Americans seem to like immigration

From a new Pew Study:

In our latest national political survey, released in March, 59% of the public say immigrants strengthen the country, while 33% describe them as a burden. In 1994, opinions were nearly the reverse: 63% said immigrants were a burden and 31% said they strengthened the country.

You will note that they views of Republicans and Democrats diverge after 2006.  Millennials are especially favorably inclined.

Pew

Comments

Ah, some of these would be the same millenials opposed to capitalism, then? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/

Was there ever a time in history when 18-29 year olds...were not dumb?

Right? How many of those knuckleheads really even know what 'capitalism' means?

it means watching my parents suffer as their retirement stolen for golden parachutes, learning what verbs are in the first year of college (because education has taken such a back seat to profiteering) seeing an entire government made inept by corporate greed, and watching old white men think they understand what plurality means. this is what capitalism means to millenials, you pricks.

Speaking as one, you ought to know.

True, but millennials nah be the most brainwashed generation in centuries.

y'all live in an old white man bubble where your egos make you blind. none of y'all have the balls to admit you're wrong either. so fucking wrong. it's shameful how oblivious you all are.

"old, white"; "old, white"; "old, white". Get bent, racist.

They don't support socialism either. They want to a unicorn.

Right, these idiots don't know any -ism. "Give me free stuff"-extent of millennial ideology.

Good answer. Welcome to the Idiocracy.

I always look both ways when crossing a one-way street. You cannot trust anybody.

Hypothet: what "capitalism" means in public discourse changed significantly after 1991. Millenials are reacting to that redefinition.

ie, the Bush years were a PR disaster for the word "capitalism"

Well, it depends on the immigrants.

Some, are pretty sh***y.

Yeah, it's not contradictory to think the average immigrant is talented and the marginal a burden on the country. Tightening immigration on the margin, particularly the illegal kind, doesn't mean that you support zero immigration.

I'm not sure whether the marginal immigrant is a burden or not. But this is definitely a step in the right direction. A lot of the debate is framed in very black and white terms, which is not at all useful for constructive discussion.

also look, at my link below: burden/benefit also isn't uniform by type of benefit or harm.

The most important factor in economic productivity is the average IQ of a nation's population. The average IQ of the US population is 100 while the average IQ of the world population is about 90 ( and likely to decline in the future because of the relativley greater increase in the population of Sub-Saharan Africa ). Unrestricted immigration to the US is certain to lower the average IQ of the US population. There is already concern about an increasing proportion of the US population becoming uneconomic to employ, at least in legal occupations. Automation and AI are likely to reduce the demand for unskilled labor in the future.

Continuation of the present US immigration policies will lead to a future US like Venezuela or Brazil, low trust societies riven by internal conflict.

Jim, after listening to your comments I get the impression that you are doing your part to lower the average I.Q. in the U.S..

Are you using a text-to-speech program?

Brings to mind George Carlin's famous line, "think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

This, a thousand times. We'd like more good migrants and fewer crappy ones. That's not hard to understand.

Australia and Canada have points-based immigration systems which favor skilled workers (high productivity) over unskilled ones. The UK recently adopted an income-based system whereby permanent residence is only granted to individuals earning over £35,000 a year (about $50,000). Any one of these solutions would be better than the current US immigration policy.

Australia and Canada also have expansive LEGAL programs for "unskilled" labour to fill in many types of positions, and these visas are easy to renew. In Canada, it's somewhere in the range of 450,000 a year.

Do you think the US would have much of a problem with undocumented migrants if there was a legal way for them to come for work, go back home in the off-season, and return when the labour was needed again? Adjusted for population, this would imply somewhere in the range of 5 million short-term visas annually for "unskilled" labourers. Trivially easy to ensure that the employers who make use of such visas are the ones to foot the bill for the administrative cost.

australia still does

We have such a program. And we even called them "migrant workers" when I was growing up. "Immigrants" were the British and French engineers who came over in the Brain Drain. I'm not sure why it's apparently under-utilized. Another necessary step is to get rid of birthright citizenship.

Wouldn't letting in 5 million unskilled labourers simply depress wages for the unskilled labourers already here?

This is exactly the idea that Central Valley California farmers promote, generally because their business model is built on an exploitable workforce.

What I'm thinking is that you could have the same number of workers without forcing them to break the law to fill jobs which employers obviously want them for.

I have no idea where this lies in the current political landscape, but: (1) a points system for citizenship, (2) worker visas independent of 1, (3) end of birthright citizenship for 2.

If we want to manage immigration that's the only way to do it, without self-deception, as far as I can see.

the problem with no birthright citizenship is it leaves long term integration problems with 2's decendants. just look at turks in germany. it can be done but it doesn't solve the integration problem

There is certainly a potential for that problem. I'm not sure we'd have the same, given the current illegal population amounting to much the same thing. That and a low cultural bar between the American southwest and those further south.

Can 1 and 2 work without 3? Maybe. It would mean that parents of citizens might remain all their lives resident workers.

anon: an "everify" type system mostly solves problem of long term illegal immigration and that's the problem: solve the employment side and illegal immigration isn't a major problem in 20 years.

It's not really much of a problem. The following principles should do:

1. One's status is derived from one's mother's status, unless one is of legitimate birth and one's father has a higher status. In that case, the parent of reference in the father.

