Reihan Salam on the immigration crisis

Here is Reihan in the WSJ (good photos!):

…we need to recognize that the immigration debate isn’t really about immigrants. In truth, it’s about the children of immigrants.

…Like it or not, we are a country with an implicit social contract. If we welcome you in as part of the flock, we also welcome your offspring. In past eras, high immigration levels were matched by high native birthrates. The end result was that, even if immigrants had large families, these second-generation youth were greatly outnumbered by the descendants of the native-born. Investing in the next generation meant investing in the children of immigrants, yes, but also in the children of natives, who, by virtue of their numbers, would set the cultural tone.

Collapsing native birthrates have changed the picture, setting off a cultural panic among the likes of Rep. Steve King, the Iowa congressman who infamously tweeted, “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

Here is Reihan’s new book Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders.  Here is Katie’s sketch of my blurb:

Out today, and definitely recommended!


The image seems quite meme-worthy :D

Why did I bother to look?

Reading on the Internet is vastly improved when only is text on the screen.

Ring is on the wrong hand?

Clearly it's Tyrone. He's the mirror image of Tyler.

I love the Vice City Tyler. Or is that Tyrone??

I fail to see how a rooster would add realism

Lol that's gangsta ass shit. He needs his homeboy Alex next to him with some GMU undergrad girl on her hands and knees begging Tyler to pass her on the Straussian Restaurant Reviews course.


'“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”'

Well, all a matter of definition - did we restore our culture between 1880-1920, expand it, or force it into a decline that some people are still working against?

'After 1880 larger steam-powered oceangoing ships replaced sailing ships, which resulted in lower fares and greater immigrant mobility. Meanwhile, farming improvements in Southern Europe and the Russian Empire created surplus labor. Young people between the ages of 15 to 30 were predominant among newcomers. This wave of migration, constituting the third episode in the history of U.S. immigration, may be better referred to as a flood of immigrants, as nearly 25 million Europeans made the long trip. Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles, and others speaking Slavic languages made up the bulk of this migration. 2.5 to 4 million Jews were among them.'

And there was no great depression after this influx? The same wave of immigrants did not become the building blocks for organized crime of that day?

I am not saying, that immigrants are bad, but they are least protected members of society and when shit hits the fan, they are first in line to get showered. And then the previous generations who are relatively wealthier start screaming about "those damn immigrants". And you have a lot of problems.

I personally think that immigration is pretty great for any country (certainly better emigration), but don't say that it does not produce any problems. What you need is to discuss ways of countering these problems and for that, acknowledge them.

Firstly, as discussed in Salam's article, the high fertility of native-born Americans meant that the migrations of the 1880-1920 period did not fundamentally change the character of the American population*. Secondly, given that the immigrants of 1880-1920 were overwhelmingly white and that genetic and cultural differences within Europe are relatively small, their impact was less transformative than that of post-1965 migrants who are largely non-European culturally and racially.

(* IIRC, some study estimated that if America had received no immigrants at all after the colonial period, the population of America in the year 1990 would still have been 50% of what it actually was.)

'1880-1920 period did not fundamentally change the character of the American population'

Tell that to the KKK of the 1920s. Or for that matter, to those protesters in Charlottesville chanting 'Jews will not replace us.'

'Secondly, given that the immigrants of 1880-1920 were overwhelmingly white and that genetic and cultural differences within Europe are relatively small'

You need to read some of the more contemporary commentary of that period, instead of the latest reiteration of the currently PC party line among those who seemingly forget what most Americans thought about East Europeans a century ago.

Or just try 'American nativism' as a search term in your favorite search engine to get a good overview, though not only of the 1880s-1920s.

I know what most Americans thought about Eastern Europeans, or Southern Europeans for that matter, back then. That intolerance and the cessation of mass immigration greatly helped the assimilation of the immigrants.

Well, if by assimilation you mean that Catholics became more powerful in American political and social life in the 20th century than in the 18th or 19th century, sure.

