship and financial entitlements it changes nothing about your DNA. To refer to blood, genes and ancestry, you cannot be British. It would be like referring to your occupation, it’s a legal thing.

Recently they’ve tried to claim dilution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5312697/DNA-map-Britain-Ireland-reveals-Viking-genes.html

“Researchers have found 50 distinct genetic clusters (classified into broader groups) in Ireland and Britain”

That contradicts your headline.

What is white? characteristics

A humble list of suggestions for factors to start off with, since this topic isn’t going away.

  • genetic distance to NW European alleles (most isolated throughout invasions)
  • IQ 95+ average, the minimum to live in a high technology society
  • religion and whether it is pre- or post-Reformation (high demand adaptation)
  • adaptability of culture to threatening existential events e.g. war (Blitz spirit and variations), famine, epidemic e.g. response to Black Death, and ability to pull together in cooperation
  • appreciation for cultural Christianity e.g. tolerance of eccentricity but NOT immorality e.g. poets are fine, burning “witches” at the stake is not.
  • historical achievements
  • modern (past 500 years) victories, including over social ills (problem solving ability)
  • national distinctiveness
  • etiquette, clear and socially norm
  • high technology society, technical competency
  • high literacy and numeracy
  • high professional standards (no corruption)
  • strong basis of morality e.g. universally applied and clear incentive/punishment structure
  • rewarding the Good before pitying and enabling the Evil (victim narrative)
  • ideal virtues and concept of individual character but not individualism (cults)
  • appreciable values model e.g. family over hedonism
  • facial structure, phenotype range and morphology of typical features e.g. pelvic width
  • language and stylistic qualities in the use of language
  • child-rearing (selection for, requirements and structural balance between parental influences)
  • parenting style (not abusive, pro-natal society with an emphasis on high quality)
  • healthy breeding habits
  • prosocial behaviours (as represented in lower self on self crime rates)
  • no sadism on the vulnerable e.g. children, elderly, the ill, sexual crimes on women.
  • self-sufficiency of the economy e.g. food security
  • a valid taxation system e.g. flat tax, luxuries (consumption) tax that rewards hard work but punishes decadence, rewards natives over the world.
  • an encouragement of efforts without vanity
  • loyal government and a history of honourable leaders (official and not)
  • rights (similarity to the Magna Carta and Rights of Englishmen)
  • liberty without irresponsibility (personal responsibility, narrative of duty to self)
  • divergent fashions
  • a range of largely exclusive cultural products including monuments (symbolism) and foods (class struggles)
  • occupation bans e.g. prostitution, piracy or burglar, hitman
  • no speech policing or censorship required (people already want to get along, this cannot be forced) unless it is immorality in the public sphere (kept underground for adults who seek it out) because children’s innocence is protected
  • a medical bias for health over disease (compassion has sane limits)
  • higher moral standards for leaders beyond the norm
  • low to no entitlements, starting with pensions (pensions cause Empires to fall and are dysgenic pressures with an aging/dying population that magically gain medical issues for attention or a higher mortality rate upon retirement)
  • no sexualisation of everyday life (it started in Jazz in America)
  • responsible materialism, preferably local or patriotic
  • venerated old age where deserved, anti-youth culture, pro-maturity (but not specifically elderly)
  • a reasonable military and no treasonous trading of weapons or information
  • preferred schedule (uses of time) e.g. German promptness versus Italian restfulness

and so on and so forth.

I think the more important things are closer to the top of the list.
You really can’t get anything done with a sub-typical IQ.

As IQ dwindles, maintenance costs rise (infrastructure problems and social engineering bugs as we see).

That’s good for now.

The lower in the list, the greater an individual’s possible contribution to it and power over it (not in the hands of rulers).

Inspired by

https://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/11/06/honor-during-victorian-era/

I suppose it all comes down to philia, love of one’s thede, race, ingroup. It’s been perverted by modern writers as friendship. It isn’t. Friendship is more agape (no conditions or requirements). It’s kinship.

It’s translated as virtuous love more honestly than friendship, for reasons of patriotism. There is no historically valid Brotherhood in the modern sense of its use (treehouse politics), there is only philia and its structures including the monarchy and governance. However, the Brotherhood of the military (the only one in true existence) has many conditions e.g. the draft, and requirements e.g. training, and standards e.g. loyalty, and defends the non-Brotherhood due to the group’s own reason for existence (philia). Without that protection’s purpose, the group is unstable and will disintegrate.

If MRAs were smart, they’d bring back the draft. Nothing less can unite men.
Israel’s own draft policy is the main cause of its social stability. It incites and inflames philia.

Genophilia has fuck-all to do with outgroup-inclusive (oxymoron) friendships. All efforts at this perverted form with a friendly alliance of Brotherhood or Sisterhood for example misses out a full half the group and includes many out-group. That’s why they fail and are always doomed to fail.

There is an evolved genetic basis for this social preference.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/accumulating-glitches/friends_are_genetically_similar

If you really want to stick with the postmodern friend definition, it’s unhistorical.

http://biblehub.com/james/4-4.htm

Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?  Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.

It’s love your neighbour, remember. (=PHILIA) Kin with whom you are on the same side and stand for the same cultural principles. It isn’t agape or it would’ve used the word agape again.

A soldier doesn’t die for his friend, there is no higher virtue in that – he dies for his family, Queen and country (all philia structures).

 

Multiculturalism is a perversion of Xenia, corrupted guest rights applied to hostile invaders.

No, everyone does NOT have a right to “live” in specific region. Apply it to Israel first.

They never mean “live” independently and work honestly without access to the coffers, the nation’s finite and exclusive assets. I’d be fine with immigration if it were temporary, they had no entitlements infringing upon us, including suffrage ordering us (so not citizens) or the ability to run for office over us. Kinda like Israel. They will change things if permitted, inviolable rights corruptions of the host. The native takes eminence.

If you want a country like (name), build it yourself!
You can live in it once you’ve changed your own land instead of invading others!
We’d help but you complained and called it Colonialism.

Note: No study on the economic impact of immigration is complete without a total historical model e.g. post-WW at least. If you looked at all the post-WW immigrants on welfare, the sum cost, including the biggest welfare of all – pensions, the numbers would be shocking. That all piles into national debt, we’re all paying for it.

Then you have a solid statistical baseline to compare that with projected and actual growth, that are both measured post-WW2. If you’re intellectually honest and want the truth. Someone file that FOI request!