Great article and something that most normie voters would agree with. If the Biden administration had the common sense to understand this, we wouldn't have faced the very real prospect of another Trump Presidency. They should have realized this in 2016 because immigration was one of Trump's strengths but they decided that if Trump is bad, his policies must be bad too.
No- the activists and NGOs getting grants to serve illegals wanted these policies and they got them. Had nothing to do with “not Trump”. For similar reasons Obama also tried to change rules by fiat and exec order, bypassing Congress and undermining the law,
The activists are on the ground in Latino communities here delivering services (and harvesting ballots) and are also on the ground in Central America and Mexico and border cities helping to send illegal immigrants across the border and coaching them in how to defraud the American taxpayer when it comes to asylum and benefits.
This is conscious policy choice not an accident or error.
Illegals stopped coming during Covid because the economy was trashed. They're coming again because Dem/Biden policies have supercharged the economy. It's that simple.
The PERCEPTION that we're being overrun by hordes of drug-addled, pet-eating rapists has 98% been the handiwork of FOX News, that's made such a meme a staple for literally decades. That Trump & GOP exacerbated--or prevented any improvement to the problem by killing Lankford-Sinema--is something nearly all American conservatives are blissfully unaware of.
Can you provide some examples / evidence of this? Not saying you're wrong but I haven't seen concrete examples of activists / NGOs trying to help people cross the border.
This is the best article that sums up the nuances of immigration in the United States, and how some democrats’ incessant yelling that wanting immigration control was racist caused them to miss the reality that Americans don’t mind immigration but they want to be able to have a say.
Biden’s people were listening to activists and donors and gave them exactly what they wanted. Who do you think drafted that dozen or so executing orders? Biden? Who was appointed to run policy in DHS- do you think Biden hand picked these people? He hired who his activists told him to hire- just as Kamala will.
I’m not really sure what this response is supposed to mean to say lol. I mean that happened true. And now the dems want to pass a pretty tough border law
Requiring 5000 entries a day before the president can act is not tough, especially since Biden already had the power to do this by executive order. Passing the bill would actually have been a restriction on his authority. A tough bill would be to legislate the remain in Mexico policy permanently. Why didn't they do that?
The bill was negotiated with republicans and basically caved to Republican demands. They tried to pass it multiple times. Trump told house republicans to kill it despite it having been negotiated with republicans.
“Why didn’t they pass it” ask republicans! Dems aren’t perfect, but it’s important to understand what happened with the bill
No, they actually tried to pass a tough border law that was negotiated with Republicans that would’ve been one of the strictest immigration laws in the last 60 years. Biden has also re-implemented all of Trump’s executive orders.
Noah has himself stated that the only reason that "right wing" people want immigration control is because they are racist. They don't come out ans say, but Noah just knows what they are thinking. Progressives project what they want "right wingers" to be thinking so that their vitriol is justified. And, the other way around is often true. Conservatives often project what progressives are thinking to justify their own vitriol.
I think Noah did a good job of talking about the nuance of immigration. He stated that yes sure some right wingers dislike immigrations because of race but that’s not all of them.
Interesting post. I would argue that the destabilizing social and cultural effects of mass immigration sometimes outweigh the benefits, especially for countries not used to mass immigration (Europe comes to mind). In contrast, "settler colonies" like the United States and Canada are better able (both politically and culturally) to absorb large numbers of immigrants, although even these societies have a limit before the benefits turn negative. This is a cyclical phenomenon, where period of mass immigration are followed by backlash and periods of limited immigration. It's not ideal, but neither is the business cycle and we've somewhat readily adapted to that phenomenon.
I also get the feeling that many liberals and fellow leftists support immigration out of paternalism. Immigration and citizenship are a "benefit" that we confer on "deserving" immigrants, who would otherwise struggle in their home countries. These lucky beneficiaries should thus be "grateful" to the US for its noblesse oblige: often times this manifests as disgust directed at any immigrant who says anything that might be seen as critical of American culture, government, or society more generally.