The Americans of those two earlier centuries were, like their British counterparts, exceedingly distrustful of papists taking over.

I see little Catholization of American culture or politics. On the contrary, Catholics, like Jews, became more like Protestants.

The immigration influx of 1880-1920 did change American culture. The change and conflict was minimized because the immigrants were expected to assimilate and conform to the settler culture. Non-English speaking immigrants switched to English and didn't maintain their old language. The nation still saw itself as a nation of European descent and culturally of European heritage.

'The immigration influx of 1880-1920 did change American culture.'

It certainly did - it changed American culture to what we today consider American culture.

'The nation still saw itself as a nation of European descent and culturally of European heritage.'

Those chanting Charlottesville protesters and those generally associated with things like the KKK would argue that the large influx of a group they often put into multiple parentheses were not of European descent and culturally of European heritage.

That is their opinion, of course, no more.

Study after study has shown that today's immigrant populations become near-monolingual English speakers in the third generation, as was true of past immigrants as well.

People can change their culture though. Most second-generation immigrants are pretty Americanized, because American culture is on the whole one of the most attractive in the world. In fact, immigrant parents complaining about their kids losing their native culture is a very common trope.

And a big reason American culture is so widely appealing is because it is a melting pot that incorporates the best of many different cultures and doesn’t hesitate to reinvent itself. America is like a cultural marketplace—and a marketplace is more appealing if it has a big variety of vendors.

There is the school of though, underpinned by a certain amount of research, but somewhat taboo, that culture is to a degree mediated by genes. And that the genotypes of ancestral groups cluster around different mean values for the important social traits that underlyy culture.

Nicholas Wade's book goes into this for such traits as radius of trust. Anthropologists have long characterized different types of societies by where their members fall with reference to various social traits.

Attempts at nation building have had differing success based on the initial society. Japan worked out O.K. . Nothing in the tribalistist Middle East or northeast Africa has. So is it A good idea to bring in such people in large numbers if they simply duplicate there own culture in the US?

'Nothing in the tribalistist Middle East or northeast Africa has.'

Egypt. But then, why discuss one of the first and longest lasting civilizations in human history when talking about 'those' genes, right?

Ask the Copts.

Why? Did they have anything to do with the pharaohs?

Ask the Israelis.

Who just happen to another example of a nation that arose in the tribalistist Middle East or northeast Africa. As noted by Konstantinov Roman below.

If only Babylonian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Egyptian, Jewish, Rashidun/Umayyad/Abbasid Caliphates, Ottoman Empires did not exist for centuries. Some of them much longer than specific Western countries.

Do you know the concept of "fertile crescent" otherwise known as "cradle of civilization"? No? Doesn't ring the bell? It's in middle east and it's a place where all of our modern civilizations begin. That's where the Bible and Koran were written. Two of the more important/influential books.

If only those people knew that their genes were somehow bad for building societies...

Polyglot empires are pretty much the antithesis of "nations" as historically understood.

Personally I think that is what is most scary about immigration. Back in the day you could reasonably pretend that immigrants would become part of the nation - speak your language, follow or at least accommodate themselves to your religion, and embrace your traditions. Becoming a multiethnic empire means retaining hard divisions between groups and negotiating on the basis of group identity.

That has been pretty troublesome wherever it is has been tried (e.g. Belgium). Nobody cares if you have celebrate weird holidays or if you have a funny sounding name. They do care if they feel like the country is going to descend into "us" vs "them". Even the most hardened racists don't seem to give a rat's ass about where or how I live once I establish that I served in the military, enjoy target shooting, cannot stand the Democratic party (my disdain for the Republic party is not disqualifying either), and prefer country music to rap. I may always be different, but I am "assimilated" and have done many of the things they believe are due for being part of the nation.

Genes may well predispose people towards certain social and political outcomes ... but multinationalism failed quite easily in a society of Northern European white folks with the same religion.

