At the risk of getting yelled at, it doesn't seem *that* difficult to argue for some degree of cultural integration.
It's not that every immigrant should forget its native language and start watching baseball. It is simply that Americans have collectively decided that some practices, such as holding regular elections or women being allowed to show their hair, are good and should be continued. And while opponents are certainly free to make their case, the country will not be made healthier or more prosperous if all foreigners start being obnoxious and demanding things happen like they do in their former country. There should be some willingness to accept the existing customs in the country you get in, just like the people living there are expected to make allowances for the immigrant's different background. After a time, the rough edges will be smoothed and the differences will no longer be remarkable.
This process is desirable because it gives some cohesion to the country, which in turn allows people to do their best.
I think you pay short shrift to cultural factors, which are not necessarily racist or bigoted (not that you implied otherwise). It is not unreasonable or close-minded to prefer to live among people who mostly speak your language and share your values (about treatment of women, sexual minorities, playing loud music, covering your head and face). I agree that some cultural diversity is enriching. But when people start to feel overwhelmed by neighbors who approach the world seemingly radically differently, we get Trump and AfD and Viktor Orban.
I'm not deaf to cultural arguments. I confess that I've witnessed attitudes that are common in some parts of the world (e.g. sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism) and thought "not super eager to import that to the US". But I think these concerns argue for getting control of our immigration flows, which almost certainly requires letting more people in legally.
The key point, once again, is that having a huge mismatch between labor supply and labor demand just doesn't work; the incentive to sneak in becomes too high, so that's what people do. And that gives us no control over the inflow; people aren't vetted. Anything we might want to do to lesson the cultural shock is off the table because the people are off the grid. But if we know (most of) who's coming in and subject them to screening processes that we choose, we can solve many of the cultural issues. For example: You can screen for English proficiency -- in part four I'll talk about why I think that should be a factor. You can reject people who have a criminal record and deport people who commit crimes while on a visa (before they become a citizen). And -- to be blunt to the point of crassness about it -- if you favor higher educational levels, the views that most Americans find pretty odious (sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism) will be less prevalent. Finally: I think a sane immigration system would factor in where the person chooses to settle, partly because that will make large and sudden cultural shifts less likely. I think this is a manageable problem, but it starts with getting control over our immigration flow instead of pushing it onto the black market.
I love this case. Particularly the call out about how we've been down this road before many times. The number of people who are descendants of previous waves of "dangerous immigrants" who now think we should have a 40-ft wall around the country cracks me up.
The paradise in which large amounts of legal immigration brings prosperity to everyone exists. It’s called Switzerland, where I live (and am an immigrant). A full 25 percent of the people who live in Switzerland are immigrants like me, and we are all here legally. Everyone cooperates in enforcing the law, from employers to landlords to car salespeople to the clerk who asks to see your residency permit before selling you a cell-phone contract. Being a legal immigrant means we enjoy rights and protections as we benefit from and contribute to the Swiss economy. And the Swiss economy is stronger than that of the US—a higher per-capita GDP and lower Gini index, plus a crime rate that is a tiny fraction of that of the US.
Switzerland shows that the problem is not immigration per se, it’s illegal immigration. But if Americans actually wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we would have to start cracking down on employers and enforcing E-Verify, and I don’t think that will happen anytime soon. There is too much money to be made from exploiting the labor of undocumented workers.
What do you make of the Remittance factor. The one thing that the Gilded Era waves of immigrants lacked was a way to send their money out of the country in about five seconds flat. Do y ou even have to go to a Western Union office ever? The analysis you make about how "The past shows that high immigration and economic growth can exist together" rests on economies and transportation of wealth is a lot easier now.
Newly arrived immigrants of the 1880s certainly sent money home, I just think it would have been a smaller percentage of the total earned. I don't know a good way to stop this sort of thing without being too tyrannical. I see this as an unavoidable confounding factor in figuring out the net value. The value of immigrants to America has been the way that they have helped to invest in the infrastructure of the country, both through taxes (that were wisely spent on needed projects, that would last generations) and cultural and civic investments (Churches, community centers, Civic associations to do community services (Elks, Rotary, Freemasons, whatever version was specific to the immigrant home culture). I don't see America getting those some things out of almost any other group I could name. Partly this is because a lot of the skills to build and manage civic projects on that scale has been lost and partly too many cultures competing in too short a time for any to get a hold. I see a lot of cells stacked side by side, but something has changed and is keeping them from melting into the general American amalgam. And if this melting continues to be delayed you will see an increasingly aggressive "American" identity begin to assert it self simply because it will be so surronded on all sides it will come to be aligned with people who feel cornered.
