## Sarah Palin v Wright Island Model on Immigration why math

January 13, 2010

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015344.html

Paul K transcribed Sarah Palin on Glenn Beck on immigration

Palin:

Let me address legal immigration. We need to continue to be so welcoming and inviting of those who are represented there by our Statue of Liberty. The immigrants, of course, built this country, and I think Republicans, conservatives, are at fault when we allow the other side to capture this immigration issue and try to turn this issue into something negative for Republicans. I think we need to recognize that, again, immigrants built this great country. There are rules to follow if you want to be part of this great country–let’s be sure people are following those rules–but let’s welcome this.

This is why our side needs to push the Wright Island Model

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

The theorem changes the terms of debate.  Palin mush v. an admission of genocide.  If our side pushed this theorem often enough then the establishment would have to recognize it.  Eventually we can go to court and get an injunction on immigration and even anchor baby as genocide.  That’s why we push this.  Because its science admissible in court and because it confronts people with the long term mathematical consequences of what they blather about immigration if they are a Palin type. Sentimentality v. math.  You have to teach with the math to change the terms of the debate.  Then you win.

In a form easier to understand the proof

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/immigration-vanishing-survival-theorem/

Our side is being foolish not to change the terms of debate with a math theorem that proves its case.  Math theorems are about proof.  That is what we need to change the terms of the debate.

Read this debate between myself and British bloggers who are quite liberal.  Eventually they break down and admit the Wright Island Model is correct.

http://shanecroucher.co.uk/2009/05/29/nick-griffins-hidden-agenda/

It would be good to study this thread.