Up until 19th century most French did not speak what is now known as French. Sure, the level of differences in languages were lower than English-Arabic, but nonetheless. I am just saying that at some point all the current "nations" were polyglot and were considered different nations/families/tribes. Throughout human history xenophobia existed, yet the forms of government, that facilitated combining different groups of people, were preferential to history.

Sure, there are a lot of problems, when there is a big inlfux of newcomers to any country, but it's still needed to remain competitive to other countries.

I guess the typical response would be that turning groups of differing groups of people into one cultural nation is a rather difficult thing to do, and not always such a nice thing to do either.

'Polyglot empires are pretty much the antithesis of "nations" as historically understood.'

Egypt was not a polyglot empire by any reasonable definition.

'but multinationalism failed quite easily in a society of Northern European white folks with the same religion'

The EU hasn't collapsed quite yet.

Depends on which "Egypt" we are discussing. The Old Kingdom was described as being "two nations" by the Old Egyptians themselves. Oddly enough the Middle Kingdom resorted itself into two states after the first interregnum and the disintegration of the Old Kingdom into petty nomarchs. From the Middle Kingdom onward Egypt certainly was polyglot ruling at various times over the Levant, Nubia, Libya, and other areas with distinct language, culture, and religion.

Regardless, the vast majority of states throughout history have been more polyglot assemblages of distinct communities than the early modern understanding of "nation". As mentioned above most of Napoleon's "French" troops did not even speak French, which is we eventually saw the imposition of French cultural hegemony and, for instance, the banning of Occitan.

States with multiple distinct communities organized along those lines have had pretty troublesome times. France, after all, had multiple revolts by the Bretons. Even today Belgium has a highly dysfunctional government largely due to society being completely riven between along language lines (with a third agglomeration in Brussels).

Bryan Caplan's circle of immigration advocates argue that dividing society into rival identity groups is a feature not a bug. Big shocks of ethnic + religious diversity will undermine solidarity and undermine the welfare state and pave the way for free market reforms and anarcho-capitalism. If that is true, that will be fantastic, but that's a high risk speculation. We really don't know how larger shocks of identity group diversity will work at all.

Free market reforms are a reasonable policy preference. Anarcho-capitalism in a low trust society will be a disaster. Not much better or worse than a big state dominated by identify politics.

Exactly. It's betting everything on one spin of the roulette wheel. Once you place your bet, you can't take it back. And you could lose the global engine of prosperity. Perhaps totalitarian China could one day take up the slack.

@ Xorena
One thing that I don't understand is how selective immigration plays into the idea about genes and culture. For the US at least, the immigrants we get from the Middle East tend to the be smartest, hardest working, most educated, and most predisposed towards more Northern European norms of social trust. So does the overall background level of those things from their home country really matter, especially if all of those traits are polygenic? Likewise, I also don't see why that sort of argument isn't an argument to try to flood the US with Japanese immigrants, due to their superiority to the current US population.

Get back to me when someone identifies a gene for speaking, say , Russian, or being a Buddhist. Language, followed by religion, is fundamental to culture -- and both are purely learned behaviors, not at all hereditary beyond the fact that you need human genes for them.

Change the people, change the place. Any sufficiently potent creed will tend towards hereditary ethnicity over time. Arab Islam has been incredibly potent, homogenizing numerous diverse cultures.

Future America is going to be pretty interesting, with Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Anabaptists and Muslims divvying up the spoils.

There are all sorts of interesting variables. A Lebanese friend says their village priest always told them he wouldn't marry two people from the same village. He didn't realize it at the time, but the priest was enforcing Church teaching on cousin marriage.

Anglos tend to have nuclear families and children that move away, perhaps explaining Anglo America's frontier-capitalist streak versus the political economies of the Southern Cone. This seems to be playing out in US politics, with Republicans being the party of founding stock America and the Democrats as Team Brown and unable to hold on to white male voters.