2. One may be a citizen, denizen, or alien. If an alien, one may be a settler, temporary resident, sojourner, or illegal alien. If a temporary resident, one may be a diplomat or allied personnel, a refugee, a student, a teacher, or a dependent of one such. If a sojourner, one may be in transit w/ vehicle, a tourist, a touring performer or lecturer, or on family business (because bereaved, etc).

3. A child born in the United States or in its abiding possessions inherits the status of its parent of reference except when the parent of reference is a settler or a denizen.

4. The child of a settler inherits the status of denizen. The child of a denizen inherits citizenship.

5. Someone born abroad to a person with an affiliation with the United States has the status of its parent of reference only if the parent is an illegal alien or a sojourner. The child of a citizen inherits the status of denizen. The child of a denizen, settler, or temporary resident has a claim on a certain status, but exercising this claim requires an adjudicatory process wherein the criteria of statutory law are applied (regarding the circumstances of the youngster's birth). The child of a denizen or a settler may claim the status of settler if he meets the criteria (or it may be claimed by his parents on his behalf). The child of a temporary resident may claim the status of temporary resident if he does likewise.

6. A denizen has a right of domicile which cannot be revoked (though the denizen is not immune to extradition proceedings. This is the salient distinction between a denizen and a settler.

7. To be naturalized, an aspirant must have the status of denizen or settler, must be at least 25 years of age; must have been for the majority of his natural life : a palpable resident of the United States, a palpable resident of an abiding possession, enrolled in the armed services, or some combination of these; must pass a civics test given in English; and must renounce any claim to citizenship anywhere else, a copy of which instrument must be sent to the legation of the country in question. No dual citizenship.

8. A denizen may be conferred citizenship by petition, obviating the foregoing requirements, if he is under the age of 14, has spent the majority of his natural life in the U.S. or its possessions, and both parents are citizens.

9. U.S. garrisons, embassies, and consulates abroad are American possessions, as are naval and merchant vessels on the high seas.

10. The residents of territories which separate from these United States shall have the citizenship of their newly sovereign territory. They can retain settler status in these United States if they've accumulated 5-6 years of residency credit. They can retain their American citizenship if they have settler status, were born in the territories remaining a part the United States, and eschew the citizenship of the departing territory.

11. Residents of these United States native to a departing territory are due the status of settler if they've accumulated 5-6 years of residency credit. They may retain their American citizenship (or reacquire it) if they've lived the majority of their natural life in territories remaining within the United States; however, they must explicitly eschew the citizenship of the departing territory.

12. If one lived in the United States throughout a given calendar year, one is due residency credit calculated as follows: 0.98 ^ (This Year - Year of Residence). If you're living in a place this year, you get 1 year credit; if you lived there 35 years ago, you get about 0.5 years, and so forth.

Re: the UK, not exactly. After a certain amount of time in the country (7 or 10 years, not sure which), folk just get granted permanent residence, if there are no character contraindications known to law enforcement. Stretching visas long enough to last that long is more difficult than it was though (it's not as possible to simply remain officially a student for 10 years, accruing various "qualifications"), but still quite easy with the amount of organised and fraudulent services commonly available.

Republicans seem to be fine with immigrants - their party is full of people like Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. It's the collapse of rule of law and the attempt to erase borders that's the issue.

It's weird how often immigration is conflated with illegal immigration, as if there's no difference. Canadians wouldn't tolerate illegal immigration but the US left likes both Canadians and illegal immigration.

Canada offers greater access to legal avenues for "unskilled" migrant labour to fill in manual labour positions which are difficult for employers to fill.

Do these unskilled workers have a path available down the road for Canadian citizenship? Honest question. Is it just that the points system speeds up the process for skilled immigrants?

No. It's a different program. Usually, they come for 6 months or so for farm work and go home.

Here's the specific details: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp

You must have been physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least 1,460 days during the six years immediately before the date of your application. You must also be physically present for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of application. These requirements do not apply to children under 18.

Since the temporary workers are present as temporary workers, 0 days count towards the requirement to spent X number of days as a permanent resident, which is an entirely different classification.

The temporary workers are generally very law abiding, since their access to work depends on not breaking any laws. It's all a little easier to enforce when the "wall" is the size of the USA (IS the USA).

Where are the democrats calling for ending illegal immigration and replacing it with that, then?

Fingers could easily be pointed in either direction.

There are a lot of second and third generation Hispanic Americans like Cruz who were raised to cleanse their non-white identies, and marry the whitest girl possible so their kids would be whiter in skin color. Most of them are from Texas. Cruz's dad married a white woman and Ted married an even whiter woman. It's sad. .

Rubbish. RB Cruz is caucasian and is father was born in the Canary Islands. Also, his 1st wife was Chicano; there's no indication he was hankering after whiteness outside your rancid imagination.

Eleanor Darragh Wilson was not notable for being white. She was notable for being a scuffed up divorcee like he was and for being in an allied trade and thus able to make a suitable business partner. As for Ted Cruz, he wasn't hankering after whiteness, either. He was white (more specifically Spanish / Cuban / Irish / Italian). He married someone perfectly appropriate on several different axes (who comes from the 63% of the population who are...white).

Hispanics can be white, and Cruz is white.

You clearly don't understand what these words mean.

