« 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

Talking of new books, may be if you want to buy some new books at best price I have a suggestion to make do look up Online Shopping

Posted by: mirror at Feb 6, 2007 1:20:55 PM

Here is a short summary of the self-described: "..largest and longest-running study of children of immigrants yet conducted.."
The researchers are Rubén Rumbaut of the University of California at Irvine and Alejandro Portes of Princeton. University

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1529

Hereis the full article: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=445

Posted by: scottynx at Feb 6, 2007 1:47:45 PM

So when do we start deporting the mental immigrants?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 6, 2007 1:50:24 PM

Should you take Tyler Cowen's advice about anything? No, because he only looks at the financial side of things, and he doesn't even do a deep analysis of the financial aspects.

For instance, massive illegal immigration is an indicator of massive political corruption: those illegal aliens wouldn't be here if our politicians hadn't allowed it. Isn't that corruption incredibly dangerous for the U.S.? Doesn't that have a cost?

What about the marches for illegal immigration of last year? Isn't it generally considered a bad thing when foreign citizens march in a country's streets, making a show of force and making demands? What happens if they don't get their way?

What about increased foreign influence in the U.S. because of massive immigration?

Mexico has indirect links to various well-known non-profits (ACLUMALDEFSPLC), and those groups try to influence immigration policy.

One of ArnieSchwarzenegger's campaign advisors also advises the MexicanGovernment.

A few years ago, Mexico's foreignminister said he was rallying U.S. groups to help get "reform", and even hinted at creating domestic disturbances.

A former MexicanConsul general was even involved in organizing a couple of the ImmigrationMarches.

All of those are things that Cowen doesn't include in his analysis.

Posted by: TLB at Feb 6, 2007 1:54:49 PM

While only 10 percent of second-generation immigrant males in the survey had been incarcerated, that figure jumped to 20 percent among West Indian and Mexican American youths.

http://today.uci.edu/news/release_detail.asp?key=1529

20% is insane. So is 10%.

Posted by: bajkas at Feb 6, 2007 2:13:39 PM

Based on the totality of the comments here, it seems like the optimal policy would be to subsidize East Asian immigration. Maybe Grameen-bank-style immigration loans in preferred areas would do the trick?

Posted by: Keith at Feb 6, 2007 2:24:33 PM

"No, I'm afraid of being murdered for expressing my political and social views, like Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh."

And the Oscar goes to....

Posted by: Keith at Feb 6, 2007 2:26:36 PM

How about the oft-overlooked fact that a sizable majority of those already in the U.S. aren't happy about current immigration rates or policies?

How about those who dig super-high immigration rates but root for Tibetans instead of Mexicans?

How about the majority of Americans who aren't keen on what's happening to our rate of population increase?

I know what to do: Let's override all these clearly-expressed preferences! That'll help the country's mood.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Feb 6, 2007 3:31:31 PM

Whatever side of the debate you fall on, I would think that ANYONE would be startled to hear THIS coming out of an ECONOMIST'S mouth (you are still an economist right?):

"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."

So your position on immigration hinges on whether or not other unrelated factors causing a rise in real estate prices are sufficient to overcome the negative effect that immigration is causing on real estate prices?

Posted by: Doug at Feb 6, 2007 4:12:25 PM

Here is a way to quantify roughly the impact of illegal immigrants on real estate prices in LA, offered by Sandra Tsing Loh, who writes regularly about schools for both the Atlantic Monthly and the LA Times.

In her "Scandalously Informal Guide to Los Angeles Schools," she writes:

"1 API point = $1000 worth of real estate

"So in Los Angeles, a three-bedroom home whose local school has a ("baseline acceptable") 800 API will have a price tag of about $800,000, which is why some wags call the API the "Affluent Parent Index." So if you live in anything less than an $800,000 home, your local school’s API is likely to be, well, Guavatorina-like (aka: like a sad bruised melon)."

API scores range by about 500 points in LA among schools, with a very strong correlation for neighborhood schools between ethnic makeup and API scores, with the lowest scores found in schools made up primarily of the children of illegal immigrants.

So, that suggests a negative marginal impact of some hundreds of thousands of dollars on home prices in LA neighborhoos where illegal immigrants choose to live. Of course, that's opportunity cost, a concept that economists seem to have a hard time remembering when it comes to thinking about immigration.

http://www.sandratsingloh.com/index.php?pr=Scandalously_Informal#1

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 6, 2007 5:18:23 PM

"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."

That Mohammed Bouyeri, the Islamic fanatic assassin of filmmaker Theo van Gogh was the son of immigrant says a lot about

Volkert van der Graaf, the left wing lawyer assassin of Pim Fortuyn, the fast-rising potential Prime Minister (the equivalent of a member of the Federalist Society shooting Barack Obama), is widely supposed not to have been motivated by Fortuyn's advocacy of immigration restrictions, but to have been some kind of animal rights obsessive.

In reality, the murderer's court statements show that Fortuyn's opposition to immigration was the primary reason he had to die:

The London Daily Telegraph reported:

"Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr. Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: 'I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"

The Boston Globe noted:

"Van der Graaf said that he had sensed an increasingly unpleasant and anti-Muslim atmosphere in society after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States—a time when Fortuyn's star was beginning its meteoric rise. Van der Graaf said Fortuyn, 54, had tried to use that atmosphere for his own aggrandizement. 'I saw him as a highly vindictive man who used feelings in society to boost his personal stature. The ideas he had about refugees, asylum seekers, the environment, animals. . . . He was always using or abusing the weak side of society to get ahead.'"

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 6, 2007 5:30:39 PM

The argument on the topic of Latino immigration into the United States brings a memory to mind of a comedian that I recently saw on television. He said that in response to the extreme numbers of Latinos entering into the United States, the American government purposes that a wall is built between the U.S. and Mexico border. Ok, but realistically who do you think will be constructing this great wall, and do you honestly think that there won’t be a small hole in it somewhere? This brings me to my point. Latin Americans are the backbone to society today in America. The majority of these people are hard working and don’t complain about the low wages or harsh treatment they receive. Some claim that Latin American immigrants are taking the jobs that American citizens could be working and that is resulting in high unemployment rates. That would be true if American citizens were actually willing to work these jobs. These individuals are risking their lives to come here because it is the land of opportunity and they wish to provide their families with all of the comforts that we enjoy everyday. Rather than create ineffective laws attempting to keep Latinos out of America, the United States government should make efforts to assist these people. Through granting temporary employment status and taxing their pay or granting citizenship to those that demonstrate themselves to be avid members to society, it can be realized what they could contribute to the U.S. economy.

Posted by: Brian at Feb 6, 2007 7:39:54 PM

Brian
Unskilled workers - the backbone of society? And how do you know governmental services biasing their decision to come here too? Although I agree that we need workplace enforcement in addition to the wall...