There’s a lot of “just so” explanations here. Not saying it’s wrong, but you’d need some evidence to be convincing.

Regardless....population numbers:

Orthodox Judaism 1.3%
Mormons < 2%
Islam 0.9%
Anabaptist less than .1%?
Catholics 24%

I don’t see where you get “divvying up the spoils” from these numbers.

Christians are over 70% of a rapidly secularizing population.

If one group has a TFR of 3 - 5 and the other has a TFR of 1 - 2, or 0 - 2, then things can change very quickly within two generations.

I know a number of very shocked Syrians who remember in a single lifetime when their towns were half Christian.

It’s not just TFR though, you need to factor in secularization/assimilation/intermarriage.

What % of American Muslim families are still “demographically” Muslim by the third generation? Jewish families?

You have an argument, but it applies more to Israel (Haredim) than the US.

"Trees do not grow up to sky". It4a fundamental error to predict the future based on present trends.

Not sure what your point is. Islam us not hereditary in any literal sense- and the majority if Muslins are not Arabs.
The Church's "ban" on cousin marriage was anything but absolute. Dispensations were common as any rotsl genealogy attests. There were even uncle-niece marriages allowed as late as the 19th century.

Creeds tend to become ethnicities over time, e.g., the Amish. Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere generally do not marry Muslims, and few non-Muslims anywhere are going to marry into the baggage of a Muslim family. The incidence of cousin marriage in Islam is also far higher, which also has hereditary effects.

Spme minor creeds become ethnic things. But the history of Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, all if which spread far, far beyond their original population bases, ought disprove the notion that this is a hard law of history.

@clockwork_prior - good point, though you forgot the Chinese. When the Greeks immigrated to the USA, they were considered by the Americans akin to the blacks. Today, many blacks I notice have Greek names, coincidence? And scientists have found sub-Saharan African DNA in Greek people on the islands (the mainland is more European). Coincidence? I think Salem is simply catering to white American's priors with his talk.

Bonus trivia: my ancestors came to the USA around the late 19th century and founded various 'firsts' in businesses in the deep South. A variety of novel businesses. Later my dad moved to a number of cities before setting in DC, which was the best city he says, due to the Federal government. After Eisenhower the US government expanded and we are now in the 1% in net worth. Thanks loyal taxpayers. I doubt immigrants will be as successful as our clan, since the USA was growing back then in economic dynamism, whereas now it's stagnant and complacent as TC says.

"When the Greeks immigrated to the USA, they were considered by the Americans akin to the blacks."

No they weren't, you silly flaneur.

Yes they were, it was even on PBS. Man youz ignorant.

Of course it was.

It's been suggested that America lagged behind Europe in adopting social welfare programs because America was a nation of immigrants ("those people"). It's a persuasive case if one looks at Europe today with all of the immigrants and the rising opposition to social welfare programs. Now one opposed to social welfare programs might find this a very good reason to support immigration.

It's a rightwing myth that there's any serious oppisition to social welfare programs in Europe. Even hard right politicians are foot stomping in favor of them. At most you'll support for fixing this or that dysfunctional aspect. (See also, Social Security and Medicare in the US, still the touch of death to meddle with no matter how diverse we are)

Is that lack of opposition to social welfare programs is what led to the countries of Europe falling from economic first world status?

It Is Still True That Even Mississippi Is Richer Than Britain? And that Missouri is richer than Germany?

Unless you are posting from some alternate reality. No European country has dallen from first world status

Does Cowen have that pronounced of a five o'clock shadow? Or did he forget to shave that morning? Ironically, it makes him look like a scary immigrant.

C'mon, rayward. Any student of culture would immediately identify a Fred Flintstone, later homaged by Homer Simpson.

What don’t you agree with? Is a more thorough review coming?

The only reason Tyler thinks we have an immigration "crisis" in 2018 is that for the first time, people are considering doing something about the actual illegal immigration crisis.

