The anti-immigration comments on this thread made me angry but i don't have time to round up the links i'd need to engage in a sufficiently ~popularist~ way, so i'll just say: has Amy Wax talked to, like, one Asian ever? Like, a single one. How could you possibly sustain the idea that Asian potential immigrants (people with a set of heritages spanning MORE THAN HALF OF HUMANITY) are a monolith? As usual, the thing that astounds about racism is its sheer stupidity.
I spent far more time than I’d like to admit arguing in the comment thread of Glenn Loury’s Substack (where the Wax interview and follow up appeared) that yes, it IS racist to (effectively) say “Asians suck and we need fewer of them in America.” People have lost their minds. I look forward to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, on whose board Glenn Loury sits, releasing a statement against Wax (won’t hold my breath…)
Are we trying to win an argument or persuade people? You can win the immigration argument by demonstrating how objectively beneficial immigration is to the USA but you will not persuade large tracts of the Right. Why? Because for the New Right culture is paramount.
This is beyond Trump. For many on the New Right it is about preserving what they perceive as Western Civilization (Christendom, Enlightenment legacy, Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian classical texts). They view the Western world as a heritage to be celebrated and conserved. They see themselves as the true conservatives. Old school conservatives of the type Noah illustrated who may compromise on immigration have failed to persuade many on the Right.
Within their worldview the Left is actively trying to dismantle this Western heritage. They see immigration as a tool of the Left to accomplish this dismemberment. Don’t believe me? Check out sites like The American Conservative, The Federalist or even take a moment to peruse Gab. Many on the New Right genuinely feel they are not racist.
If you want to build a governing coalition to enhance immigration you need to engage with this thinking. Hard to persuade but can be done.
You have to genuinely think like a Centrist and not dismiss the Right as “racist” you won’t persuade the Right to embrace immigration this way and you could very well lose elections.
If the GOP could stop being such miserable, prejudiced fucks then they'd find that Asians can be a part of their coalition. As Wax notes, they are being targeted by the DEI-industrial complex which uses affirmative action to keep their numbers in institutions down. Look at how the wokes have decided that Asians are "white-adjacent."
The Dems use affirmative action to toss political patronage to black people. However, it is unpopular among most demographics as seen in Proposition 16 and Proposal 2 in MI. In the former, only blacks were in favor even though elite opinion heavily pushed it and outspent the "no" side by 16-1. This isn't a progressive vs moderate Dem issue either. The progressives are the wokes who think that not matching the demographic composition is a hate crime, and the moderates are the machine politicians who can't get over when the party was liberal whites + blacks and the whites needed to buy off the blacks instead of giving them real political power.
So TLDR: the GOP has an opportunity to grab Asians from the Dem coalition due to Dems own stupidity.
"“If you go into medical schools, you’ll see that Indians, South Asians are now rising stars. In medicine, they’re sort of the new Jews, I guess, but these diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are poisoning the scientific establishment and the medical establishment now"
I hate to break it to her, but diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives hurt Asian applicants to medical schools.
I know they’ve since backtracked, but the “emerging democratic majority” thesis really was one of the most politically poisonous ideas of the last 20 years.
I’m hopeful that as the GOP coalition becomes (slowly) more diverse that it’s reflexive opposition to immigration subsides.
Is Amy Wax truly representative of those who think the immigration system needs to be reformed (so that we don't get the free-for-all that we're now seeing at the border)? Racism should clearly have no part of the discussion on immigration, but it's not unreasonable to propose moving toward a Canadian or Australian style that prioritises the kinds of immigrants, regardless of race or ethnicity, who can best help the country grow. Immigration is a privilege, not a right.
BTW, both John Judis and Ruy Texeira have recanted the views expressed in "The Emerging Democratic Majority": https://newrepublic.com/article/144547/redoing-electoral-math-argued-demographics-favored-democrats-wrong (Ironically, Hispanic support for the GOP continues to grow despite their evident hostility to increased immigration). Demographic determinism appears to be overcome by assimilation (which is a good thing).
Unfortunately, we may have to wait a few more elections before the two parties respond more aggressively to these assimilationist trends. Because of racial gerrymandering, each party has its base in safe districts—for Democrats, the big cities where 30 to 40 percent are foreign-born, and for Republicans, the white exurban South and Appalachia.
So far, both parties are simply reaching out to the mixed-race working-class melting pot areas without rethinking their post-’70s base strategies. Indeed, they are doubling down on them, hoping that mobilizing their urban or Southern bases will enable them to minimize their outreach to the new melting pot that is emerging in many parts of the country. In the short term, that will perpetuate today’s divisions and potentially reelect Donald Trump (or someone like him). But longer term, changing demographics suggest a very different, and less divisive, sort of politics.
I think it's telling that the single biggest remaining obstacle to integration for many undocumented people is their undocumented status. They can't engage as citizens. Even just going to an ESL class is dangerous if you never know whether ICE will be standing outside.
