« Dr. Neruda's Cure for Evil | Main | Department of Hmm... »
Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them
That is the title of this new book by Philippe Legrain, and no I don't know how you can buy it outside the UK. Legrain is also the author of the excellent Open World, a defense of economic globalization.
This work is the single best non-technical defense of a liberal immigration policy. What I liked most was how it put U.S. debates in a broader context; most American sources don't do this. For instance how normal or extreme is the American experience compared to other histories of absorbing immigrants? The book is original in this regard, yet without moving beyond easily understood arguments.
I do understand the concerns raised by Steve Sailer and others against immigrants, and I readily grant that the idea of open borders is a non-starter. But is the United States today in a position where Latino immigrants are tearing us apart? I think not.
Yes I know your anecdotes, but here is what it would take to budge me. Do a study of real estate prices in San Diego, Santa Ana (a largely Mexican part of Orange County), and the relevant sections of Houston, among other locales. Show me that real estate values in those areas are falling or even plummeting, and yes I do mean in absolute terms and no the recent collapse of the real estate bubble doesn't count. Then I'll give the issue another look. Otherwise the worst I am going to believe is that "things are not getting better as rapidly as they might otherwise be," and that, whether or not you like such a possible state of affairs, does not represent the sky falling.
But for purposes of balance, here is the most anti-immigration post I have written. Here is an interesting recent paper on migration.
Addendum: Here is a good article on immigrant entrepreneurs.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on February 6, 2007 at 07:04 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Hi Tyler
Thanks very much for your kind words about my new book. I'm a big fan of yours and I loved "Creative Destruction".
"Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them" should be available in the US this fall: I have just accepted an offer from a US publisher, and will hopefully sign a deal very soon. In the meantime, it is available from Amazon Canada at http://www.amazon.ca/Immigrants-Philippe-Legrain/dp/0316732486/sr=1-7/qid=1168050623/ref=sr_1_7/702-9244507-3901603?ie=UTF8&s=books
Thanks. All the best
Philippe
Posted by: Philippe Legrain at Feb 6, 2007 8:09:28 AM
If you want to look at the effects at immigration look at the out migration of whites from California. The total number of whites in California is dropping. Look at cities like Los Angeles. The middle class knows that problems are bad in California and they either have to pay high prices for real estate and private schools to isolate themselves from the mexican immigrants or they have to move.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Feb 6, 2007 8:14:09 AM
superdestroyer - sounds like racism to me.
Posted by: Jason Voorhees at Feb 6, 2007 8:25:17 AM
I don't have the statistics, but I'll bet that it's much cheaper to live in the heavily Mexican parts of Santa Ana and San Diego than in other areas. No one I know wants to live in those neighborhoods, and I assume that the same goes for the author(s) of this blog.
Those quickest to recommend more immigration or diversity are usually the first to shield themselves from the consequences; that's not meant as ad hominem argument, but to illustrate that those arguing in favor of these don't really believe what they're saying.
Posted by: Dennis Mangan at Feb 6, 2007 8:27:01 AM
What about this? http://extracredit.wordpress.com/files/2007/01/expectations.doc - text of a new yorker article about students in Colorado...whats the more likely outcome for America's new immigrants?
Posted by: No one at Feb 6, 2007 8:29:19 AM
Not listed at Amazon.com, but seems to be available from Amazon.ca if anyone is looking for a copy
Posted by: Anoni at Feb 6, 2007 8:46:56 AM
Holy causality, Batman!
I'm willing to grant that yes, real estate prices are in fact cheaper in some areas than others, and that recent immigrants, like all consumers with budget constraints, purchase housing where they can afford it. That said, is it not conceivable that recent immigrants, are priced out of all other markets? While this may no doubt result in concentrations of people with similar purchasing power, I don’t know that these concentrations are causally responsible for immigrant induced “white flight”. That sort of gentrification occurs everywhere, as wealthier families often leave concentrated poverty (be it white, immigrant, black, etc); attributing it solely to a "No immigrants in my backyard" attitude seems like a bridge to far to me.
People of all races, genders, religious and ethnic backgrounds have fled California for a host of reasons, chief among them the exorbitant cost of living. I’ll concede that some people have no doubt fled the state due to the perception that it is too immigrant; indeed, that sort of self selection and expression of preference is encouraged by the market, and it ultimately says just as much about the individuals as it does about the state.
Posted by: Dave at Feb 6, 2007 9:02:29 AM
Tyler,
How exactly are statistics about the crime, education, and out of wedlock births of latino immigrants considered anecdotes?
Also, why should the standard be "tearing us apart"? Why isn't the standard just what is good for the US?
Posted by: Roy at Feb 6, 2007 9:11:50 AM
Roy,
Statistics about crime, education and out of wedlock births can be attributed to the opportunities afforded to people. Chances are, whatever influx of immigration that brought your family here had higher rates of crime too.
There will always be people at the bottom of the economic/education ladder and these people are more likely to commit crimes. Stopping latino immigration won't solve it.
Posted by: Matt at Feb 6, 2007 9:51:48 AM
I ordered the book from Amazon UK a week ago; it arrived very quickly.
Posted by: Geoff at Feb 6, 2007 10:24:39 AM
"There will always be people at the bottom of the economic/education ladder and these people are more likely to commit crimes. Stopping latino immigration won't solve it."
Nor does it help these problems to let in masses of people who bring more of these problems with them.
Roy makes the right point: Real Estate prices aren't an adequate indicator of societal health.