Just considering, mind you.

Could it be Tyler Cowen, Bill Gates, and the Reihan Salam realize that intelligence, education success, and the big five personality traits lie mostly in an individual's genes. The high birth rates of Sub-Sahara Africans and Latin America do not bode well economically for Europe or the US. Unfortunately, the editors of the Economist remain confused and are still groping in the weeds.

In what sense do we have an 'illegal immigration crises'? This question merits an answer that goes beyond "well we have lots of illegal immigrants". We also have a lot of overdue library books too, is there a crises of lazy library book borrowers?

How does he establish this? Does he conduct surveys? Does find some sort of data source which this hypothesis best explains? I haven't read the book, but I worry it's making social scientific conclusions without proper evidence.

I guess I should read the book, but at least the blurb mentions that one of the big reasons to reject more unskilled labor immigration is to avoid creating an ethnic underclass. Of course, we already have an ethnic underclass, the difference being we keep them outside our borders. Maybe that "worked" for citizens of rich countries before, but I think it's less tenable as the world shrinks and has always been morally irresponsible.

And let's not forget Lant Pritchett's book on immigration: lower birthrates of native populations is precisely the reason we need more immigration. Or else whose paying into social security and medicare?

"Of course, we already have an ethnic underclass, the difference being we keep them outside our borders."

One of the ironies of today's world is that Trump's trade and immigration policies may align more closely with the interest of black Americans, who compose a big share of our own homegrown ethnics underclass, folks with an American pedigree that predates most of us.

"Or else whose paying into social security and medicare?"

Those can be fixed by removing he income cap on social security and raising the retirement age from 67 to 70. It might have to be 72 for Medicare, which would lead to a surplus for social security.

Katie was very generous with your hair lol

If the book is honest, it goes on to note that King is a stone-cold racist white supremacists with serious Nazi sympathies, right? Right? Yeah, I thought probably not.

What's amusing is that you fancy yourself knowledgeable, perspicacious, and on the side of the angels.

I think you are missing the point of the excerpt. It isn't that people should engage in cultural panic and align with people like Steve King. It is simply that they do. Steve King is a stand-in for badness in this scenario.

Salam has Bangladeshi-born immigrant parents. He isn't jumping on the white supremacy bandwagon.

"Will the America she grows up in be defined by rigid lines of color and class?" Sadly, opposition to President Trump's common sense immigration reform and continued mass migration is more likely to assure that this is indeed the case.

Mass immigration is a driving force behind the so-called income inequality crisis. As Brendan Kirby has written "the American Community Survey, determined that inequality grew by a statistically significant amount from 2016 to 2017 in five states — California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, and New York. All of those states except for Louisiana had foreign-born populations greater than the national average of 13.7 percent.

New York’s 22.9 percent immigrant share ranks second in the country. It also has the second-highest Gini rating, .5157 — just below the District of Columbia in inequality.

California ranks fifth in inequality (.4866 Gini) and first in foreign-born population (27 percent).

Half of the 14 states where the foreign-born share of the population exceeds the national average also rank among the 10 worst places for income inequality."

And Reihan's naive belief that higher taxes will take care of all the new immigrants children deserves to be mocked and ridiculed. More spending and more taxes will only further impoverish future generations who are already over-burdened with debt.

Not that it matters. The tipping point has already been reached. The US will no doubt become a melting-pot society of aesthetically pleasing tones regardless of anything that happens, as countless celebratory prophets of diversity have already declaimed. It is just that the USA will more nearly resemble Brazil in demographics, taxes, economic growth, poverty, and income inequality. But at least we will have the moral high ground when China, that color-blind haven for immigrants from all over the world, ascends to global supremacy.

"California ranks fifth in inequality (.4866 Gini) and first in foreign-born population (27 percent)."

A more telling statistic is that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation (US Census PPP measurement).