Posted by: ben at Feb 6, 2007 9:00:46 PM

Immigrants are good. Illegalness is bad. I guess many economists exist in a rarefied place where such nuances aren't important or somehow don't matter, but if you believe in rule of law and the sanctity of contracts, you have to support some way of getting rid of large-scale illegalness.

Posted by: Foobarista at Feb 6, 2007 9:54:42 PM

Re: Steve Sailer's cost of living calculation

Note that the ACCRA cost of living index is computed for cities with populations of over 50,000, not states (www.coli.org). Using a measure of urban price level to calculate state living standards is not at all valid.

The BEA computes Real Gross State Product which, not surprisingly, gives a different ranking (Mississippi has a higher standard of living than California? Please.).

In any case, adjusting for housing prices is problematic since there is so much microvariation in housing prices and people select into a neighborhood based on price. A more accurate way of measuring a family of four's standard of living would be to look at the median household and construct a measure of the cost of living based on where that family lives in the state. The median household in California probably does not live in San Francisco or L.A. proper.

Posted by: Mark at Feb 6, 2007 10:25:46 PM

Here's a couple things about myself:

1. I would label myself a libertarian.
2. I am graduate of GMU, BS and MA in economics (never had Tyler Cowen, but have read this blog since it's been online and enjoyed his foodie website back in the day!)
3. I grew up in Jersey City, NJ in a neighborhood with signs in various languages and went to a public high (Dickinson) that was very ethinically diverse with many immigrants. With the exception of some black students, just about every student was either a first or second-generation American. It's definitely a "bad" urban high school, but certainly not the very, very bottom.
4. I am myself half-Latino, half white.
5. I currently work in IT in NYC, with most my coworkers on H-1B visas (now that's an immigration topic for another day)

I'm convinced that dyed-in-the-wool libertarians are wrong about immigration. They don't acknowledge generational shifts in mentality and life-expectations that vary drastically between ethnic groups. They don't recognize the deleterious consequences that occur when a community 1) becomes a homogeneous ghetto for poor-immigrants that can't speak English and 2) there's little societal or familial pressure to assimilate. And, of course, few discuss the most important issue of all: IQ.

My experience growing up in an extremely diverse city, going to a very diverse college, and working in a field with international coworkers has given me 30 years to observe different groups, different immigrants...As someone who is racially mixed (by some definitions) and has one parent that didn't come to the US until the age of 22, I'm often asked by people I meet my thoughts on immigration policy. And the truth is that my answers vary, depending on who is asking me - I myself find it difficult to be honest about this topic unless I'm afforded the anonymity of the web. Even though I suppose I'm granted more latitude that most because of my makeup, I have found it impossible to have a conversation with any person with PC sensibilities (which is probably 95% of Americans). Race, IQ, and work ethic is a toxic combination.

I think Steve Sailer (and others like Heather MacDonald) is right about immigration and it's unfortunate his views are relegated to a tiny corner of the internet...Of course, it's easy to see why Sailer is not more popular - for whatever reason he doesn't come across as likeable and he has a knack for using language that sometimes overshadows the message (i.e. describing Barack Obama as a "wigger")

Posted by: Robert M. at Feb 6, 2007 11:08:03 PM

What I have a hard time understanding is why people like Tyler can't understand that immigration might be a short and medium term economic positive sum game for even current US citizens (i.e. not including the migrants themselves, who obviously also gain), and STILL be not a good thing for current US citizens.

Flooding certain areas of the country with low-skilled uneducated immigrations much much faster than they assimilate is just a terrible idea. It's not racist against Mexicans to say that Mexico is not a very pleasant nor well managed country compared to the US. I want to live here, not Mexico, YOU want to live here, not Mexico. If you just let millions of Mexicans all come to the US at the same time and not assimilate, which IS what's happening in some places, you are just bringing Mexico here on purpose.

I consider myself and anarcho-capitalist in theory, but right now in this world, it is best for current US citizens if we radically slow down immigration. True A-C would include open borders obviously, and that is not feasible.

Open-Borders is a non-starter because it would radically lower the US Standard of Living until it reached equilibrium with the SoL of people who can immigrate here, netted against comparatively much smaller gains from the trade. A mind-boggling drastic reduction that would be a horror to current US citizens. The "correct" amount of immigration from the point of view of current US citizens, is where the loss reaches equilibrium with the gains from trade.

Right now I believe we are well past that point. I'd gladly give up a few cents on my price per pear if we could slow down the merging of our country with other crappier countries. And I say this as a person that can easily afford to live in the areas that haven't been worsened. There will come a time shortly, or maybe it already has, when the majority of US citizens won't be able to say that.

Also note that among current US citizens immigration most helps the already wealthy, and most hurts the relatively poor. Inequality anyone? Of all the many many ways that people have tried to use government to redistribute income and blunt wealth inequality, all of them horribly inefficient, many of them non or even counter-productive, cutting off immigration would probably be one of the LEAST economically inefficient ways of doing so... and it would certainly work to some degree.


Posted by: Bill at Feb 7, 2007 3:21:40 AM

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce:
A larger share of workers will have minimal reading skills in 2030 than today, according to a report released Monday.

By Amanda Paulson

US workers may be significantly less literate in 2030 than they are today.

The reason: Most baby boomers will be retiring and a large wave of less-educated immigrants will be moving into the workforce. This downward shift in reading and math skills suggests a huge challenge for educators and policymakers in the future, according to a new report from the Educational Testing Service (ETS).

If they can't reverse the trend, then it could spell trouble for a large swath of the labor force, widen an already large skill gap, and shrink the middle class.

"There is no time that I can tell you in the last hundred years" where literacy and numeracy have declined, says Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston and one of the report's authors. "But if you don't change outcomes for a wide variety of groups, this is the future we face."

The decline in literacy is one of the more startling projections in a report that examines what it calls a "perfect storm" of converging factors and how those trends are likely to play out if left unchecked.

The three factors identified are: a shifting labor market increasingly rewarding education and skills, a changing demographic that include a rapid-growing Hispanic population, and a yawning achievement gap, particularly along racial and socioeconomic lines, when it comes to reading and math.

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 7, 2007 5:09:43 AM

Tyler writes: "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."

That's a particularly bizarre standard for judging public policy for Tyler of all people to advocate in the light of his own blog posting of August 20, 2004:

"The importance of the growth rate increases, the further into the future we look. If a country grows at two percent, as opposed to growing at one percent, the difference in welfare in a single year is relatively small. But over time the difference becomes very large. For instance, had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990. At a growth rate of five percent per annum, it takes just over eighty years for a country to move from a per capita income of $500 to a per capita income of $25,000, defining both in terms of constant real dollars. At a growth rate of one percent, such an improvement takes 393 years.

"That's me quoting me, from a book I am just starting to write. The tentative title is "The Welfare Economics of Human Tragedy: A New Approach to the Theory of Economic Policy."