I do not think I have answers to why it is so different now than when it was then, but it also clearly is, so purely economic cases have to be made in 2024 terms almost exclusively. Whatever was the case then, these current waves are behaving very differently and I am not even sure that they are to blame. I am not trying to make any sort of xenophobic or natvist argument. The breakdown of the assimilation mechanism destroys your perceived immigrant profit margin.
With all due respect, all borders closed now. I couldn’t care about your opinion and I find it disgusting I was automatically subscribed to you. I have unsubscribed from liberal POVs because they are poison to this country.
Brother, you need to open yourself up to other people's perspectives. If the moment that you hear something you don't like, it triggers you to immediately back away and never engage again, how do you learn anything?
This is a very good, persuasive essay just like the first one in the series. I do have one minor quibble. At one point you proposed a binary of legal vs illegal immigration, saying the former is better for a number of reasons. However, opponents of immigration would probably like to see the latter getting deported or not allowed in. You seem to treat immigration as inevitable - do you think this is fair? Or am I misreading you?
Good thoughts on immigration so far—thanks for taking it on. Even as a center-right kind of guy, I find myself agreeing with about 90% of your stances, and the rest I can see the logic even if I don’t fully agree. Plus, your writing is always good for a chuckle or three. Thanks!
At the risk of getting yelled at, it doesn't seem *that* difficult to argue for some degree of cultural integration.
It's not that every immigrant should forget its native language and start watching baseball. It is simply that Americans have collectively decided that some practices, such as holding regular elections or women being allowed to show their hair, are good and should be continued. And while opponents are certainly free to make their case, the country will not be made healthier or more prosperous if all foreigners start being obnoxious and demanding things happen like they do in their former country. There should be some willingness to accept the existing customs in the country you get in, just like the people living there are expected to make allowances for the immigrant's different background. After a time, the rough edges will be smoothed and the differences will no longer be remarkable.
This process is desirable because it gives some cohesion to the country, which in turn allows people to do their best.
I think you pay short shrift to cultural factors, which are not necessarily racist or bigoted (not that you implied otherwise). It is not unreasonable or close-minded to prefer to live among people who mostly speak your language and share your values (about treatment of women, sexual minorities, playing loud music, covering your head and face). I agree that some cultural diversity is enriching. But when people start to feel overwhelmed by neighbors who approach the world seemingly radically differently, we get Trump and AfD and Viktor Orban.
I'm not deaf to cultural arguments. I confess that I've witnessed attitudes that are common in some parts of the world (e.g. sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism) and thought "not super eager to import that to the US". But I think these concerns argue for getting control of our immigration flows, which almost certainly requires letting more people in legally.
The key point, once again, is that having a huge mismatch between labor supply and labor demand just doesn't work; the incentive to sneak in becomes too high, so that's what people do. And that gives us no control over the inflow; people aren't vetted. Anything we might want to do to lesson the cultural shock is off the table because the people are off the grid. But if we know (most of) who's coming in and subject them to screening processes that we choose, we can solve many of the cultural issues. For example: You can screen for English proficiency -- in part four I'll talk about why I think that should be a factor. You can reject people who have a criminal record and deport people who commit crimes while on a visa (before they become a citizen). And -- to be blunt to the point of crassness about it -- if you favor higher educational levels, the views that most Americans find pretty odious (sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism) will be less prevalent. Finally: I think a sane immigration system would factor in where the person chooses to settle, partly because that will make large and sudden cultural shifts less likely. I think this is a manageable problem, but it starts with getting control over our immigration flow instead of pushing it onto the black market.
Ding ding ding! The, nearly completely ignored issue, that brings you the current political environment of basically the entirety of Europe.
It would be nice if you learned grammar...