Posted by: Todd Fletcher at Feb 6, 2007 10:39:22 AM
Matt is mistaken. Most immigrant groups are different from Mexicans because second and third generation Mexican Ams often have higher crime levels than the original immigration generation. Moreover, their kids' levels of education and employability do NOT assimilate to the white norm, unlike, for example East Asian immigrants. This is a big effect. There is no comparison -- in terms of crime, education or test scores, between second generation Asians and second generation Mexicans. Indeed, Asians often do better even when comparing POOR Asians to UPPER MIDDLE Latin American families. Why shouldn't all American citizens have a right to take this into account when judging immigration policy?? To call this racism is just insanity.
Posted by: curmudgeon at Feb 6, 2007 10:40:52 AM
I'm fascinated by how economists forget everything they know about economics when it comes time to defend immigration.
1. Why would increased demand from immigration cause lower real estate prices?
2. The standard way economists think (about everything except immigration) is to adjust for cost of living. Minnesota has the highest standard of living, at least in terms of things money can buy (i.e., not weather). At the bottom are Washington D.C., Hawaii and California. See: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/05/standard-of-living-by-state.html
3. Tyler says: "Otherwise the worst I am going to believe is that "things are not getting better as rapidly as they might otherwise be," -- It's called opportunity cost. What would LA be like today without 30 years of illegal immigration? Seattle with sunshine? With its enormous advantages, LA ought to be one of the finest cities in the world by now. Trust me, it's not.
4. And let's not forget about risk. What is the risk that America is headed for a Netherlands-style immigration disaster? 20%? And what is the risk we're headed for a Kosovo-style catastrophe? 2%? Now, exactly what is the enormous upside to illegal immigration that compensates for risks that bad?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 6, 2007 10:44:02 AM
The single most certain outcome from our current immigration policies is increased mediocrity. I suspect that the readers of this blog have no clue what test scores in LA County high schools are like. Most school tests are state-specific, so they are hard to compare to anything readers of Marginal Revolution will be familiar with.
Fortunately, I found a database of average College Board SAT scores, i.e., the kind of college admissions test scores that most people who have been to college in this country are familiar with, for every single public high school in Los Angeles County. My article is quite eye-opening:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070128_scores.htm
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 6, 2007 10:58:15 AM
Is it really worthwhile trying to reason with someone who thinks he can frighten us with the dread specter of the..the Netherlands?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 6, 2007 11:00:01 AM
Liberal immigration is one thing, absolute chaos is another.
The US is now at the chaos stage, and that is not acceptable.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Feb 6, 2007 11:02:18 AM
"What is the risk that America is headed for a Netherlands-style immigration disaster? 20%?"
Murder rate:
Netherlands: 1.1 per 100,000 X USA: 4.3 per 100,000
Maybe sailer is afraid of tulips (or hates kebabs).
Posted by: leo at Feb 6, 2007 11:10:01 AM
No, I'm afraid of being murdered for expressing my political and social views, like Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 6, 2007 11:24:58 AM
The usefulness to nativist cranks of Fortuyn and van Gogh's murders is diminished just slightly by the fact that neither Volkert van der Graaf nor Mohammed Bouyeri was an immigrant.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 6, 2007 11:47:24 AM
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-new_latino_underclass.htm
This lady (Heather Macdonald) makes the "Mexican immigrants are a new underclass" argument.
Posted by: bakjas at Feb 6, 2007 12:21:28 PM
Tyler, way to bring up Santa Ana. Bring up Garden Grove and Westminster as well. Or Anaheim. Without them, South County wouldn't be the slightest bit "affordable". And while we're talking South County, I live in Lake Forest (nee and aka El Toro). When it was incorporated in 1991, rumor has it that the HOAs didn't want a Spanish name like El Toro, fearing it would become a slum, presumably like neighbors Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel (both through the roof wealthy suburban towns). Maybe immigration v. housing values was an issue 15 years ago. But it's certainly not as significant now.
Posted by: Brad Hutchings at Feb 6, 2007 12:45:47 PM
Off topic questions for Steve Sailer (and anyone else):
What you seem to have compiled in your link is in effect Gross State Product (GSP) adjusted for PPP, or close enough to it, something I just yesterday was asking for.
First, have you, or anyone else you know of, calculated US GDP PPP, i.e. calculating each state's GSP PPP on a population weighted basis and then compiling US GDP PPP as a result?
Second, with population trends in the US going to the sunbelt and the west in general, and with those regions in general being the lowest cost states, how has this trend understated (I have a hard time believing it is overstated) US GDP per capita?
How about changes in income inequality? For example, if someone moves from NY to TX and has an income of $50,000 before and after the move, the US income stats say he has had a sideways move income-wise. But in reality he just got a large raise. I suspect that if not for the top 1% income effect (or top 2% or whatever), that the US GINI number would be adjusted seriously downwards via this trend. If true, this would change the dynamic of the efficiency/equailty debates.
If we compare the US and EU (and Europe in general) with each other and break down the EU GDP PPP by region, a.k.a. by country, then why not do the same with the US?
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Feb 6, 2007 12:47:14 PM
Doesn't Cinci, OH, have the same problem????
--
--Gogh's murders is diminished just slightly by the fact that neither Volkert van der Graaf nor Mohammed Bouyeri was an immigrant.--
Physically, no, but mentally?????
At 1 time, the city of Chicago was the 2nd largest city of Polish people, but I don't recall the "president/PM" of that satellite saying that he hoped the Poles would vote putting Polish interests 1st.
Posted by: Sandy P at Feb 6, 2007 1:01:14 PM
And no one's talking health issues, immunization of diseases, etc.
Posted by: Sandy P at Feb 6, 2007 1:07:24 PM
I don't have the statistics, but I'll bet that it's much cheaper to live in the heavily Mexican parts of Santa Ana and San Diego than in other areas. No one I know wants to live in those neighborhoods, and I assume that the same goes for the author(s) of this blog.
So, poor immigrants tend to move in to low-cost areas? How is this surprising or a problem?
Posted by: Josh at Feb 6, 2007 1:13:57 PM