I'd like to congratulate Tyler on astute and timely propaganda piece. Notice how illegal and legal immigartion were cleverly lumped togehter - we can't only have the legal one! (If you drink water, you also have to drink gasoline, as it were.)

Tyler, you've got to re-double your efforts in the next six months. For example, have you considered the following potential topics:

- Economic research show that people with orange hair make bad presidents.

- Chinese build a wall once, and where is China today, compared to Switzerland, which never had a wall (natural walls don't count)?

- What Mussolini phenomenon can teach us about populism?

I guess immigrants, like people, are all fungible. Soon they'll come out with a new survey: "59% of the public say people strengthen the country, while 33% describe them as a burden."

If people are fungible than no Democrat could obect to replacing President Obama with Donald Trump.

It would be interesting to know to what extent that's people who stayed Republican becoming less favorable to immigrants / people who stayed Democratic becoming more favorable to immigrants, and to what extent people are switching parties based on the issue.

Republican identification is still testing its lows.

http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/

It's OK, we're all independent reactionaries now.

this may not be the best example but looking at almost all immigration polls makes it painfully clear that the way we frame immigration in the media doesn't match up with people's moral/policy intuitions.

e.g. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/chapter-4-u-s-public-has-mixed-views-of-immigrants-and-immigration/

most people really don't want to turn on the immigration floodgates or deport millions of long term illegal immigrants instead a lot of the stuff seems to me to be about integration questions or perceptions thereof

Some immigrants are pretty s***y. Some are not.

The only people who are interested in talking about "immigration" as if its uni-dimensional...are leftists, conservatives and libertarians. I.e., all the political hacks who have an interest in confirming their own biases.

Really glad you're above the fray. Preach!

except i'm not trying to merely capture your moral intuitions i'm trying to capture americas.

though yeah "bundling" framing is totally a thing. everyone is in favor of high social and economic capital migrants but that gets bundled with less favorable immigration policies including guest worker programs which are naturally divisive.

it's not just immigrants/potential immigrants are shitty. inside/outside us matters as well as

Framing is a big problem in every poll. Above they frame immigrants as "hard working and talented." Who could be against that? Then when you use more neutral terms favorability goes down. And when you specifically talk about low IQ Mexicans and Arabs most people are against. Funny how that works.

The problem is that they only allowed one reason to say yes or no.

http://un-thought.blogspot.com/2016/01/immigration.html
The thing I do not get is why favor those who have had the benefit of living in the USA for legal status. Is it loss aversion?

seeing that:

There is a large percent of voters who are anti-immigration and a larger percent who are against illegal immigration.
It seems absurd to have a law that you have no intention of enforcing.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off than those who would have wanted to come but did not come because they did not want to come illegally.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to earn more money than those in Mexico.
The illegal immigrants who have been here the longest are better off because they have had a chance to learn some English which might help them get a better job in Mexico.

So suppose we deport illegal immigrants starting with those who have been here the longest and for each one deported we let in a person from the queue. Or maybe we let in two people from the queue for each illegal deported.

This seems to be a reasonable compromise between pro and anti immigration voters.

Speaking of integration...so I'm teaching this class to college kids at some no-name crappy school (for experience, I'm still a PhD student, although obviously not at the crappy school). It's largely immigrant kids. However...I made the mistake of asking them to write an essay in response to some questions I gave them.

Ho...ly...fu...ck!

The stories I could tell.

I did grad school in my second language (French). Thankfully, all my profs can read in my first language (English). By the second term, we basically all agreed that it would be more fair if I could write in my first language, although all teaching was in my second language. (Not very relevant to your case, since presumably the immigrants have a great variety of mother tongues, and you cannot be expected to read many/any of them.)

Focus on the structure of the arguments and identify the key points. Unless you're teaching a subject where writing quality is imperative in communication (in economics, for example, you can get across the key concepts mostly in mathematical terms and good presentation of data/methods, etc). In my opinion.

You could recommend that students get a friend to help proofread/edit their essays for language (not ideas). They can also pay for such services, and this should be viewed as legitimate in such a circumstance, so long as the focus is on the language and not the ideas. This is basically what I do, but at the level of lettered institutions, not undergrads.

The quality of the arguments is one thing (and it's quite poor, but then I again I can't compare them with the kids at my school since its night and day).

But there's...something...to be said when I literally can't figure out in what language the paper is written in.

Or how someone get into...college...without speaking a word of english.

So, the decision to hire you was right. The teacher has a higher technical level and knowledge compared to students, as expected, as things should be. Get used to it and you may become a good teacher. If those guys were soooo intelligent, no job. If "society" knew important things, no need for PhDs.

I'm not an english teacher, however. I expect they should be able to write basic sentences in, somewhat, proper english.

Sometimes, that's not what I get.

If the problem is at the level of sentences, that's a certain issue, and it's definitely not your job to be working on that. But I think in an early year course, it's very justifiable to be taking a little time to walk students through some basic expectations in how to structure and present an argument.

E.g., Thesis + three main arguments/sections to corroborate the thesis. Structuring sentence(s) at the beginning of each section, Conclusion to rehash (n a lower year essay, there should be NO new material in the conclusion, whereas in the real world this is where you say "and so, the policy recommendations/options from this method are ..."). Maybe even some work on logical development within each section to help corroborate both the sub-argument in the section and pointing it back to the thesis.