Personally, I think an ideal immigration system is one where people are allowed to migrate because they WANT to become citizens of fill-in-the-blank country, not because they need a job or because some expert claims there's a labor shortage (especially for low-income occupations like farm laborers). As someone who's lived and worked with immigrants, both legal and illegal, I can tell you that many of them didn't really want to become "Americans." They don't hate America or its people, but they like their own cultures better and only moved so they could give their families a better life. And I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think an economy structured around forcing people to move to different continents/countries just to earn a basic living is in any way just or progressive. That's why I'm generally skeptical of both free trade and open borders. But that's just my two cents.
I should probably also mention that my parents are Middle-Eastern immigrants, so my observations are probably colored by their (and by extension, my own) experiences.
1/ it is utopian to think that people en mass would move for nationalistic pride for future country, rather than economic opportunity. I think it's actually capable of being a dangerous viewpoint which unintentionally has much more costs than benefits.
2/ moving for economic opportunity is likely good for everyone - is there any better signal than country x needing people from country y, and people in country y wanting to move? Ie. capitalism at work. Recommend: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83
1/ I don't doubt it's utopian, although I would say it's far more realistic and responsive to actual social/political trends than the "open borders" regime touted by Bryan Caplan and others. Not quite sure how it is a "dangerous viewpoint," unless you're suggesting it fuels nativist sentiment in the home country, in which case there's already enough to go around. Also, repressing a viewpoint on the sole basis that it might fuel support for more fringe/disgusting ideas is primitive and stupid: either you believe in free speech or you don't.
2/ I don't doubt that from a purely economic perspective, mass immigration is a net positive; the same could be said of free trade. But man does not live on bread alone, etc. I was mostly speaking about my family's experiences as a diasporic household: living on the other side of the world away from your extended family is very isolating and emotionally-challenging; it's not something most native-born Americans can relate to, and it's especially hard when your culture relies more heavily family/kinships than the nuclear family. It's not something I'd wish upon anybody. It's hard to put a dollar amount on the benefits of having extended family, but capitalism being what it is it's not for lack of trying.
3/ I don't disagree; I'm far more "Americanized" than my parents and have little, if any substantive connection to my ancestral homeland other than family ties and dual citizenship. This is less likely to be true in countries that aren't "settler-colonies": i.e., in countries that don't have a history or cultural/institutional framework conducive to assimilation. I was mostly thinking of Europe and the refugee problem; European countries aren't built for mass immigration, and acting as if they were is naive and irresponsible. I don't particularly care for the whole melting pot/fruit salad debate; everybody supports assimilation until it's THEIR identity/culture being assimilated. Ironically this was the reason why the Puritans travelled all the way to America instead of continental Europe; they initially settled in Holland but hated the idea of their children assimilating the Dutch language and culture.
To what extent are the problems that Europe has coping with influxes of Middle Eastern migrants (refugee or otherwise) down to the migrants themselves rather than to Europe, for example in their extreme cultural dependence on blood ties that you alluded to?
Middle Eastern migrants to the US or Canada are much more "elite" and urban than those to Europe, while low-skilled migrants to the US are typically Latinos who are far less culturally alien to Americans, than Middle Easterners are to Europeans.
Mass migration virtually always leads to societal tension and discontent. If you want to blame the migrants for their misfortune, that's on you. But mass migration is stressful on a society, and some societies just lack the institutional resilience to absorb mass migration and remain stable.