Racists, man. They look at place called California, that is the Spanish word "California," which was part of the Spanish Empire until 1821, and say " it started when the non-white people came in."

Heard it here first folks.

PPP poverty data is racist.

Is that really the best you can do, the best you can glean from both those comments?

If you aren't a racist, you are a deflector for racists.

You responded to a factual claim about poverty rates in California by calling JWatts racist.

I pointed out the ludicrous nature of your response.

Your counter is that I’m a racist or a “deflector” for racists.

What I glean from these comments is that instead of replying to edgar’s weird rant about Brazilification or engaging with JWatts, you, as per usual, start flinging shit everywhere.

So suddenly you notice "edgar’s weird rant about Brazilification" but you pretend JJWatts indorsement is completely unrelated.

And then you get mad at me. What a dirty troll you are.

Weird, Android spelled it as indorsement in speech to text.

You make ad hominem attacks, refuse to engage with arguments, and respond to comments by shouting “racist!”

Your modus operandi is to throw shit.

You are the operational definition of a troll. And the worst part, you lack the humor to make it entertaining.

"You are the operational definition of a troll. And the worst part, you lack the humor to make it entertaining."


Why was yours "a more telling statistic?"

What argument of edgar's were you supporting?

edgar was referring to mass immigration, which presumably includes illegal immigration. A large number of low skilled illegal immigrants have moved into California thus contributing to the states high poverty rates.

It is now obvious to me, and probably everyone here, that you didn't even read the thread I was responding to. You just looked it Jay Watts last comment and mine and thought you had a way in.

You wanted to argue with me and not for the topic the main article nor "edgar’s weird rant about Brazilification."

That makes you a pure troll.

And now you are pure troll trying to dig your way out of a hole.

Keep trollin.

Ad hominem and throwing shit at the wall.

Yes, Brazil is a big basket case that no nation should want to emulate.

It is a lie! Brazil is larger than the Roman Empire at its height. Famous American statesman George Kennan said Brazil was instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany. They invented the airplane and discoverwd the pion. In the next decade they hope to launch a small satellite into orbit.

Real folks living in Tennessee put eggs on a sandwich; they don't put eggs on their hamburgers or on their faces like Brazilians.

"…we need to recognize that the immigration debate isn’t really about immigrants. In truth, it’s about the children of immigrants."

Raise hands if one (or both, like me) of your parents was the child of immigrants and in all respects fully American. WWII vet, PTA member, the whole package.


I guess by 'native' he doesn't mean the Hopi...

Exactly. It all rests on a fantasy America which which never had an Indian problem, never swallowed Spanish or French territory, never had a slave problem, or then an emancipation problem.

Historically, people seem to do better as former British imperial subjects than former French, Spanish or Portuguese imperial subjects.

I think the British were more inclined to bring their wives with them.

My dad's theory was that English law made a big difference

Common law is a very different way of jurisprudence than civil law. It is an under-appreciated gem.

I just don't get this being a crisis and I have had lots of friends, neighborhoods, co-workers and almost wife as children of Immigrants.

1) Not all immigrants have big families and most minority birth rates are dropping. And Asian-Americans have the lowest birth rates in the US so this theory has holes.

2) It makes the same mistake that most Hispanic-Americans families long time citizens in the US. (Most H-A I know have families dating generations with a few Immigrants amongst the past.)

3) At the heart of the modern economy, it is not wise for average young people to start families young. They should wait until careers are settled and they have decent healthcare. Note most of the drop in the US birth rates since 2008 is because single motherhood has declined 7%.

The reality Young people are economically smart not to start families young.

I still say:
1) The great contradiction of rich nations is the richer they are the less they can afford children.
2) The most practical conservative well nation is Singapore and it is not a circular correlation/causation of low birth rates and competitive economies. (Although the causation are probably other exogenous variables such as women in the workforce, education, etc.)

It's not a crisis at all. There have been high level's of illegal immigration over the past few years. The numbers have been systematically understated and enforcement has been relatively lax.