Ok? I’ll take that as you seriously considered the comment and have a very specific and productive counterpoint you’re working on 😉
I love this case. Particularly the call out about how we've been down this road before many times. The number of people who are descendants of previous waves of "dangerous immigrants" who now think we should have a 40-ft wall around the country cracks me up.
The paradise in which large amounts of legal immigration brings prosperity to everyone exists. It’s called Switzerland, where I live (and am an immigrant). A full 25 percent of the people who live in Switzerland are immigrants like me, and we are all here legally. Everyone cooperates in enforcing the law, from employers to landlords to car salespeople to the clerk who asks to see your residency permit before selling you a cell-phone contract. Being a legal immigrant means we enjoy rights and protections as we benefit from and contribute to the Swiss economy. And the Swiss economy is stronger than that of the US—a higher per-capita GDP and lower Gini index, plus a crime rate that is a tiny fraction of that of the US.
Switzerland shows that the problem is not immigration per se, it’s illegal immigration. But if Americans actually wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we would have to start cracking down on employers and enforcing E-Verify, and I don’t think that will happen anytime soon. There is too much money to be made from exploiting the labor of undocumented workers.
Cogent and impactful article. Love the arguments and will use them myself.
What do you make of the Remittance factor. The one thing that the Gilded Era waves of immigrants lacked was a way to send their money out of the country in about five seconds flat. Do y ou even have to go to a Western Union office ever? The analysis you make about how "The past shows that high immigration and economic growth can exist together" rests on economies and transportation of wealth is a lot easier now.
Newly arrived immigrants of the 1880s certainly sent money home, I just think it would have been a smaller percentage of the total earned. I don't know a good way to stop this sort of thing without being too tyrannical. I see this as an unavoidable confounding factor in figuring out the net value. The value of immigrants to America has been the way that they have helped to invest in the infrastructure of the country, both through taxes (that were wisely spent on needed projects, that would last generations) and cultural and civic investments (Churches, community centers, Civic associations to do community services (Elks, Rotary, Freemasons, whatever version was specific to the immigrant home culture). I don't see America getting those some things out of almost any other group I could name. Partly this is because a lot of the skills to build and manage civic projects on that scale has been lost and partly too many cultures competing in too short a time for any to get a hold. I see a lot of cells stacked side by side, but something has changed and is keeping them from melting into the general American amalgam. And if this melting continues to be delayed you will see an increasingly aggressive "American" identity begin to assert it self simply because it will be so surronded on all sides it will come to be aligned with people who feel cornered.
I do not think I have answers to why it is so different now than when it was then, but it also clearly is, so purely economic cases have to be made in 2024 terms almost exclusively. Whatever was the case then, these current waves are behaving very differently and I am not even sure that they are to blame. I am not trying to make any sort of xenophobic or natvist argument. The breakdown of the assimilation mechanism destroys your perceived immigrant profit margin.
Excellent, enjoyable, informative article
I don’t feel like reading all this but I unequivocally
agree with everything you say.
P.S. watch the movie “The Coneheads” again
With all due respect, all borders closed now. I couldn’t care about your opinion and I find it disgusting I was automatically subscribed to you. I have unsubscribed from liberal POVs because they are poison to this country.
Anticipating a similar post from your left-wing counterpart in 3...2...1...
Brother, you need to open yourself up to other people's perspectives. If the moment that you hear something you don't like, it triggers you to immediately back away and never engage again, how do you learn anything?
With all due respect, I won't miss your presence, Jokers wild
The amount due? A smidgen of an iota sounds about right to me.
This is a very good, persuasive essay just like the first one in the series. I do have one minor quibble. At one point you proposed a binary of legal vs illegal immigration, saying the former is better for a number of reasons. However, opponents of immigration would probably like to see the latter getting deported or not allowed in. You seem to treat immigration as inevitable - do you think this is fair? Or am I misreading you?
Seems very influenced by Bryan Caplan’s research on immigration. Great piece.
Good thoughts on immigration so far—thanks for taking it on. Even as a center-right kind of guy, I find myself agreeing with about 90% of your stances, and the rest I can see the logic even if I don’t fully agree. Plus, your writing is always good for a chuckle or three. Thanks!