I really don’t think our economy should be based on giving unfairly poor condition and pay wages to immigrants. And wanting to provide a better life for your family is just normal, it’s a LOT of effort to come here. I don’t understand why national pride is such a good thing. The world needs to start operating like one community more anyway, with climate change, and eventual drastic shifts in population. This would reduce all the trauma-causing wars that are only bad except for weapons sellers who should employ their technological ideas for good anyway instead of idiotic destruction. Plus less international conflict and greed would not necessitate as much immigration, which certainly separates family and leads to struggles. An effort to play up worldwide citizenship is utopian, not self-centered national pride—that isn’t helping America’s reputation anyway. Easier paths to citizenship would help people become more proud of local community and mandatory service could get people more integrated or something. All I mean to say is I disagree with all this America-first mumbo jumbo. Bah humbug haha
On 1, the thing that I think is dangerous (not the idea of this, to be clear which I can see is not entirely clear in my initial point, but the implementation) is people moving whilst being unproductive because of a presumed indicator of usefulness. Ie. the best indicator we have of usefulness is economic contribution (you know you are doing something useful because x pays you to do it), this would encourage migration based on something else.
As 1 factor in a plethora of factors I agree w/ you that this (cultural alignment) is v. important but it has to be subservient to economic contribution
Personally, I don't think immigration should be tailored on the basis of economic contribution. If a poor bricklayer from Indonesia or Uganda wants to become an American, so be it; they'll find a way to contribute one way or the other. I don't think we should be selling citizenship to the highest bidder; I understand the need to ensure that immigrants have a plan for what they're gonna do here but conditioning migration status on the basis of one's ability to contribute economically just cheapens the concept of citizenship in my opinion.
"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Those words may not mean much nowadays, but they do to me. Anyone who wants to learn the language and become a citizen ought to have the opportunity to do so. But that's just my two cents.
My father came to this country on a student visa, became an electrical engineer, and got his citizenship while working. He's been working as an engineer for about 40-45 years. About 30 of those years was as a public-sector employee for the local Department of Public Works. He's worked on buildings like the local transit system, a police training facility, and doing building inspections after earthquakes. Is he a "net economic contributor" to the country, even though his salary was paid for by the taxpayer? If yes, then the whole idea of "tax contributing" is baseless. If not, well, I don't know if I can dignify a response to that.
I think Elie is envisioning a world where MASS immigration is a thing of the past, as the only people migrating would be the relatively small number who genuinely preferred a foreign culture over the one they were born into.
I am pro (legal) immigration. It has to be more diverse (not based on who can walk here) and fully controlled. There are people across Asia, Africa, E Europe, and Latam (places like Argentina and Brazil- too far for many to walk) who would love to come here, who are literate and with high school (or better) educations in their own countries and who have some English capability. We should draw from around the world and on a limited basis (in terms of number and also time allowed), only letting the more successful and law abiding stay on a more permanent basis, and if unskilled it should be mostly young people without children (and eliminate birthright citizenship - that should be for those who pass the provisional time periods and wish to become citizens).
I’ve noticed that the tipping point is around 15% foreign-born. Shortly after that, Trump won here, and similarly lots of populist/right-wing parties won or increased vote shares dramatically in other countries. And if you go back 100 years, that’s when we drastically reduced immigration in the US.
Framing immigration as a "growth-promoting policy" feels crude and mechanistic. We're talking about real people here, with real problems and real personalities: not numbers on a spreadsheet. By all means talk about how immigrants contribute economically to the country, but treating them as a cash cow for economic growth just rubs me the wrong way.
Treating immigrants like a cash cow for growth (or for plugging labor shortages) IS effectively treating them like numbers on a spreadsheet. Maybe that's for the greater good, maybe it isn't. But if you're saying the ends justify the means, then just say it outright. I'm not against economic growth; 95% of the time, more growth is better. But there are some things I won't support no matter how growth-enhancing it is: treating immigrants like they're a cash cow or an exploitable natural resource is one of them.
Also, Dubai (and every MENA country tbh) has a lot to answer for when it comes to the question of labor exploitation. The kafala system effectively treats migrant workers like serfs, and that's not even dealing with issues like slavery and human trafficking. I don't know how it works in Dubai, but from what I've seen and read it's not pretty. If importing second-class citizens and using them to grow your country is your plan for economic development, so be it. But it's not something I can or will support. Not all ends justify the means.