This has put downward pressure on low skilled immigration. That combined with globalization and automation has resulted in stagnant wages.

The US needs a decade or two hiatus from large amounts of immigration to assimilate the 20 million or so illegal immigrants. Then we can resume the normal immigration rates.

*Did you mean downward pressure on returns to low skilled labor? I agree, although the data is murky at best. What irks me is the flippant “of course it’s not true” when doctors would be in the streets tomorrow if they had to compete with doctors from .... Canada or Germany.

I think a combination of E-Verify, strict guest worker program for agriculture, border enforcement, and a 20,000 per year cap on immigration from Latin America for 15 years would do it. Of course this is entirely outside the Overton window.

No reason not to skim the best of Asia and Africa though in the interim.

Over time, that will make things worse for Asians and Africans. Then, there'll be a "refugee crisis" and it will be our problem all over again.

Meh, I have a hard time feeling bad for Africa if the US is willing to offer a lot of bright young Africans a much better life. I doubt the US is going to effect Asia that much. It's not nearly as dysfunctional. Certainly not enough to generate a refugee crisis.

Again, it's going to be your problem either way. The African Raj's will do better with smart, homegrown prospects than any expatriates the CIA recruits here.

I suspect that an African refugee crisis would be a problem for Europe, not the US.

I feel like I'm talking to somebody who assumes he'll always be able to sell his house and move to a "good school district."

Since African immigrants do better than native whites, maybe you’re the one ruining their school district ?

LOL. I can take you to some prime Somali and Liberian neighborhoods. You can tell your wife how much y'all will save on the mortgage.

We're all economists here, right? How does the market price white/Asian school districts?

You’re cherry picking two failed states, a refugee population and extrapolating.

African immigrants are the least likely to congregate in ethnic enclaves, per the census.

Over 49% have a college degree , almost 20% have a graduate or professional degree.

So they wouldn’t live in “an African neighborhood.” They’re less than 1% of the population and are randomly interspersed in solidly middle class to upper class neighborhoods.

"I feel like I'm talking to somebody who assumes he'll always be able to sell his house and move to a "good school district.""

Maybe I explained poorly. I wasn't saying I was in favor of low skilled immigration from Africa (or anywhere else for that matter.) I explicitly meant high skilled, bright people. The kind of people that tend to make good neighbors.

We have plenty of high skilled, bright people. Africa does not.

Well, living in SoCal Illegal Immigrant Hispanic populations flows are still less than 2005 but higher than 2012. In reality, what truly solved the illegal immigrant flow was the 2008 Financial Crisis not border patrol. (Note the reality of Illegal Immigrants doing Seasonal Agriculture has been around since WW2 and it was true during Reagan Governor/President.)

In reality the best method of slowing this down would be go after small businesses but we rather not do that.

I think the example of the 2008 Financial Crisis is a good argument for the use of the E-Verify program, alongside enforcement against employers.

"*Did you mean downward pressure on returns to low skilled labor? "

Yes, exactly.

The end result

I first heard this ridiculous term back in the 80s when my boss stopped me in my tracks with it. Is there an interim result? Is there an end that isn't a result, like a temporary end? Using it is evidence of an inability to speak coherent English.

Why would anyone want to speak coherent English, the language of the genocidal white oppressors?

If we don’t speak English, how do we operate the casinos?

I'm just interested to see which mammals of North America will be required to enhance sexual prowess, when the Chinese are in charge. Perhaps if we're still following procedure, we'll pass an Endanger the Species Act.

So it's the same stuff the dissident right has been talking about for over a decade? Gotcha.

"Collapsing native birthrates have changed the picture ..."

It's worse than he says since the two things probably aren't independent. High immigration very likely depresses white birth rates. Higher population increases land/housing costs, wage competition leads to stagnant wages (male wages have been stagnant for decades), and school quality deteriorates (e.g., LAUSD), etc. All this reduces white fertility. (Of course these things can also happen with native population growth without immigration. Japan, for example).