I am an immigrant....and I wish discussions about immigration made distinctions among level of skills and education of immigrants, otherwise it's a near useless conversation.
Noah, this is a great post, it seems like a no-brainier that the US needs more immigration to make up for the low fertility rates. This phenomenon is obviously playing out globally, so the US with its historical pro-immigration policies has an advantage.
However, one angle I have never understood is why Indian immigrants (I am one) from the upper-castes (I am not) rationalize simultaneously favoring Democrats in the US, and PM Modi (Hindu right-winger) in India? This inconsistency is very puzzling.
I would agree that more legal immigration is a good thing; with one caveat - we need to address housing supply first.
The supply of goods & services is not fixed; but the supply of housing is. We just had a year of 0% population growth and a 23% increase in house prices. This isn’t healthy and a new source of demand isn’t a good idea.
The economist class should be spending a LOT more time talking about housing. The lack of supply is a primary driver of so much of what ails us: anti-immigration rhetoric, inflation, wealth inequality, reduced family mobility, homelessness, mediocre productivity, etc.
I see the occasional article on the need for more housing but that’s it. Where’s the outrage? The table pounding? The “letter signed by 200 economists to the President?
The only place where "Asian" "or "Hispanic" exists is in the US. Such a pity so much of intellectual sparring and time is spent on a non-existent (and convenient) version of humanity. The Silicon Valley desi (Indian) knows as little about the desi guy who is selling merchandise in Queens and the Chinese academic in Boston knows as little about a Chinese restaurant owner in LA!
I just read up on Amy Wax and would strongly encourage everyone to do the same before just labeling her. Approach it from an epistemological point of view. Not a political one of labels and what can and cannot be said within the Overton Window. She makes no biological claims on race. Her biggest question - how do we know that liberal democracy can survive if a nation is made up of immigrants who do not believe in liberal democracy? This is a theoretical question worth debating.
She also says that some cultures, historically, have put a lot of value on empiricism. To others, empiricism is a non-starter. This, too, is probably more of a realist statement than a racist one.
To make a case for immigration based on economics is not really engaging with what she talks about, which is much more foundational. What is the nature of a nation? What is culture? And what is the role of history in the shaping of a culture? Everyone likes easy answers, including her. The right approach, to me, would be to engage with all ideas, positive and negative, dialectically, so to speak.
The anti-immigration comments on this thread made me angry but i don't have time to round up the links i'd need to engage in a sufficiently ~popularist~ way, so i'll just say: has Amy Wax talked to, like, one Asian ever? Like, a single one. How could you possibly sustain the idea that Asian potential immigrants (people with a set of heritages spanning MORE THAN HALF OF HUMANITY) are a monolith? As usual, the thing that astounds about racism is its sheer stupidity.
I spent far more time than I’d like to admit arguing in the comment thread of Glenn Loury’s Substack (where the Wax interview and follow up appeared) that yes, it IS racist to (effectively) say “Asians suck and we need fewer of them in America.” People have lost their minds. I look forward to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, on whose board Glenn Loury sits, releasing a statement against Wax (won’t hold my breath…)
Great post. Also recommend Matthew Yglesias’ book “One Billion Americans”.
Let me be a little contrarian here:
Are we trying to win an argument or persuade people? You can win the immigration argument by demonstrating how objectively beneficial immigration is to the USA but you will not persuade large tracts of the Right. Why? Because for the New Right culture is paramount.
This is beyond Trump. For many on the New Right it is about preserving what they perceive as Western Civilization (Christendom, Enlightenment legacy, Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian classical texts). They view the Western world as a heritage to be celebrated and conserved. They see themselves as the true conservatives. Old school conservatives of the type Noah illustrated who may compromise on immigration have failed to persuade many on the Right.
Within their worldview the Left is actively trying to dismantle this Western heritage. They see immigration as a tool of the Left to accomplish this dismemberment. Don’t believe me? Check out sites like The American Conservative, The Federalist or even take a moment to peruse Gab. Many on the New Right genuinely feel they are not racist.
If you want to build a governing coalition to enhance immigration you need to engage with this thinking. Hard to persuade but can be done.
You have to genuinely think like a Centrist and not dismiss the Right as “racist” you won’t persuade the Right to embrace immigration this way and you could very well lose elections.
If the GOP could stop being such miserable, prejudiced fucks then they'd find that Asians can be a part of their coalition. As Wax notes, they are being targeted by the DEI-industrial complex which uses affirmative action to keep their numbers in institutions down. Look at how the wokes have decided that Asians are "white-adjacent."
The Dems use affirmative action to toss political patronage to black people. However, it is unpopular among most demographics as seen in Proposition 16 and Proposal 2 in MI. In the former, only blacks were in favor even though elite opinion heavily pushed it and outspent the "no" side by 16-1. This isn't a progressive vs moderate Dem issue either. The progressives are the wokes who think that not matching the demographic composition is a hate crime, and the moderates are the machine politicians who can't get over when the party was liberal whites + blacks and the whites needed to buy off the blacks instead of giving them real political power.