"Personally, I think an ideal immigration system is one where people are allowed to migrate because they WANT to become citizens of fill-in-the-blank country, not because they need a job"
This argument seems very flimsy to me. How do you decide that you want uproot yourself and your family and permanently move to another country without a sense of what it's like to live there? The temporary visas - student, work, travel, etc. give people an exposure to life in the US and then they can decide whether they want to live here permanently or go back. I don't think most legal immigrants are being forced to move here or forced to become citizens. People come here for different reasons but stay because it offers something better.
Well said. I think you accurately resolve the apparent dissonance in public opinion on this issue. To pick up on another aspect of this dissonance: "The rule of law," so frequently invoked in opposition to Trump, can't be affirmed in one instance (our election laws) and ignored in another (immigration) without damaging the civic consensus needed to sustain a viable democracy. The positions staked out by many of the left in the Democratic Party in the last decade or so (and echoed in the Democratic primary debates of 2020) -- namely, the non-enforcement of our border laws and the implied acceptance of uncontrolled, open-ended immigration -- had consequences beyond the immigration issue itself, setting the stage for my-side-ism in how we view and accept the laws that apply that we enact within our borders.
Actually, the "rule of law" is that asylum claims must be heard. Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or democratic will or .... By all means, it would be great if Congress decided to actually address all this, but there is no chance in hell of that happening
The legislation that would have tightened the asylum process did pass the House and will be ripe for passage in some form or another post-election.
I was referring to the no-consequences attitude of those on the left when it comes to those who take up residence here outside of the legal processes now in effect.
Nice post Noah, very compelling reasoning. I'll say that from my experience in Southern California it's also hard to see a surge of migrants in the last few years. Maybe there are a few more people doing day labor or other informal vending running fruit stands by the side of the road.
But I was surprised to see that when I visited the in-laws in Michigan, I saw immigrants running fruit stands there too! I personally love being able to get a mango + chamoy + tajin combo outside of LA so it's great news for me, but I could see how it could be a shock if you're not used to seeing undocumented immigrants doing these types of things.
The past decade of latino migration into North Carolina has been a bit shocking. I grew up in California so the absence of latino culture and food was shocking too when I moved here. But over time, small rural communities I've driven through have fully transformed. Where previously there might have been some mixture of white/black, a school, a single "southern restaurant" and if you are lucky a good bbq joint in a town. Now you might have 3 taquerias and se hablo espanol signs over every storefront. You can walk these little downtowns that were starting to just shut down, that now, "appear" at least to have almost 100% swapped populations. I'm sure that isn't that case, but I can see where the reactions are coming from. It is something that might not show up in the numbers that get drowned out by larger metro areas.
If Kamala Harris loses, this will be one of several items to doom her candidacy. One she should have never had.
Joe Biden should have done what he said he would do. Return to normalcy, not try to be the next FDR, he also should fire whoever told him the American public would love to see hordes of immigrants crossing the border illegally then sent to every corner of America.
Had to he stuck to his caretake plan and Kamala had to go through the nominating process. Democrats may have had someone who, when asked what the difference would be in your administration, maybe he would have said, get control of the border and be believed.
Huh? Harris and Biden agreed to a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had broad bi-partisan support which, as I assume you know, was killed by that racist POS Trump and the Republican bootlickers who fear him and his racist minions.
But maybe you're just a MAGA dumbfuck here as a troll.
I agree the bill should not have been killed by the GOP, but it wasn't even brought forward until somewhat recently. Original Biden border policy was far more lax, I think that's what the previous comment is referring to.
Biden was appointed after the 2020 SC primary to be the compromise figurehead atop a progressive agenda. He was never making the decisions (except in foreign policy). Kamala has been appointed to take over from Biden as figurehead by the same party elders, donors and activists who have set Biden’s agenda.