I tend to teach this by counter-example, demonstrating "perfect" structure, but with completely retarded and illogical arguments, which partially serves to make it more interesting and also to serve as a warning for how focusing too much on proving the point you want to make, or focusing to much on "structure as good writing" can lead to huge problems.

In my experience, university language courses are very costly and time consuming relative to the benefit. I'd suggest to the students to get into groups of 3-4 and hire private tutors to help them with writing for 1-2 hours a week. It will cost less than the university course and they'll get very intensive teaching time. A high ratio of personalized feedback to time, and they can learn from each other's mistakes.

1) These are college seniors. GASP!! How did they get through 4 years of college without speaking a word of English?

2) For some its sentence structure. For some, its completely illegible. Not even English. Its like they Google translated it or something (maybe they did!)

3) For all those who think all colleges are the same and reflect no underlying value: consider these students. Seniors at a crappy no-name college who literally have never had to speak a word of English in 4 years...and compare them with students at a top school. Mother of God! What a difference.

AIG - In undergrad I went to a very very top notch school where there are quite a few people in such situations, so it's not that clear that it reflects the quality of the school. In STEM, very little of evaluated stuff is in writing. Exams are multiple choice, and when written it's the calculations and final answers that count, not the sentences. Lab reports are based on correct answers and bullet lists of methods are OK. In economics, basically nothing is evaluated from writing - lots more multiple choice and math-only evaluation.

Like, in my econ classes, I know that most of the kids with 100% can barely form a sentence in English. If you're bad at writing and have an immigrant social circle to pass around relevant knowledge, you can generally avoid courses that usually include essay writing in the projects or exams.

Also, separate between reading and writing. Like, I can read several languages very well, but the only one that anyone would want to read me in is English.

"Like, in my econ classes"

Stop pretending like you've taken any econ classes in your life. It's painfully obvious that you majored in Area Studies.

Please share stories. I love stories.

Can't do that for obvious reasons.

Republican views stay relatively constant. Democrat views take a drastic turn in 2012. Did new evidence about this empirical question emerge in 2012 which the Democrat voters have been made aware of? Not likely. But 2012 did mark the emergence of virulent regressive social justice religion on the left - speech codes, trigger warnings, faking racial incidents, the progressive stack as a first principle, etc.

It's almost like they're sheep who change their beliefs whichever way they are called towards, but are incapable of thinking on their own.

Almost. Yeah...almost.

You're the smartest guy on campus!

Depends on which one to determine is that is a compliment or insult, though.

You have to admit it's an impressive bit of social engineering.

My impression is that Carlos Slim's early 2009 bailout of the New York Times was followed by a campaign in the Times to demonize any resistance to immigration.

The Mexican monopolist, of course, profits exorbitantly from telephone calls between America and Mexico.

But of course it's unthinkable that the intermittent Richest Man in the World would do such a thing to make himself more money.

Gotta admit, these comments by Sailer are pretty solid. I agree.

Only if one thinks that anyone reads the NYT.

Or that "millennials" can read.

The rest of the news media reads the New York Times. It tells them what is news and what views are permissible.

Carlos Slim understands how this works.

AIG - regardless of what you think about the editorial slant, NYT is one of the more credible sources of news on the planet. Disagree? Be explicit in naming more credible news outlets. You'd be hard pressed to defend more than a small handful.

new york times advocates strong liberal line on essentially moral-social issue (for lefty dems)? is this supposed to be somthing slim's addition would influence?

"The rest of the news media reads the New York Times. "- The NY Times staff itself is stuck in a bubble. See "Trust Me, I'm Lying." Your average staff writer is plugged into the Gawker-verse, with big helpings of John Oliver on the side. Their NY Times article flow just as much from that. That gives Oliver and Gawker truly outsize influence.

"Disagree?"

Yes

"Be explicit in naming more credible news outlets. You’d be hard pressed to defend more than a small handful"

I only need a small handful to make the case that it is not...one of the most...

Notice AIG says all this but then fails to actually provide one, let alone a small handful.

The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, PBS, NPR, CNN, the Jerusalem Post, The Economist.

Art - I think their all roughly in a similar ballpark, although I haven't got a clue about the Jerusalem Post. A couple of the ones that you mention have obvious editorial agendas on a handful of topics, and I don't take them seriously on those (specifically, relating to Zionism).

I find The Economist highly credible because their editorial slant is very explicit sufficiently often that any regular reader knows exactly what it is. They cover such a ridiculous breadth that obviously the depth can be lacking at times, but they only very rarely editorialize about things the writer demonstrates poor knowledge of. Very rare. As opposed to very common in most media.

Nathan, you're not familiar with what happened to the Times when A.M. Rosenthal retired and then when Pinch Sulzberger took the helm. It's not the same paper.

"Notice AIG says all this but then fails to actually provide one, let alone a small handful."

I didn't think I needed to name names. They're quite obvious. Refer to Art Deco's post.

I don't agree with all his handful of examples, but that's irrelevant. (The WP and CNN are way below the NYT in quality. CNN is just dumb). WSJ is obviously #1 on the list by a huge margin. FT is on my list too, etc.