"If I had to explain, in one sentence, the reason I am not on the political left, I would cite the enormous long-run benefits of economic growth."

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/08/why_the_growth_.html

Posted by: Steve Sailer at Feb 7, 2007 5:53:35 AM

A few points:

- As pointed out above, one of the assassins in the Netherlands was a second-generation immigrant, the other a native pro-immigration activist. The argument made above (I.e. "they weren't immigrants!") is weak beyond belief.

- Comparing US and Dutch murder statistics straight off to disprove an "immigration disaster" is of course terribly facile. This is especially so as the US rate is largely the product of another grand-scale 30-years in the making assimilation failure: The US black community.

- Statements such as "immigrants are good" are also dangerously simplistic. Who are these immigrants? In the case of the US, most social statistics scream "permanent underclass" regarding Mexican immigrants, while many other groups have excellent prospects.

- Worst possible outcomes. The worst possible outcome from ethnic strife is not usually primarily economic. I too doubt that immigration effects will be able to swamp the aggregated impact of technological progress in the priced economy.

However, I also realize that the actual utility impact of living in a heavily fragmented and divided society with a large resentful underclass compared to, say, faster broadband and longer lives, etc. is not clear cut. This is especially so as many of the negative effects of immigration are pure externalities, I.e. they will never show up in GDP statistics.

Posted by: dobeln at Feb 7, 2007 9:09:59 AM

Both Sailer and dobeln apparently believe that the Dutch natives who (stipulated) shot Fortuyn and van Gogh for being unsuccessful anti-immigration advocates would have chosen instead to live lives of quiet contentment had Fortuyn and van Gogh been successful advocates instead. Or perhaps Sailer and dobeln just can't tell the difference between "immigration is bad" and "settling controversies through violence is bad". In any case, controversies don't end when one side pervails and passes a law; they end when people stop disagreeing. If the specter of assassination is an argument that this controversy has to end, a lot of us still see Sailer as the lowest-cost avoider.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 7, 2007 11:09:08 AM

Look at Israel. It has built a wall and works very hard to control the type of immigrants that come into the country.

Israel has recently appointed Avigdor Lieberman as a cabinet minister. Mr. Lieberman also gave a talk to the Brookings institute in Washington DC. This particular part of the Brookings institute was created by known super-zionist Haim Saban, who was also the top political donor in the US last year.

Mr. Lieberman is known advocating removal of the existing non-Jewish population of Israel. This despite the fact that the vast majority of Arab-Israeli's are peaceful hard working folks who do not commit terrorist acts.

When I see the shining light of democracy in the middle east act in this way, I take notice. Israel is the "canary in the coal mine" for the US on many issues and we should take special notice when otherwise open minded Jews take such a hard line stance.

If it can't work in Israel, where can it work?

Fact is, some immigrants are good and some are not so good. We should take the time to differentiate and then implement an immigration policy that makes sense. Once implemented it should then be enforced!

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 7, 2007 12:33:48 PM

Jason Vorheis drops the 'racist' bomb on a commentator with the temerity to point out that whites are leaving California. This is ridiculously self-righteous. Fact is that most people like to live around others that are like them, speak there language, and are phenotypically like them. This is certainly true of the vast majority of immigrants who self-segregate themselves in enclaves, Vietnamese with Vietnamese, Mexicans with Mexicans, and so on. Why does this become evil when whites do it? I'd be willing to make a small wager that the host of this blog, despite his love of Latin American culture, lives in one of the whiter zip codes in Northern Virginia

In addition, 'whites' is a good proxy for native-born, as our current immigration policy favors non-white immigration. Now, if the native-born population is leaving high-immigration areas, it is reasonable to infer that immigration does not benefit them on the average. BTW there is evidence this analysis applies to Blacks (again a good proxy for native-born).

Mass immigration does, of course, benefit rent-seeking landlords, upper-middle class professions whose trades are often protected by guild-like structures (lawyers, doctors, college professors) . As they are the ones with access to political power, it is no wonder our immigration system is sub-optimal.

Posted by: Mitchell Young at Feb 7, 2007 12:59:54 PM

"Jason Vorheis drops the 'racist' bomb on a commentator with the temerity to point out that whites are leaving California."

Jeez, I thought he was kidding. If 'racist' is to deserve its pejorative connotation, it has to applied to the aggressors rather than those fleeing the aggressors. And, let's face it, the government's immigration policy constitutes a policy of aggression against native whites and blacks.

Opposition to immigration -- even in explicitly racial terms -- simply cannot be 'racist' in any pejorative sense because self-defense against aggression is never morally wrong.

Posted by: ben tillman at Feb 7, 2007 1:23:37 PM

To me the net out-migration of native born citizens from coastal urban areas with high immigration to more inland, homogenous "exurban"/Red State areas shows revealed preference better than housing prices. People prefer living in areas with less Mexican immigration and that should not be especially surprising. Even the immigrants themselves are beginning to leave for greener pastures citing how much like Mexico their old cities have become. California is famous for its extreme zoning laws that greatly raise prices, so I don't think they are especially good indicators.

I think, though, the most significant problem with immigration is the long-run political one. I'm a libertarian, and all polls show that they most definitely are not. Not only will the Republican Party lose despite its quixotic pursuit of "family values" latinos, the nature of the Democratic Party will change. Their base will be more heavily comprised of the underclass and dependents on the state and the policies that it seeks will be more hostile to liberty. It is the people that inhabited the country of America that made it what it is with political traditions inherited from the english, and the inhabitants of Mexico that gave it its typically latin-american dysfunctional political system. It is folly to think that magical enlightenment rays permeate the landscape of the geographic area of the united states and will change the political beliefs and attitudes of these immigrants just by residing here. It will be gradual, but expect our country to become more like the Mexico that people leave in droves rather than the United States that attracts people here.

Posted by: TGGP at Feb 7, 2007 1:24:19 PM

Is Daveg aware of the difference between having neighbors who want to blow you up and neighbors who want to mow your lawn?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 7, 2007 1:30:16 PM

So more crowding and a higher cost of living is a sign that LA is becoming a better place to live?

LA real estate, as mentioned below, does very well because supply is restricted by zoning laws, and property taxes in California are the lowest of any large state, capped at 1% of a absurdly low assesed values. A house worth $1 million in California often will have lower property taxes than one worth $150,000 in Texas. When you add this state tax subsidy to the already large federal tax subsidy, of course RE prices are high.

I challange Tyler to discuss the revealed preferences of native born Americans who vote with their feet by fleeing high-immigration cities and states en masse.

Posted by: Gibberish at Feb 7, 2007 1:54:40 PM

"I'm a libertarian, and all polls show that [immigrants] most definitely are not."

It's not just their political inclinations, which may be relatively "statist"; it's also the fact that upon their arrival the state immediately welcomes them into the ruling coalition by granting them a privileged status compared to natives.