So TLDR: the GOP has an opportunity to grab Asians from the Dem coalition due to Dems own stupidity.
"“If you go into medical schools, you’ll see that Indians, South Asians are now rising stars. In medicine, they’re sort of the new Jews, I guess, but these diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are poisoning the scientific establishment and the medical establishment now"
I hate to break it to her, but diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives hurt Asian applicants to medical schools.
I know they’ve since backtracked, but the “emerging democratic majority” thesis really was one of the most politically poisonous ideas of the last 20 years.
I’m hopeful that as the GOP coalition becomes (slowly) more diverse that it’s reflexive opposition to immigration subsides.
Is Amy Wax truly representative of those who think the immigration system needs to be reformed (so that we don't get the free-for-all that we're now seeing at the border)? Racism should clearly have no part of the discussion on immigration, but it's not unreasonable to propose moving toward a Canadian or Australian style that prioritises the kinds of immigrants, regardless of race or ethnicity, who can best help the country grow. Immigration is a privilege, not a right.
BTW, both John Judis and Ruy Texeira have recanted the views expressed in "The Emerging Democratic Majority": https://newrepublic.com/article/144547/redoing-electoral-math-argued-demographics-favored-democrats-wrong (Ironically, Hispanic support for the GOP continues to grow despite their evident hostility to increased immigration). Demographic determinism appears to be overcome by assimilation (which is a good thing).
Unfortunately, we may have to wait a few more elections before the two parties respond more aggressively to these assimilationist trends. Because of racial gerrymandering, each party has its base in safe districts—for Democrats, the big cities where 30 to 40 percent are foreign-born, and for Republicans, the white exurban South and Appalachia.
So far, both parties are simply reaching out to the mixed-race working-class melting pot areas without rethinking their post-’70s base strategies. Indeed, they are doubling down on them, hoping that mobilizing their urban or Southern bases will enable them to minimize their outreach to the new melting pot that is emerging in many parts of the country. In the short term, that will perpetuate today’s divisions and potentially reelect Donald Trump (or someone like him). But longer term, changing demographics suggest a very different, and less divisive, sort of politics.
I think it's telling that the single biggest remaining obstacle to integration for many undocumented people is their undocumented status. They can't engage as citizens. Even just going to an ESL class is dangerous if you never know whether ICE will be standing outside.
I am an immigrant....and I wish discussions about immigration made distinctions among level of skills and education of immigrants, otherwise it's a near useless conversation.
Noah, this is a great post, it seems like a no-brainier that the US needs more immigration to make up for the low fertility rates. This phenomenon is obviously playing out globally, so the US with its historical pro-immigration policies has an advantage.
However, one angle I have never understood is why Indian immigrants (I am one) from the upper-castes (I am not) rationalize simultaneously favoring Democrats in the US, and PM Modi (Hindu right-winger) in India? This inconsistency is very puzzling.
I would agree that more legal immigration is a good thing; with one caveat - we need to address housing supply first.
The supply of goods & services is not fixed; but the supply of housing is. We just had a year of 0% population growth and a 23% increase in house prices. This isn’t healthy and a new source of demand isn’t a good idea.
The economist class should be spending a LOT more time talking about housing. The lack of supply is a primary driver of so much of what ails us: anti-immigration rhetoric, inflation, wealth inequality, reduced family mobility, homelessness, mediocre productivity, etc.
I see the occasional article on the need for more housing but that’s it. Where’s the outrage? The table pounding? The “letter signed by 200 economists to the President?
The only place where "Asian" "or "Hispanic" exists is in the US. Such a pity so much of intellectual sparring and time is spent on a non-existent (and convenient) version of humanity. The Silicon Valley desi (Indian) knows as little about the desi guy who is selling merchandise in Queens and the Chinese academic in Boston knows as little about a Chinese restaurant owner in LA!
I just read up on Amy Wax and would strongly encourage everyone to do the same before just labeling her. Approach it from an epistemological point of view. Not a political one of labels and what can and cannot be said within the Overton Window. She makes no biological claims on race. Her biggest question - how do we know that liberal democracy can survive if a nation is made up of immigrants who do not believe in liberal democracy? This is a theoretical question worth debating.
She also says that some cultures, historically, have put a lot of value on empiricism. To others, empiricism is a non-starter. This, too, is probably more of a realist statement than a racist one.
To make a case for immigration based on economics is not really engaging with what she talks about, which is much more foundational. What is the nature of a nation? What is culture? And what is the role of history in the shaping of a culture? Everyone likes easy answers, including her. The right approach, to me, would be to engage with all ideas, positive and negative, dialectically, so to speak.
Articles like these are why I subscribe! Please keep up the great work.
Hey Noah - do you feel the NIMBY mindset plays into this more broadly?
Meaning culture war / assimilation - sure
But deeper intrinsic opposition is the cause of the NIMBY - “we don’t need more people”