But also notice that Nathan's comment to my comment is...completely unrelated to my comment :)

I said nothing of the NYT's quality or political slant: simply that to argue this has to do with the NYT, one would have to assume that millennials actually...read the NYT.

Millennials read Vox, Vice and Reddit. Which are, of course, only a slightly higher form of communication than grunting and spitting.

AIG - Yes, it appears that I misread you. I thought you were saying something like NYT is trash and as a result no one reads it. It's one of the best known and internationally read daily news outlets.

It's because they're all immigrants now Thomas. As if you didn't know that Obama invited in tens of millions of immigrants.

Probably has rather more to do with the massive expansion of gang stalking, gaslighting, etc. etc. Oh, I must be crazy, but Google Trends tells me searches for "gaslighting" have been increasing exponentially in recent years.

Be nice. Encourage others to be nice. But no need to be a total asshole in the way in which you do it.

Smart and principled people change their ways in response to changing times. I think those who are unable to respond to changing times may, sometimes, be rather more sheeplike than those who do.

Does that track Democrat support for tranny bathrooms?

"Americans seem to like immigration"

Fewer and fewer Americans among those currently stuck in the traffic jams in Costa Mesa outside the Trump rally:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/mexican-flag-waving-mob-harassing-motorists-outside-trump-rally-in-costa-mesa-ca/

I'd be ok with giving California back to them, really.

Alta California is a big piece to give back.

(The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo gave then-resident Mexicans the choice to become full US citizens. I would guess that modern Mexican flag wavers want it to be a permanent option. That's not something that was in the treaty.)

A big piece but a small loss.

I'd keep Eastern California. It's got nice nature, and very few people. So the best of both worlds.

Western California can go back to Mexico. They can have it.

Are you going to give up so easily on the next place that was built over generations through your country's investments when it, too, undergoes, rapid ethnic shift because of immigration? You're willing to forego the Golden State because no one under 50 has experienced it and it already seems too distant in the past. That entails not only a corrosive defeatism, but also an even more extended and less defensible border. When California is properly ruined and looted, or has become nigh unlivable despite lingering economic success because of the cartels or environmental issues, new waves of immigrants (and not just the best and brightest) will go to other places in the US. They already are doing so. Will those be allowed to secede as well by your children because they have no recollection of what those places were and no attachment to them, seeing how irreversibly alien they've become? What about Dearbornistan or Mainadishu?

Waving Mexican flags at American events is often just inflammatory. There have been many instances in SoCal over the past years, and the media don't seem to want to notice beyond some obligatory support for Dreamers or Reuniting Families or similar 'sacred vacas'.

A couple observations from personal experience.

I've had two roofs put on a home. The crews doing the work appeared to be mostly Mexican/Hispanic - likely immigrants. Some spoke a little english, but some did not. I have to agree that in that case they were extremely hard workers, doing a tough job, and doing it well.

I also sold quite a bit of stuff locally on craigslist. Many of the buyers were also Mexican/Hispanic. Again, some spoke english, but some just barely. In all cases I was left with a favorable impression in my dealings. If they said they were coming, they showed up, and were always friendly. (If you sell on craigslist you know this is not a given when dealing with your average craigslister). One interesting thing w/ craigslist sales is they'd often show up with their wife/kids, leaving the impression that family is more central. Long-term Americans seem more likely to arrive traveling solo.

Overall I've had positive experiences, so I can understand where positive views can come from. That doesn't mean I'm for open borders as social cohesion is important, but I've seen the positives and don't see immigration as a major concern as others do.

"In all cases I was left with a favorable impression in my dealings. If they said they were coming, they showed up, and were always friendly."

That's because you were in the socially superior position. Mexican culture, like most cultures, is strictly "kiss up, kick down."

I concur with your observations Shane M. I disagree with your statement Gaflated. Living in L.A. and spending much time with Mexican friends and aquaintences I never noticed that.

You don't encounter it with friends or colleagues, you encounter it from with people vastly inferior in status.

When I talk to unskilled laborers or those who don't speak English I often get the hat taken off treatment, downcast eyes, and foot scraping, but with skilled workers and anyone US born you never see it. You don't get it from anyone who is from a city either. If you went to England before the wars you would have seen this same behavior, and from much more skilled workmen, the lack of this sort of thing in the US was often commented on by British visitors well into the 1940s. In Mexico this behavior has been gently mocked as peasant behavior in movies since the 1930s as well.

It goes away very fast once Republican values take hold.

It's in Eastern Europe as well, though changing with the new generation.

Tyler is trying to appease his big money friends. Libertarianism is a spent ideology at this point.

I would be curious at what the results would be to a poll that asked if respondents thought that Americans were lazy? 1994 compared to 2016?

When I was a little kid growing up in Texas there was a fair bit of the lazy Mexican stereotype still present though clearly in decline, but by the time I graduated high school this was not said very much, it was mostly that Mexicans did poor quality work, were not very clever, needed to be supervised closely because they would try and fix equipment that they didn't understand, etc... (I still hear something like this from my Mother's friends who will say we take these peasant women and then entrust them with expensive appliances, no wonder they break them.) But nobody who saw most Mexicans working outside in a Texas summer ever claimed anymore they were lazy. When I moved to Minnesota I heard the lazy Mexican stereotype everywhere and it actually confused me, but these days you don't hear this anywhere people regularly encounter recent Mexican immigrants, especially rural areas. The main thing I hear these days is complaints that the American born kids are lazy, and I have met people, Anglos, who will not hire a US born hispanic.