Liberals seem to believe that we are morally obliged to allow our demographics to converge to, presumably, the demographics of the world at large. And they think it is "racist" to notice or object or raise any practical concerns about what a disaster that would be. This is a classic example of liberal ideals going haywire. Most white Americans have similar ideals, but, unlike true believer liberals, they sanity-check these things and are going to be okay with pursuing racial harmony within the US as it exists without the continued radical racial recomposition. The difficulty here is that the powers that be have been foisting this racial recomposition upon the country contrary to popular wishes while at the same time making it taboo to discuss the issue frankly.

Were natice born American birthrates depressed during the high immigration years of the late 1800s, early 1900s?

Another way to say it: White parents generally want to live in (sufficiently) white neighborhoods and send their kids to (sufficiently) white schools. High immigration probably makes those things more expensive.

Socialist dictators in Latin America are dumping their social problems on the US taxpayer. Simple.

No one seems to notice that Reihan is saying "America needs to import more people like my parents: bright and skilled. Not those pesky Mexicans and Russians." Yuval Levin is also a big fan of that approach.

Notice, too, that Reihan is a writer, which won't result in much competition from skilled immigrants.

What we need for a long time is no immigrants at all, and Reihan should be excoriated for his self-interest. I wonder how many relatives he's got waiting to come in who would move up the line if unskilled immigrants were kicked out of the queue.

Australia and Canada already follow the policies that Salam is peddling. So far as I can tell, it hasn't seemed to do them any harm. Also, if it were only Salam peddling that kind of approach, then I think it would make sense to criticize him for advocating his self-interest without acknowledging that he is doing so. But given that Australia and Canada already take that approach, and that plenty of people who don't have recent immigrants as ancestors also seem to favor that approach, I would consider the case the Salam makes on its merits.

It probably hurts the countries that get brain-drained. Those countries don't have much chance of improving without the right tail of their (already left-shifted) bell curve.

Both Canadians and Australians are largely fed up with the overabundance of Chinese immigrants they have, and they don't take many south Asians.

It definitely hurts the countries getting braindrained, and I doubt there's been much research on the resentment of skilled Canadians and Australians, but I suspect they aren't happy.

“We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

When Obama modestly enacted a law to increase the number of people having health insurance while preserving the US's diversity of health payers and systems, we heard people screaming about a 'takeover' of '1/6th the economy'. Imports of Exclamation Points! from China went through the roof.

Yet here we have a politician proposing a gov't takeover of the entire culture to be managed by controlling babies. Unlike health coverage, there is no objective measure of success or failure in such a proposal (how exactly will any of us know when our culture is 'restored'? )....therefore it is nothing but a huge power play.

If you want to 'restore US culture' remember the US is the place that enacted a Constitution that says nothing about gov't managing 'the culture'.

Closing the border = Big Brother baby control? Yeah, okay.

Immigration isn't inevitable. It depends on laws and enforcement, as is obvious from examining the 1924, 1965, and 1990 laws. Did tens of thousands of Somalis just naturally migrant to Minnesota? No. Do-gooder liberals put them on a plane and flew them into the most comically mismatched place they could imagine. Do 50,000 diversity lottery visas just fall from the trees? No. That's an conscious policy.

At present we have an deliberate policy to have upwards of 1M immigrants per year, about 90% non-white (essentially the inverse of our historical demographics). And we also have a conscious policy to ignore rampant illegal immigration/anchor baby reconquista, including the "sanctuary city" shenanigans.

Those policies if continued will mean dilution and replacement of the current stock with immigrant stock. The likely result will be a country with the characteristics of the immigrant stock rather than the current stock. This is the old concept of assimilation. But the new doctrine is citizens need to reverse assimilate to the new arrivals, many of whom are fleeing their own failed societies. What could go wrong?

Comments for this post are closed