There never was a plan for “normalcy” and there won’t be one under Harris (or Trump, obviously)
I don't know if there ever was a real plan. But the sales-pitch Biden made the American people after Trump's first term was a return to normalcy. It wasn't about any particular policy position just: not any more of this trump craziness. And not just trump, also political polarization. He was to bring back bi-partisanship.
Since I live in Denver, I *did* see the huge influx of Venezuelan migrants. It affected different Denver residents differently.
I'm Anglo, I'm retired from a professional/managerial job that required a Masters degree, and my husband is a lawyer. We live in a comfortable house in an affluent neighborhood. Was there ever any threat to my own job prospects? Nope. I participated a little bit with the army of Earnest White Ladies who tried to help get the migrants fed and housed. I paid a couple of guys to detail my car (they did an excellent job!). My rec center was closed for several months when it was being used as a temporary shelter, so I had to drive further to swim laps. I was boggled by the suffering I saw and also by the strength and determination the migrants have.
Many in Denver's Mexican population saw competition for lower-skilled jobs. There was also resentment that "the red carpet" had been rolled out for the Venezuelan migrants when no such help was extended to the Mexican arrivals in previous years. There are a bunch of reasons for that -- some reasons are better than others. But there is lingering tension between the Mexican residents and citizens and the new arrivals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some Mexican-American citizens vote for Trump because of it.
Good comment. I'll just not that in our area (Bethesda, MD), we have a huge amount of construction going on right now, office and apartment space. It appears that 80% of all the workers are Latino. Lawn care companies the % is higher, maybe over 90%. Whether these are current immigrants or sons/daughters of immigrants, I do not know. I'm assuming the ones who are immigrants all have the correct papers that allow them to work. If not, mass deportation will gut each of these employment sectors.
Agree with everything except to say that I think people also want the selection (and rejection) process to be humane, not intentionally cruel, and cost effective. Getting irregular immigration down to zero point zero coud be very costly in dollars and infringement on the liberties of non-immigrants.
You say no-one want to reform the system; it looks to me like only Republicans do not want to reform the system. They want a perpetual issue.
Epic post. I want to control immigration because I want to live in an America much like the America I grew up in. We can assimilate new arrivals and ideas, but this tolerance demands some control over the process. I love America and I want being an American, especially being an American by choice to mean something.
The fundamental driver of illegal immigration is the availability of jobs in the US. Cell phones and supporting apps post job openings in the US, e.g. a person in Honduras can get notified there is a dishwasher position in Chicago. Illegal immigration slowed dramatically after the 2008 financial crisis for example. Employers need more workers than we have at times. The employer gets the workers, who make far more than they can in Honduras, so even a few weeks of work is worth it, and if they get caught there is no penalty on the employer. In other words illegal immigration is exactly what any critical thinker would expect in a market economy that doesn’t penalize illegal workers or employers who hire them. If we wanted to slow illegal immigration it wouldn’t be hard to do. And in the process we could fix social security for a long time. Create a robust E-Verify system and require all employers to use it. Create steep penalties for employers who violate it. Create a new Green Card category (Lime Card) for previously illegal workers which they would have to use to work. Charge these new Lime Card workers 3x to 5x the payroll tax rate (but 1x for employers) which decreases over time if they remain employed and out of trouble. After some time, 10-15 years, have a pathway to citizenship.
At the core of any economic model is the roll of labor combining with physical capital to create new physical capital. To first order GDP is linear in the labor supply. Deporting workers is therefore a negative contribution to GDP. Why not take advantage of the economy in the US which often needs workers and allow new immigrants to fix our social security system for a while.
Honestly Chris Hayes has close to red-pilled me on immigration. If you listen to his podcast his position is that:
1. Immigration Layers are unbiased and best authority for understanding the immigration system.
2. The experience of immigrants 100 years ago is a good guide to what immigrants go through today. The fact that phones, airplanes, and english becoming more common has drastically lowered the cost of being an immigrant is not to be referenced or change your point of view that migrants are a 1 in a million brand of people.
3. People who are more skeptical of immigration are mislead on values and need to be converted and preached to, even if skeptics are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants who are trying to tell you #2.