I think this change was accompanied by the spread of the idea of "Jobs Americans won't do." The last is a pernicious idea I think, but the perception in 2016 is that Mexican immigrants are hard working and Americans (including American Hispanics) are lazy. This was certainly not the case in the 1970s and was very rare in any place outside parts of the Southwest in 1994.

In Canada, the threat can be something like "If you don't work harder, I'm going to fire all your asses and replace you all with Mexicans".

This is the treatment we got when a group of us in Alberta asked for a 50c an hour raise some years ago, the business owner being a wealthy man who was somehow also a very respected member of a specific Christian community in the town. And, who fired me the day after I pointed out that he was breaking several workplace safety and environmental regulations. Well, in Alberta, it seems that they don't really care about enforcing any of those laws ...

And, who fired me the day after I pointed out that he was breaking several workplace safety and environmental regulations

Some of us can think of other reasons he might have canned you.

You mention that he's breaking the law and get fired the next day? I don't think you're that dumb. On previous farm work, I'm the guy of 100 temporary workers who gets asked to stay on. Fortunately, I no longer have to prostitute my blood and sweat to earn a living.

One can be fully in favor of controlled immigration with careful consideration given to skill sets and country of origin without being a racist. Re-framed, one can be fully opposed to open borders and flooding the country with millions of undocumented workers and refugees from radical terrorist centers without being a racist. Not wanting to turn large parts of the US into Mexico does not imply one doesn't like Mexicans. Supporting the concept of a your own well-defined country does not imply you hate all other countries.

Yet you'll still be accused of racism by the mouthpieces for the billionaire class.

I don't think the Kochs would call you guys racists for saying that.

People are called racist because of the way they discuss the issue, not because of their specific position.

You could say "there are lots of good, smart and hard working people from country X, but I'm concerned about the impacts they may have on our culture". Which isn't racist. Or you could imply that these people are GENERALLY criminals and terrorists.

For example, in discussing rates of contravening socially determined laws, one could say "hence, only 98.5% rather than 99.25% are essentially law abiding individuals". Or, you could say "there are twice as criminal as whites".

Statistics do not speak for themselves.

People are also called racists when they bring up a good argument that a leftist can't rebut. Mexican, for instance, is not a race. It's a nationality and a cultural heritage shared by people with a diverse racial makeup.

I like visiting Mexico and am fascinated by it's culture and history. Yet my intimate experience with the country is precisely the reason I don't want more Mexicans immigrating here: it's a failed culture with an ingrained antipathy towards the USA.

So while I have an informed opinion based in fact, when I say "I don't want more Mexicans here" I'll be called a racist by the left because there's not really a good argument for more Mexicans here (well, also because the left wants to shut down real discussion and yelling "racist!" is very good at doing that."

Ok, so which kind of Latinos who don't have that same failed Mexican culture do you want immigrating here, if any? (You can say Puerto Ricans, Argentinians, etc.)

They may have an ingrained antipathy to the United States, and it is a less affluent population (with lower productivity). I'm not sure one can fix a meaning on 'failed culture'. The most salient problem in Mexico is street crime.

If you have adequate screening, you can admit those from Culture X not carry that culture's problematic features with them. The trouble is, with a porous border and an immigration police told by BO to stand down, you're not screening much at all. Just an English proficiency test, a background check, and a formal queue would do as a screen.

Sorry, but that's one of the dumbest and annoying sorts of counterarguments I often see on this question.

It's for lack of a better term. Talking about Mexicans? Shall we call it "nationalist" instead of "racist"? The word's already taken. Talking about Muslims? Shall we call it "religionist" instead of "racist"? But that would imply pro-religion, not negative attitudes towards members of the group for the very fact of which group they belong to and not in consideration of their individual merits or faults.

If you're got a better word than "racist" for such situations, you're more than welcome to share .

@Jan, at the moment, regardless of country, there's not really an argument for more immigrants from Latin America given the current large, unassimilated population that exists here now.

@Art Deco, "failed culture" equals a culture that has failed. Go to Mexico, study it's history, and you'll find that term has a meaning. I know you haven't done that, because if you did you'd know street crime is not only not the most salient issue with Mexican culture. In fact, street crime in Mexico really isn't that bad. The biggest problem in Mexico is corruption, from the traffic cop to the president, followed by their political tribalism which goes back centuries.

@Nathan, the word you are looking for is "prudent." Not wanting to import large numbers of people with anti-American views is prudent.

1) If racism isn't true, then anyone can be *educated* into being a productive first world Westerner.

2) If #1 is true, how can you morally defend letting people continue living in third world conditions? Don't economists always talk about how erasing borders is a free way to double global GDP. Whatever difficulties there are, certainly they can all eventually be worked out by education/outreach since we are all the same on the inside. What are you some heartless conservative racist asshole who wants these people to be poor?

3) If #1 is true, why shouldn't "disparate impact" be the law of the land as regards anything involving race. If race X is 10% of the population then they should be 10% of "insert X here". If they aren't then the only explanation is racism/legacy of racism. This racism must be punished both through direct sanctions on the racist and broad taxpayer funded subsidies to give race X a leg up. Any failures in this legal and policy regime to get race X to 10% of "insert X here" simply means we are even more racist then we thought (probably a bunch of subconscious micro aggressions or some such thing) and we just need to double down on everything. More immigrants. More lawsuits. Bigger and more expensive outreach/re-education programs.