Posted by: ben tillman at Feb 7, 2007 2:15:54 PM

van Gogh's murders is diminished just slightly by the fact that neither Volkert van der Graaf nor Mohammed Bouyeri was an immigrant.

That has to be among the most idiotic comments I've heard this week. In other words, don't worry, Hispanics may have a substantially higher murder rate than white Americans do, they are incarcerated for murder at around three times the white rate, but at least when they kill you they won't be illegal immigrants. They'll be their native-born children.

That's reassurance.

Posted by: tommy at Feb 7, 2007 2:22:11 PM

Well! The pretense that all this has anything to do with immigration per se is falling away pretty rapidly now. But what to do with the violent, dopey brown people we've already got?

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 7, 2007 3:01:43 PM

One wonders if people like Bouyeri and van der Graaf are not encouraged by less extreme advocates of open borders.

An unfair argument to be sure, but similar to that aimed at restrictionists (aka xenophobes, racists, David Duke admirers) all the time.

BTW the Phillipe Legrain is pretty extreme. He says on his blog that British Culture is mythical. I dare say most Brits would disagree with him.

Posted by: Mitchell Young at Feb 7, 2007 3:08:34 PM

Paul Zrimsek, How in god's name do you think you've advanced the conversation one iota? Thanks for nothing.

Posted by: pjgoober at Feb 7, 2007 3:15:35 PM

Sailer and friends- I don't get the point of the netherlands...are you afraid of being murdered by Mexicans? Better be careful...I hear those gangs are really gunning for economists.

And guys, seriously, if we build a wall- whose gonna mow my lawn? Me? I don't think so.

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 3:24:54 PM

If the jackboot doesn't fit, pjgoober, you needn't wear it. You're welcome.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 7, 2007 3:30:53 PM

Paul:

No, the problem is that some groups are more likely to resolve their differences through violence than others.

Hispanics have a crime rate of 261% of the whites rate. Hispanics are 3 times as likely to be in jail for committing murder than whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf

(go to page 8)

I suppose Tyler Cowen considers these statistics “anecdotes”.

As he considers statistics on the unskilled Mexican welfare dependency rate, the polls of Hispanic support for welfare state policies, the lack of convergence in income and education levels “anecdotes”. The new definition of an anecdote is hard fact that does not support your wishful thinking.

Why do Hispanics commit more crimes? It does not matter. Let’s say for the sake of being politically correct that it is 100% due to low income and low education. Does that matter? No, because the underlying problems seem to be permanent, even after 4 generations Hispanic education and income has not converged to white levels (it converges to below black levels for education and black levels for income).

The fact that most Hispanics do not commit crime does not change this, since we do not know which one will commit crime upon entry. From the perspective of the US more Hispanic immigration = higher crime rates.


Ps. The Israel example clearly shows that a wall works. It may not keep out 100% of the illegals, but if it keeps out 50% that is plenty argument to build it.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 3:31:11 PM

"The pretense that all this has anything to do with immigration per se is falling away pretty rapidly now."

Yeah, it's outrageous that real, live humans and human communities want to continue to live into the future. It's even more outrageous that they won't at least pretend that life takes a backseat to dollars & cents.

Sure, Zrimsek, humans are fungible. Sleep with my wife, spend my money, occupy my teritory - what does it matter?

Somehow I doubt you're willing to follow the advice of self-sacrifice that you commend to us.

Posted by: ben tillman at Feb 7, 2007 3:35:19 PM

Ps. The Israel example clearly shows that a wall works. It may not keep out 100% of the illegals, but if it keeps out 50% that is plenty argument to build it.

Yes but hundreds of billons of dollars worth of argument? No one talks about that.

Posted by: 1 <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 3:42:49 PM

"are you afraid of being murdered by Mexicans"

Not really, I am not afraid for my personal safety. But since Hispanics commit murder at a rate 3 times higher than whites bringing in more Hispanics means more innocent American residents will be murdered. You may not care, or but I am afraid for their safety.


About the Nethrlands:

Yes, they have low crime, but the same exact problem as the US, that is immigration is INCREASING their crime rate.

Let me give some more “anecdotes”.

From

Heiner, R (2005) “The Growth of Incarceration in The Netherlands” Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume: 17, Number


“In 1974, the Dutch incarceration rate was the lowest in Europe, with 22 people in prison per 100,000 population; by 2000, this rate had climbed to 90 per 100,000 population. Most of this surge in the Dutch incarceration rate took place between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s. Between 1985 and 1995, the Dutch had, by far, the fastest growing incarceration rate in Europe.”

Gee, I wonder why?

“In 1998, a remarkable 53 percent of detainees in the Dutch prison system were born outside of the Netherlands, and
this number has been steadily increasing."

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 3:46:10 PM

Paul Zrimsek, the immigration issue very much linked with race and ethnicity. Groups like MALDEF and LULAC work very hard to get people they consider of their own race (La Raza ring a bell?) into the country and to prevent any measures to limit the flow. 'Latino' politicians do likewise. They known that ethnicity is key to political power in America.

With your last name, I would think you would wonder why, with the opening of the Iron curtain, we didn't get many immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Well, they don't have ethnic lobbies to bat for them, they can't pull the racial guilt-trip card, and they are frozen out by an essential nepotistic US immigration policy.

Posted by: Mitchell Young at Feb 7, 2007 3:47:32 PM

While I admit I don't have stats on it and just don't feel like looking them up- I can't help but think crime is more a function of income than race/country of origin.

And my god- thanks for the warning. I never knew the netherlands was such a dangerous place to live.

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 3:52:55 PM

To all you guys who think Latinos have a big conspiracy going to take over America:

Can you tell me who shot JFK as well...it was those two lookers on the grassy knoll wasn't it...

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 3:57:45 PM

"Yes but hundreds of billons of dollars worth of argument? No one talks about that."

What hundreds of billions are you talking about? According to Borjas the benefit to the US from all immigration was about 10 billion per year (most of which probably is not Mexicans, but Indians). The costs just from government benefits alone is multiples of this.


Each high-school dropout immigrant costs the government about 140.000 $ in 2006 dollars according to the National Research council. 70% of Mexicans immigrants are high-school dropouts. (this calculation grossly underestimates the costs, since it assumed convergence after 3 generations, clearly not true for Mexicans).

10 million high school dropouts = 1400 billion dollars in costs for the taxpayers. Note that each marginal tax dollar costs 1,25-1,5 dollars to collect.

15 million Hispanic immigrants = approx. 500 extra murders per year (1300 more total murders, 500 is the EXTRA above the current US rates)

The highest estimate of the cost of the fence is a one time 49 billion (and probably much less). Worth it? You bet.


Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 3:59:51 PM

Sure, Zrimsek, humans are fungible. Sleep with my wife, spend my money, occupy my teritory - what does it matter?

I don't know what to make of this remark. It seems to be subject matter for a shrink, not a blog commenter.