Add this all up, you get some empathy with Trump voters, there really are elites that view open borders as a moral imperative who are indifferent to opinions of their fellow citizens on the topic.
“The idea that this moral obligation transcends or binds the democratic popular will of those countries is a direct challenge to the idea of a nation on a exclusive club.”
If one wished to cite ‘moral obligation,” why is there no mention of illegal labor practices, not just the hiring of illegal immigrants, but exploitation of child labor laws. There was a brief dust-up in the mainstream media in re the extent of illegal child labor. And illegal labor paying into the system (taxes, etc.). I guess that okay because the illegal labor subsidizes the cost of meat and produce. This exploitation will continue because the public tolerated it.
A few years back, the Alabama State Legislature passed a very strict bill that would crack down on
Illegal immigrants working in the stare. Katie, bar the door! The switchboards lit up like Christmas trees — mostly farmers, but other employers, who depend on illegal labor. Intimidated and shocked, the legislature called a special session to bin that bill. I guess they discovered they had a moral obligation to get reëlected.
I'm curious what specific policies we would need to stop the asylee immigration wave. Ideally we'd hire a LOT more immigration judges, and build temporary well-run camps where people with pending asylum cases can stay, with the goal to get a yes or no decision from a judge within 90 days.
It's worth noting that Biden offered the Republicans a deal on immigration and the Republicans didn't take it
The international rules are you apply for asylum at the US consulate in your own country or the consulate in the first foreign country you arrive in, and then you wait. You don’t get to walk through several countries and cross the US border. Biden (and Obama) allowed them to do this.
US asylum laws haven't changed in decades. You won't mention them because you're a liar but this was allowed to happened under Bush (both), Clinton, Trump and Reagan as well. Trump did issue an executive order in 2020 (Title 42) to stop it using the pandemic as a reason but US followed these asylum laws during his first three years, before the pandemic started.
What's the explanation which things require democratic control for social stability? Why do we need democratic control over immigration and what kind of housing I'm allowed to build on my property and how much I have to pay someone I hire for a job, but not over which career I pursue or who I get to date or what kind of diet I eat? When do we get to say that an impulse demanding democratic control is bad?
Actually, most all the studies show that illegal immigration has very little effect on wages and has had no significant effect on us citizen employment (prime age employment is near an all time high). I am quite sure that in some localized situations, it depresses wages (ex. that illegal immigrants get taken advantage of), but that only depresses overall wages if there were us citizen workers who wanted those same jobs and couldn't get other paying work.
Isn’t it as simple as whether that affects the collective? High levels of immigration affect the entire country by increasing the strain on infrastructure, housing, and services.
Great article and something that most normie voters would agree with. If the Biden administration had the common sense to understand this, we wouldn't have faced the very real prospect of another Trump Presidency. They should have realized this in 2016 because immigration was one of Trump's strengths but they decided that if Trump is bad, his policies must be bad too.
No- the activists and NGOs getting grants to serve illegals wanted these policies and they got them. Had nothing to do with “not Trump”. For similar reasons Obama also tried to change rules by fiat and exec order, bypassing Congress and undermining the law,
The activists are on the ground in Latino communities here delivering services (and harvesting ballots) and are also on the ground in Central America and Mexico and border cities helping to send illegal immigrants across the border and coaching them in how to defraud the American taxpayer when it comes to asylum and benefits.
This is conscious policy choice not an accident or error.
Illegals stopped coming during Covid because the economy was trashed. They're coming again because Dem/Biden policies have supercharged the economy. It's that simple.
The PERCEPTION that we're being overrun by hordes of drug-addled, pet-eating rapists has 98% been the handiwork of FOX News, that's made such a meme a staple for literally decades. That Trump & GOP exacerbated--or prevented any improvement to the problem by killing Lankford-Sinema--is something nearly all American conservatives are blissfully unaware of.