"discussing rates of contravening socially determined laws"

rofl. you are a self parody.

#1 isn't true. Educated means the US educational system can turn non-English speaking people anywhere into fully productive, fully American citizens in 12 years. Despite culture. Despite peer effects. Despite....etc.
American schools can barely teach American students the 3 Rs. Asking them to Americanize the entire world is a bridge too far.

Turkey is a great example of this. This was brought up at Slate Star Codex. It's been modernizing and secularizing for decades. They are members of NATO. Their elites swear up and down that they are totally European-like elites and should be in the EU. Yet just look where they are now.

On the border with Syria? That's bad for countries 5 hops away.

@anon

I've seen this a million times. Thanks to the West's charity, the teeming masses in places like Africa make $2/3/X a day instead of $1 a day. People hail that as progress. I see it as still being wretchedly poor, and since their population increase outstrips the first world the number of poor people is increasing. There has been zero budge in the % of world population making for instance the current American minimum wage. And 90%+ of all growth has been high IQ NE Asians moving from poor to "mid income" (note: still less then the American minimum wage). That too is stalling because those people have low TFR.

If your goal is to increase the % of world population making what we in America still consider poverty then you've made zero progress on this front, and there is little out there in the demographics to lead one to believe the situation is getting rosier.

I think the book is more in the "charity didn't work" camp, and more about critical mass being achieved in local education, politics, etc.

I’ve seen this a million times. Thanks to the West’s charity, the teeming masses in places like Africa make $2/3/X a day instead of $1 a day. People hail that as progress -

What are you talking about? ODA is economically unimportant outside of tropical Africa and a few other loci.

Considering that you're racist, I'm pretty sure you know (1) isn't true.

asdf - quite a lot of Western "charity" went basically to dictators and ended up as handouts to cronies via corrupt white elephant projects and into Swiss accounts, etc. Also, a lot of charity was geared towards meeting immediate needs and not productive potential, which had the effect of muting the drive to increase productive potential.

It is changing, but, especially in the Cold War context, most of that "charity" was to buy the political loyalty of whichever faction was more pro-West and had very little to do with increasing the economy.

Also, while an increase from $1 to $3 a day may seem small, and I agree that it is still very impoverished, it represents a fairly high rate of growth. Finally, your analysis completely ignores that most traditional routes to industrial development are basically blocked because textiles, etc. are basically highly competitive in other low wage countries.

"You could say “there are lots of good, smart and hard working people from country X, but I’m concerned about the impacts they may have on our culture”. Which isn’t racist."

I have absolutely seen that position described as racist.

Well, sometimes it depends how you say it. If you say it exactly how I said it .. yes, I know, there are some very problematic SJWs (or, perhaps instigators who are actually anti-SJWs, I dunno...).

But I read people who CLAIM to make arguments like that, but come across as saying "the rapist pedophile barbarians are threatening our culture and moreover diminishing our genetic stock with their inferior genes, and I'm concerned about my culture, and if they don't stop coming we might have to get our guns and do something about it."

I think that arguments along these lines are rather more often of the second type than the first, although not often quite as extreme as I portray them.

Nathan W, faux agreeing with someone but advising them on their tone, attitude and so on without ever addressing your differences of position in a reasonable manner is concern trolling. It also places the accusation of hampering public debate on the people who are excluded from it through demonization, not on the people in power who don't want their assumptions and positions challenged. It is demonization that leads to the example you are giving, because the respectable, thin skinned people who are needed for reasonable and polite debate are driven off with accusations of racism and you are left to eventually debate the issues with the un-respectable people and the exasperated, who will formulate their (still very valid) arguments to precisely the same mold you are presenting. This is very useful because it delegitimizes them as partners in the national conversation, without having to address their arguments. Like the people tut-tutting about Trump voters and implying there is something deficient in them that rubs off on their candidate because of their tone, positions, social status, education etc. It is the current intellectual climate that exacerbates the problem that you mentioned, but it is wholly produced by the people who are currently the gatekeepers for respectability and the Overton Window.

Yeah, and I think that actually comes through with the question on whether diversity makes the US a better place. 46% of Republicans say it does, 39% say it doesn't and 13% say it makes it a worse place.

Again, it depends. The questions are too simple. Diversity given current policies with 12 million undocumented workers and uncontrolled borders may not be everyone's cup of tea.

I don't see how that responds to my comment. I'm saying some Republicans might not be racists, because they like diversity. The question of whether the borders are "secured," something that will literally never happen, is irrelevant. Controlled borders is not an input to formulate an answer to that question. It can be asked separately.

The question of whether the borders are “secured,” something that will literally never happen,

It will happen if the political will is there to build the necessary public works and hire the personnel and allow them to do their jobs. That will has not been there.

see my link above: people have dramatically different net fav of nation of origin immigration and it really seems to be a lot a proxy for skills/high capital.

It's not only immigrants that Republicans don't like, Republicans don't seem to like anybody. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

It's pretty simple. Democrats like immigrants because because the current flavor of immigrants (and likely their first generation of children) will overwhelmingly will vote for democrats. Republicans are opposed to the current non-enforcement policy for that same reason.