Since the proposition before us is that immigration is bad for America, and I am an American, it follows that I am including myself in whatever "self-sacrifice" Mr. Tillman thinks I'm advocating.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Feb 7, 2007 4:00:03 PM

$49 bill...well since the government is building it you can probably multipy that by 20 (minumum). Unless you want Latios to build it...then it might be closer to estimates.

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 4:05:09 PM

“I can't help but think crime is more a function of income than race/country of origin.”

1. You are wrong, there is a link between violent crime and income, but it is not that strong. It is not even remotely close to explain most of the variation.

2. As I pointed out even if the link was 100% it would not change the relationship, since Hispanic immigrants permanent converge to low income and education levels.


“To all you guys who think Latinos have a big conspiracy going to take over America”

Which one of the posters above suggested a “conspiracy”? Give an example. Or did you just want to demonstrate how intellectually shallow the pro-immigration side is?

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 4:05:18 PM

http://www.cdc.gov/elcosh/docs/d0100/d000038/pdfs/page%2017.pdf

In 2000 Hispanics were 18% of American construction workers. (9% of op.engineers, 21% of labourers, helpers, it will surely surprise you to find out).

That the fence will be built by Hispanics is just another fell-good nonsensical myth.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 4:13:37 PM

i'm pretty sure you can buy this book at amazon uk. i have purchased stuff before from amazon uk for delivery into the us. of course, the shipping cost may deter purchase (deadweight loss, sort of).

of course we need immigrants, especially skilled immigrant labor and we should liberalize our legal immigration policy, i.e. give away more green cards, work visas etc.

as milton friedman stated, we can have open immigration if there was no welfare state. hence, open immigration was possible in the 1800s but not today.

Posted by: choe at Feb 7, 2007 4:14:59 PM

"I don't know what to make of this remark. It seems to be subject matter for a shrink, not a blog commenter."

Of course, I'm not surprised that you are unable to understand the implications of your ideology. You like to think that you are on the side of right and good.

You're not. You're deceiving yourself.

This country belongs to the people who built it. You say we're psycho for wanting to preserve the resources we have amassed for our own benefit. You say, instead, that Americans should be utterly indifferent to who benefits from the labor of our people. That's an argument of human fungibility.

Posted by: ben tillman at Feb 7, 2007 4:16:03 PM

Actually that $10 Billion was benefit to the native born. The sheer numbers of immigrants increase GDP much more than $10 Billion. But the 'benefit' to the native-born really is marginal, so marginal as to be vanishing. When externalities are added, it is clear that mass immigration costs *us* , those that were born here, much more on the whole than it benefits. The proof of the pudding is the move of the native-born away from high immigration, but naturally desireable, areas like Southern California.

Posted by: Mitchell Young at Feb 7, 2007 4:16:05 PM

i sense some anger...

Obviously income isn't going to explain ALL of crime. Duh- there are other factors. You make it sound like race is the only thing explaining it.

The whole "permanent convergence to low income and edcation levels" argument is crap to me because you don't know whats going to happen tommorow.

and ps- with a name like 1 <3 pedro- how intellectually deep did you expect me to be?

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 4:20:29 PM

The post's title cries out

Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them ...

Like a hole in the head

Posted by: Mitchell Young at Feb 7, 2007 4:20:33 PM

“Obviously income isn't going to explain ALL of crime.“

Yes, and I pointed out to you that it empirically explains far from *most* or even *much* of violent crime. (it explain more of property crime).

“You make it sound like race is the only thing explaining it.”

No, how much race/ethnicity explains controlled for income or vice versa is irrelevant in our discussion. What matters is that the average crime rate for Hispanics is far higher than the average for Americans, be it through the ethnicity effect, the income effect, a multiple, or whatever. We know immigration=more crime. End of discussion.

“The whole "permanent convergence to low income and education levels" argument is crap to me because you don't know what’s going to happen tommorow.”

We know what has happened the last 50 years and the last 200 years. Asian and European immigrants have converged to American levels, as immigrants historically have, but Hispanics have not. The pro-immigration people can hope like children that the previous and current trends will magically reverse tomorrow. But there is no argument to believe it will.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 4:36:49 PM

"Since the proposition before us is that immigration is bad for America, and I am an American, it follows that I am including myself in whatever 'self-sacrifice' Mr. Tillman thinks I'm advocating."

No, the point is that you've advocated human fungibility at the national level, while -- one safely presumes -- your actions at the personal level bely your position.

You don't share your personal resources indiscriminately with all humans, and it makes no more sense to do so with national resources.

Posted by: ben tillman at Feb 7, 2007 4:38:09 PM

Of course I am aware. But you are admitting that some immigrants are not good, no?

But really, what percentage of Israeli arabs want to blow themselves up? It is very very low. Again, the VAST majority are peaceful and live in Israel in peace.

With the new fence, incidents have been reduced to near zero, proving it was outsiders that were doing the bombing.


You really support removing them as citizens?

It would also be interesting to compare the number of deaths from terrorist acts with the number here due to crime, drunk driving etc. in the US.

I'll bet our "hard working" immigrants are much more disruptive overall than the Palestinians, on a per capita basis. I haven't heard of a terrorist death in Israel for 18 months. Have I missed something? Fences are GOOD.

Point is, not all immigration is good, mi amigo.

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 7, 2007 4:51:17 PM

Paul made fun of ben tillman and implied he needed psychological help, even though tillman was making a deep intellectual argument, and Paul was the one who did not understand it.

The conventional wisdom is that people who oppose immigration are “nativists”, irrational and emotionally driven, while the enlightened elites calmly analyse the issue on the merits and therefore support immigration.

Isn’t it interesting that every time there is an immigration debate in Marginal Revolution the reason-gap emerges: one side uses fact and logic, the other relies on feelings, myths, straw man arguments, meaningless anecdotes and ultimately personal attacks.

The main liberterian magazine calls itself Reason. But it is clear from reading it they don't follow the actuall rules of reason, where you have to support your arguments with fact and logic. It is just an identity question, liberterians has become more another cultural identity issue than an actuall idelology. Let's Dogmatically decide immigration is good and enlightened, facts be damned.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 4:54:41 PM

aaand you've officially turned yourself into a liberal elitist

Posted by: i <3 pedro at Feb 7, 2007 5:03:38 PM

“I'll bet our "hard working" immigrants are much more disruptive overall than the Palestinians, on a per capita basis.”

Wait a second here! Mexican immigration on average seems to hurt Americans more than it benefits them. But that does not mean Mexicans are NEARLY as disruptive and harmful to other groups than Muslim extremists.

First of all Arabs tend to bring both high crime rate AND the risk of terrorism. Secondly deaths from terrorism (and political assassination) are obviously much more harmful to society than murders, since they are about spreading politically motivated projected fear to the population at large.

Mexicans are far better neighbours than Arabs. But the harsh truth is that a groups can be reasonably hardworking (Hispanics work about 7% fewer hours per working age person than American whites, which is still decent), and reasonably peaceful (3 times the white murder rate is still below the back murder rate), and still be a net drain on society.

Ps.

43 people were killed by arab terrorist attacks in Israel the last 18 months. That is a "calm" period in Israel.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 5:04:17 PM

If you want the math:

with 5,3 million jews in Israel that is equivalent to 1600 deaths per year in the US, on a per capita basis.

Very rough on the top of my head estimates give 1200 excess murders in the US by Hispanics per year.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 5:15:12 PM

Paul Zrimsek,

Well! The pretense that all this has anything to do with immigration per se is falling away pretty rapidly now. But what to do with the violent, dopey brown people we've already got?

Well, if you want to enact an immigration policy that selects for individual talent regardless of country I would consider that an excellent idea. However, all I'm hearing from the defenders of immigration right now is that the current system which doesn't discriminate based on individual merit is pretty darn swell.

In any event, I think the point Sailer is trying to make is that increasing immigration inevitably leads to increased political correctness so that no one is offended even if this means avoiding talking about the causes of problems in the first place.

I can say that as someone who went through about half of my high school years in an area of Texas with a large Mexican population and the other half in the Pacific Northwest with a mostly white population, this seems true in my experience. Not only are there enormous (and obvious) problems in Texas that are caused by immigration, but people are not terribly free to speak out about the problems because of the large Hispanic population present. Immigration stifles honest debate. That appears almost universally true. You can look around sites like Little Green Footballs and find numerous examples of immigration-induced political correctness throughout Europe. In fact, here is one from today.

Posted by: tommy at Feb 7, 2007 6:55:15 PM

Case in point:

Cowen cited a NYT article about immigrant entrepreneurship. The article basically does not contains anything other than “anecdotes”. The essentially only hard data they have is that 22% of the fastest growing firms in L.A are started by foreign born.

Impressive? Well, not really, considering that 40,3% of the population of L.A is foreign born.

For the tenth time: we are discussing low-skill immigration from latin American (mainly mexico). Refering to the success of high-skill Indians is not an argument.

The selfemployment rate of Mexican immigrants in the 2000 census was L O W E R than native Americans, 5,2% vs. 6,2%.

But isn’t it true that immigrant heavy California has a successful high-tech industry?


http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/downloads/americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs.pdf


Mexican immigrants constitute 44,3% of the California immigrant population, and started 1% (one) of California high-tech firms started by immigrants.

Let me repeat.

44% of immigrant population, 1% of immigrant high-tech start-ups..

How about other sectors in the US? Mexicans are about 30% of the US immigrant population.

Innovation/Manufacturing-Related Services and Semiconductors do best, with 3% and 5% Mexicans. Biosciences, Computers/Communications, Software Field all have less than 1% Mexicans as founders.

30% of population, 0-5% of entrepreneurial start-ups in important sectors.


Let me guess that hard data will do nothing to discourage Tyler Cowen to in the future repeat to the high Asian and European entrepreneurship figures in support for more unskilled Latin immigration.


Posted by: Tino at Feb 7, 2007 6:56:27 PM

I do have to hand it to economists like Cowen. Only an economist could look at a population that has a near 50% illegitimacy rate, has high crime rates, has high rates of government dependency, has no tradition of the sort of Anglo-American values that have historically characterized the United States, has exceptionally low rates of educational achievement even into the fourth generation of American life (and shows little signs of improvement throughout the generations), has driven down the IQ of California to levels approaching those of Mississippi and Louisiana, threatens to drive down the skill level of the average American worker, and yet still manage to blurt out "this looks like a recipe for success! We need more of these people and fast!"

Posted by: tommy at Feb 7, 2007 6:59:37 PM

Tyler Cowen's Open Border Dictionary


anecdote

an·ec·dote [ ánnək dt ] (plural an·ec·dotes)

noun

Definition:

A fact supported by any amount of data that contradict Tyler Cowen wishful thinking.


[Early 18th century. Directly or via French < modern Latin anecdota < Greek anekdota "things unpublished" < an- "not" + ekdidonai "publish"]

Posted by: mik at Feb 7, 2007 7:41:20 PM

"But is the United States today in a position where Latino immigrants are tearing us apart? I think not."

Wow, the BS meter is pegged.

Obviously you haven't been to or know anybody in Los Angeles where active "ethnic cleansing" via drive bye automatic weapon fire is occurring, we have daily race fights in high schools, daily gang fights & riots in our prisons, white flight from all of Los Angeles, and an ongoing massive Socialist drive for more means tested subsidies and income redistribution, not to mention you didn't list the massive expansion of government programs and employees and their un-funded & under funded pension and heathcare liabilities. LA Unified alone is underfunded by tens of billions of dollars.

As far as home prices dropping, what part of supply & demand do you not understand?

Homes are unaffordable to most Americans in CA because of illegal immigration, every head of household has to compete with immigrant families with 3, 4, 5, 6 or more workers and tenants & borders too.

With huge quantities of cheap immigrant labor home prices have quadrupled-Amercans get little to no benefit from cheap labor, they might save $20/week in groceries but take a 20% pay cut and pay 300% more for housing & medical care.

The federal government has 9 trillion in aknowleged debt, and tens of trillions more in known liabilities and still trillions more in unfunded liabilites at a time of maximum employment and investment of the biggest workforce in the history of America.

We should have a $30 trillion surplus or more, what ever happened to the peace dividend? A: We spent it growing illegals who consume resources and invading foreign lands to supply resources for our new exploding population.

I guess you missed Alan Greenspan's State of Economy speech of 11/3/05 where he railed against our past & present immigration policies as a "threat to Democarcy that not even our Constitution may protect us from". I suggest you review it & rethink you position on immigration.

Posted by: Smitty at Feb 7, 2007 8:27:11 PM

My reason for being in favor of enforcing immigration laws, is that, if they are unenforced, you're likely to get a few terrorists in across the border along with the Mexican gardeners. We should be enforcing them, for national security purposes.

My reasons for thinking we should have a relatively low immigration from Mexico are as follows:

1. Mexicans come from a very different culture than ours, one in which a tiny number of people rule with lots of power, and the rest of the folks don't have rights to speak of. This bodes ill for the future of libertarian politics should large numbers of Mexicans immigrate and not assimilate. See the differences between cultures of horizontal association vs. those of vertical association.

2. Cultural assimilation is a long and complex process that might not happen if immigrants can come in large enough numbers over large enough time that they can form isolated sub-communities in the new country (note that immigration restriction in the 1920s reduced the immigration flow, giving time for the immigrants who came in previous decades to assimilate; note also that those immigrants mostly crossed an ocean before regular air travel existed, cutting them off from their old in an additional way Mexicans today aren't cut off).

3. The full lot of Mexicans--not just those who come here, also those who stay in Mexico--would be better served if their own country were reformed. Reform there is less likely to happen when almost all of the most ambitious, hard-working men can simply go to the US, improving their personal economic situations without the unpleasantries of pushing for serious political reform.