What about DC statehood?

Federalize all the major cities and Make the Senate Great Again.

And Republicans like immigrants because they will come here and work in their carwashes, farms, chicken processing plants, etc. for sub-market wages. Real Republicans (you know, the country club, chamber of commerce ones) as opposed to you nouveau Republicans are hugely in favor of illegal immigrants.

I used to work in carwashes in high school, but that was right about when the 25 year old no English illegals started to roll in. In fact, most of the jobs I had as a kid are now done by illegals. It's hard for 16 year old's to compete with 25 to 35 year old men. Now we have a bunch of teens and young adults that have never held a job. Illegal immigration is cheaper on occasion but comes with very large external costs.

Who was it who identified 2004 as the year that liberal social views on homosexuality changed on a dime? Andrew Sullivan? Nate Silver?

I'm thinking more and more that there was a cultural shift in the mid-2000s while everyone was distracted and maybe it was more important than we realize? What the hell happened?

The speed of these major social shifts is truly incredible, and understudied. I would postulate that the real relevant date for the shift is 1991, and what you're seeing in the mid to late aughts is the effect of those End of History-era kids coming of age.

The communists won in the 1950s. That's what happened.

I dunno, but the second graph shows an extraordinary change in attitudes among Democrats since 2006. Social media?

But is 50% of the public the same as 59% of Americans? With incredibly high levels of immigrants wouldn't you expect that all those immigrants with family still somewhere else would be in favor of more immigration. Let's only poll the citizen taxpayers who have to pay through the nose for immigrants and see what the results are.

Wouldn't a likely impetus for a change like this be a change in how immigrants are presented in the media and in public discourse, or in how anti-immigration views are treated?

Or, perhaps "Immigration is great!" has become a central part of the moral identity of people identifying as Democrats. The sharp partisan divergence is over the past decade. The line of thought would be: Republicans are racist. I'm not a racist, I'm a Democrat. Well, opposition to immigration is racist. So I must like immigration, unlike those racist Republicans.

Rather than D/R I'd be interested in seeing this broken down based on % of immigrants in a given county. I think for people who live in areas where immigration is low, it is signaling, because you're not really affected one way or the other.

As an even deeper layer, by % immigrants and then average immigrant income (as a proxy for skill/education levels). I'd expect that even in a region with a high immigrant %, if the immigrants are highly educated and skilled, natives will view them and immigration generally favorably (though that may reverse again once the immigrants are doing too well compared to the natives - I'm not sure if there are areas like that in the U.S.)

Trump has done well in diverse working class communities, so this hangs. All-white working class communities don't see the problem (hence his doing bad in box states) and rich whites mostly interact with smart Asians and Indians who they like more then working class whites (Mexicans mowing your lawn isn't interaction).

Immigrants are swell people who help the rich get richer and the upper middle class get their lawn mowed. What is the effect of 50 million ambitious hard working Mexicans on the American American and poor white American family structures and African American and poor white american culture in general? Bad thing happen when men can't support families.

"Bad thing happen when men can’t support families."

Historically this is true. But now there is a welfare state.

Wonderful things happen with the welfare state. Would you like to live in a neighborhood with lots of Section 8 inhabitants?

I'm sure you'll say yes, given that it's you.

What is the effect of 50 million ambitious hard working Mexicans on the American American and poor white American family structures and African American and poor white american culture in general?

Family relations among Chicanos are messier than family relations among generic caucasians. Labor force participation and working hours among Chicanos are not notably higher than they are among other sectors.

"Immigrants are swell people who help the rich get richer and the upper middle class get their lawn mowed. What is the effect of 50 million ambitious hard working Mexicans on the American American and poor white American family structures and African American and poor white american culture in general? Bad thing happen when men can’t support families."

I'll say this: I'd trade all the white trash and ghetto trash in the US...for 50 million Mesicans :)

Yes I would. Really, they are a big upgrade to the trailer parks of Kentucky and the ghetto horror shows of Baltimore.

Can we all agree on that at lest?

What the second graph shows is that, until 2006, Democrats were as awful and hateful as awful and hateful Republicans were and still are.

Basically, before 2006, everything was awful and hateful. That's Millennial history.

Hehe. Best response yet.

Yep, it's almost like 1984. Almost...yeah, almost.

The responses to the poll question in that second graph would make a lot more sense if the question was worded: "% who say immigrants today strengthen their own party's role in government."

if you venture into internet subcultures, you can get a glimpse of what millennials think. this is a good example of it: http://nostalgicgoon.tumblr.com/post/143875536511/yolandaash-teapotsahoy-jadelyn

“You are Doing Capitalism Wrong and it scares me” - bitter Boomers to Millennials who are not buying into their shit (or buying their shit)"

we have grown up in all the failures of capitalism and we're fed up of having our elders ignoring us, not educating us, and blaming us for epic problems we didn't create, but inevitably have to solve.

y'all think data will help you understand, but millenials are people with emotions and memories first, not goddamn datapoints. get over that delusion, and all the wise and experienced economists will be able to see where the problems lie. it's not economic, it's behavioral, and it's your behavior, your denial as causes that come first, not the symptoms we as millenials exhibit.

Comments for this post are closed