4. I'd rather see an immigration system more like Canada's, which is based on education level and on skills in demand. I think that on average such a system makes for immigrants that are, by virtue of being proven educatable, better able to assimilate (vitally important for maintaining a culture of horizontal assimilation and for the future of libertarian politics), and more likely to contribute substantially economically.


One more point: I think the racial issues only become issues because the immigration-laxity side is supporting policies that favor a geographic group, and that leads to favoring an ethnic group.

I think if we treated people like the individuals they are in the immigration process (as the Canadian system does), taking account their personal skills more than if they are from the ethnic group with easy access to the US border, there's a lot less chance of getting racism involved. That requires enforcement.

Posted by: D.J. at Feb 7, 2007 9:05:41 PM

Three problems with my above comment:

1. In the last paragraph, "assimilation" should be "association".

2. I'm not sure of the ethics involved in point (3)

3. The Canadian system of "skills in demand" involves central government control. This is less preferable to market mechanisms.

However, insofar as we live in a world in which a large number of nation-states have very bad governments and poor human rights records and economies, if we just let market mechanisms work so far as immigration is concerned (having totally open borders) at this point in time, we will be flooded by people escaping tyranny. While I wish those people the best, the culture that enables even the limits on government we currently have to be stable couldn't survive that; we couldn't culturally assimilate fast enough, that takes a lot of time.

To avoid this, there need to be some government constraints. Maybe a combo job offer and an education would do it, the job offer serving the purpose of Canada's skills-in-demand qualification (but being worked into a strict, enforced immigration system necessary to preserve culture), and the education serving as an indicator of ability to learn US Civics.

Posted by: D.J. at Feb 7, 2007 9:23:30 PM

Apparently Tyler Cowan does not have the courage to enter this debate.

Posted by: RJ at Feb 8, 2007 12:03:37 AM

Courage isn't the issue. Cowen is terribly deluded--to him there isn't really anything to debate. His catchphrase and sole argument boils down to "What, me worry?" Until the servant who powders his wig every morning turns on him, everything is just swell.

Of course he's not interested in the issues brought up. Immigrants bring only sunshine and love in his world. Increased crime rates? Failure to assimilate. Does not compute! Have another taco.

Posted by: Udolpho at Feb 8, 2007 12:42:06 AM

If you want the math: [1600 vs 1200 per capita]

I would like to see the source of these figures. I have heard of one suicide bombing in the last 12 months. Where are these 43 deaths coming from?

Also, it would be better to compare regions of high immigration rather than the whole country - use california alone, for example.

Nonethessless, even if all the info is correct the difference is not enough to justify opening the door in one case and ethnically cleansing in the other.

"Immigration for thee, but not for me".

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 8, 2007 1:52:42 AM

Here is a link to some stats:

mfa

This says only 30 were killed in 2006. Also, this includes some combat and overseas deaths. These are not caused by Arab-Israeli's. Based on this the numbers are much lower than you indicate.

And these deaths occur while Israel kills them at a rate of 4x higher AND has kept them in occupied territories of 40 years!

We are doing neither to our "immigrants".

Don't get me wrong, however. I am NOT arguing that Israel does not have the right to control its borders. I am only using Israel as the example that not all immigration is good.

We should follow the lead of Israel and build our own wall and only let immigrants in who are desired by the existing members of the country.

Let's learn from Israel.

BTW, all you goyim economists, be sure to ask your Jewish open borders counterparts if they believe in open immigration to Isreal as well.

In some cases, the answer may suprise you.

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 8, 2007 2:14:06 AM

"Both Sailer and dobeln apparently believe that the Dutch natives who (stipulated) shot Fortuyn and van Gogh for being unsuccessful anti-immigration advocates would have chosen instead to live lives of quiet contentment had Fortuyn and van Gogh been successful advocates instead."

If they had been successful earlier, assassin number one wouldn't have been in-country. It is true that murder number two is more a function of the extreme intolerance of pro-immigration ideology, but that issue is hardly unrelated to pro-immigration policies. (I.e. - decreasing the aggressive intolerance of immigration advocates tends to decrease immigration, as elite bullying is usually needed to keep the native population in check.)

Posted by: dobeln at Feb 8, 2007 3:04:20 AM

It should be added that the Duke entrepreneurship study quoted above defines "started by immigrants" as one immigrant in a startup being "President/Chief
Executive Officer or the head of development/Chief Technology Officer."

Needless to say, this then morphs into "started by" in general discourse, which will yield a larger-than-motivated percentage of immigrant startups.

Posted by: dobeln at Feb 8, 2007 3:17:27 AM

"would like to see the source of these figures. I have heard of one suicide bombing in the last 12 months"

Ah, since you did not "hear" about it in the American Conservative it could not have happened. First the deaths:


• January 29, 2007: Three people were killed in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat, the first suicide bombing in the city. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

• June 25, 2006: Eliahu Asheri, 18, of Itamar, was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists from the Popular Resistance Committees while hitchhiking from Betar Illit, southwest of Bethlehem, to Neveh Tzuf, where he was studying.

• April 17, 2006: Nine people were killed and at least 40 wounded in a suicide bombing near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv.

• March 30, 2006: Four people were killed in a suicide bombing outside Kedumim in the northern West Bank. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attack.

• December 29, 2005: Three people were killed - two Palestinian civilians and an Israeli soldier - in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Tulkarm.

• December 5, 2005: Five people were killed and more than 50 others injured in a suicide bombing at the entrance of a shopping mall in Netanya. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

• October 26, 2005: Six people were killed and 55 wounded in a suicide bombing in an outdoor market in the town of Hadera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

• October 16, 2005: Palestinian gunmen killed three Israelis and wounded as least 5 others in two separate drive-by shootings in the West Bank. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for both attacks.

• July 23, 2005: Two people were killed and three others wounded in a drive-by shooting near the Kissufim crossing in the Gaza Strip. Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

• July 12, 2005: Five people were killed and 90 wounded in a suicide bombing outside of a shopping mall in Netanya. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

• June 24, 2005: Two teenagers were killed and three others wounded in a drive-by shooting near Hebron. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack.

Posted by: Tino at Feb 8, 2007 3:31:39 AM

Daveg:

1. “Nonethessless, even if all the info is correct the difference is not enough to justify opening the door in one case and ethnically cleansing in the other.”

Are you blind or just another fanatic palecon that sees Zionists ghosts around him? Where did I “justify open borders”? I simply pointed out to you that suicidal Arab terrorist are not better neighbours than Mexicans. By the way, the best measure of how lovely the Palestinians are as neighbours would be the counterfactual if Israel had the lack of law enforcement that America has. We would have hundreds of Israelis murdered every month.

2. “deaths occur while Israel kills them at a rate of 4x higher”

The US killed much more than 4 times the number of enemies in WWII, that must mean the US was the oppressor in your twisted anti-Israeli logic.

3. “These are not caused by Arab-Israeli's”.

I never claimed they were. The fence is not there to keep arab-Israelis out.

4. “etnic cleaning”

There is no such thing taking place in Israel. 60 years ago the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel, lost, and were egged on by their leaders to leave. End of story, that land belongs to the Jews as much as parts of Prussia to the poles.

Now Daveg please go have some nightmares about either Chinese exports or the next war these Jews will get America into against peaceful Iran. Your choice.

Amazing how Buchananites are making saints of the islamists. Poor oppressed Palestinians, just because you collaborate with Germans to exterminate the Israelis Jews, lose several wars of aggression and decades of mindless terrorism we should somehow consider you unfriendly?

Posted by: Tino at Feb 8, 2007 3:50:24 AM

4. “etnic cleaning”

There is no such thing taking place in Israel. 60 years ago the Arabs attempted to destroy Israel, lost, and were egged on by their leaders to leave. End of story, that land belongs to the Jews as much as parts of Prussia to the poles.

Israel now has a cabinet minister that advocates removing arab-Israeli's from Israel. He has not been widely denounced by Israel's supporters in the US - have not heard anything from Dershowitz of Foxman about him

I'll ignore the rest of your poor analogies and inaccurate history.

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 8, 2007 2:02:39 PM

Oh, BTW can't we at least agree not to let Arib/Muslims into the US, like Israel?

I mean, the US has now experienced a massive terrorist incident - worse then anything experience by Israel.

Is the US not in a "war" on terror as well? A fight for survival? WWIV?

Can't we at least agree that Arab's hate both the US and Israel and we should therefore not allow them into either country, at least for a while?

I mean, there are not too many Arab's trying to get into the states to "mow my lawn" are there?

Posted by: Daveg at Feb 8, 2007 2:06:29 PM

Robert M. said—

I think Steve Sailer (and others like Heather MacDonald) is right about immigration and it's unfortunate his views are relegated to a tiny corner of the internet...Of course, it's easy to see why Sailer is not more popular - for whatever reason he doesn't come across as likeable

I very much appreciated most of your reality based points.

But I don’t agree with you at all that Steve Sailer doesn’t come across as likeable.

If one reads around his blog much you come to realize that he approaches very un PC topics without malice and with a view towards problem solving for the benefit of the citizens of this country as a whole. What he calls “citizenship”. As opposed to some narrow ethnic group alone which he e.g. identifies with.

Actually it’s quite evident after a bit that his even more primary motivation is truth telling – without any hatred or rancor behind it, though a fair amount of irony and sometimes irritation and PC dogmas.

Posted by: dougjnn at Feb 9, 2007 1:13:18 PM


Paul Zrimsek—

But what to do with the violent, dopey brown people we've already got?

The issue isn’t brown skin. There is no great popular pressure to greatly restrict S. Asian Indians from immigrating here. Why? Because even though they often have skin darker than most Mexicans (approaching black in some cases) they and their offspring have done well in this country and are more rather than less law abiding than the overall average. Similarly Chinese immigrants.

The issue as dobeln says is that the types of Mexicans and other Central Americans we generally get as illegal immigrants (heavily Meztios or Indios with often peasant family backgrounds and little cultural tradition of valuing advanced education) have social statistics which do indeed scream “permanent underclass” or at the very least very long term underclass, which it will cost us enormously to try to help and raise up in the generations ahead. The first generation may often be greatful for the opportunity and unresentful of their typically underclass status, but many of the second generation are sullen and resentful and doing poorly in school, and are second only to blacks in unwed motherhood, crime rate, and high school drop out rate. (Actually the last is often higher than among blacks.) This we want to import massively more of? Why not concentrating on the citizen poor and working class we already have, of whatever ethnicity?

The most disturbing thing about Mexican and Central American illegals is how little progress, or even how much of a step backwards in such things as crime, gang membership and school achievement that is typical of the second and third generation, on average.

Culture matters. And it’s not a matter of making theoretical predictions from home cultural traits but rather seeing what happens here.

As a general first order approximation and as a good rule of thumb, it’s simply insanity to allow to immigrate into your country vast numbers and percentages of immigrants who you feel have to turn around and give affirmative action to.

Madness.

Posted by: dougjnn at Feb 9, 2007 1:37:24 PM

Mitchell Young—

We know immigration=more crime. End of discussion.

No. CERTAIN immigration = more crime.

Groups differ radically.

More Chinese immigration = less crime. (Notably lower rates than among whites for example, not to mention Latinos and blacks.)
More S.Asian Indian immigration = less crime.

More Mexican and Central American illegal immigration does indeed mean more crime.

The biggest issue is what the second and third generation look like. In social statistics. Groups that are on the rapid success escalator do our country far more good than harm.

Posted by: dougjnn at Feb 9, 2007 1:54:00 PM

Paul Zrimsek—

"Well! The pretense that all this has anything to do with immigration per se is falling away pretty rapidly now. But what to do with the violent, dopey brown people we've already got?"

I take it this was sparked by discussion of the children of immigrants. People like Paul would like to discuss immigrants in a vacuum, as if thier children have nothing to do with them and just spring out of the ground. Contra Paul, the success or non-success of our immigration program depends primarily on how immigrant descendants do, because they will be here forever while the first generation eventually succumbs to old age.

Posted by: pjgoober at Feb 9, 2007 2:28:04 PM

"If one reads around his blog much you come to realize that he approaches very un PC topics without malice and with a view towards problem solving for the benefit of the citizens of this country as a whole. What he calls “citizenship”. As opposed to some narrow ethnic group alone which he e.g. identifies with."

Wow, Steve Sailer came up with "citizenship"? The man's a genious!

"Well! The pretense that all this has anything to do with immigration per se is falling away pretty rapidly now."

Yes Paul. The pink elephant in the middle of the room is frantically waving his arms but people pay him no heed . Hell yes it's about race. But if you prevent people from talking about it, the immigration "debate" takes place in a kind of vaccuum, with people being forced to dig up arcane statistical arguments (actually, many of them are straightforward, but by the time all the challenges are answered, you know...it gets ugly). Let us be plain, if it were Germans and Swedes arriving, we wouldn't be hearing a peep.

"But what to do with the violent, dopey brown people we've already got?"

Paul, if you're reading this, listen to me. I'm ONE of those brown men. Things were FINE between myself and whites before immigration got crazy. You are doing NOTHING for race relations by continuing to swamp the country with racially alien (to whites) immigrants. You have no idea how this has impacted myself and others like me, forcing us to "become" Hispanics because whites have simply grown too suspicious of us. It's everything I can do not to punctuate this comment with a thousand exclamation marks. In one sense, I am thankful for people like you, that wish to diminish the power of race. On the other hand, your (implied) dogged insistence that race mus