Can you provide some examples / evidence of this? Not saying you're wrong but I haven't seen concrete examples of activists / NGOs trying to help people cross the border.
This is the best article that sums up the nuances of immigration in the United States, and how some democrats’ incessant yelling that wanting immigration control was racist caused them to miss the reality that Americans don’t mind immigration but they want to be able to have a say.
Biden’s people were listening to activists and donors and gave them exactly what they wanted. Who do you think drafted that dozen or so executing orders? Biden? Who was appointed to run policy in DHS- do you think Biden hand picked these people? He hired who his activists told him to hire- just as Kamala will.
I’m not really sure what this response is supposed to mean to say lol. I mean that happened true. And now the dems want to pass a pretty tough border law
Requiring 5000 entries a day before the president can act is not tough, especially since Biden already had the power to do this by executive order. Passing the bill would actually have been a restriction on his authority. A tough bill would be to legislate the remain in Mexico policy permanently. Why didn't they do that?
The bill was negotiated with republicans and basically caved to Republican demands. They tried to pass it multiple times. Trump told house republicans to kill it despite it having been negotiated with republicans.
“Why didn’t they pass it” ask republicans! Dems aren’t perfect, but it’s important to understand what happened with the bill
I'm not interested in which party did what, only what is in the bill.
"And now the dems want to pass a pretty tough border law"
That is election-speak. Sort of like "tips and overtime will not get taxed"
No, they actually tried to pass a tough border law that was negotiated with Republicans that would’ve been one of the strictest immigration laws in the last 60 years. Biden has also re-implemented all of Trump’s executive orders.
Can we start calling her Harris, already? Or call Biden "Joe" and Trump "Donald". Don't get me started on "Mayor Pete" ....
Noah has himself stated that the only reason that "right wing" people want immigration control is because they are racist. They don't come out ans say, but Noah just knows what they are thinking. Progressives project what they want "right wingers" to be thinking so that their vitriol is justified. And, the other way around is often true. Conservatives often project what progressives are thinking to justify their own vitriol.
I think Noah did a good job of talking about the nuance of immigration. He stated that yes sure some right wingers dislike immigrations because of race but that’s not all of them.
People are allowed to change their minds. I've had some pretty stupid ideas too.
Interesting post. I would argue that the destabilizing social and cultural effects of mass immigration sometimes outweigh the benefits, especially for countries not used to mass immigration (Europe comes to mind). In contrast, "settler colonies" like the United States and Canada are better able (both politically and culturally) to absorb large numbers of immigrants, although even these societies have a limit before the benefits turn negative. This is a cyclical phenomenon, where period of mass immigration are followed by backlash and periods of limited immigration. It's not ideal, but neither is the business cycle and we've somewhat readily adapted to that phenomenon.
I also get the feeling that many liberals and fellow leftists support immigration out of paternalism. Immigration and citizenship are a "benefit" that we confer on "deserving" immigrants, who would otherwise struggle in their home countries. These lucky beneficiaries should thus be "grateful" to the US for its noblesse oblige: often times this manifests as disgust directed at any immigrant who says anything that might be seen as critical of American culture, government, or society more generally.
Personally, I think an ideal immigration system is one where people are allowed to migrate because they WANT to become citizens of fill-in-the-blank country, not because they need a job or because some expert claims there's a labor shortage (especially for low-income occupations like farm laborers). As someone who's lived and worked with immigrants, both legal and illegal, I can tell you that many of them didn't really want to become "Americans." They don't hate America or its people, but they like their own cultures better and only moved so they could give their families a better life. And I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think an economy structured around forcing people to move to different continents/countries just to earn a basic living is in any way just or progressive. That's why I'm generally skeptical of both free trade and open borders. But that's just my two cents.
I should probably also mention that my parents are Middle-Eastern immigrants, so my observations are probably colored by their (and by extension, my own) experiences.
three things in response:
1/ it is utopian to think that people en mass would move for nationalistic pride for future country, rather than economic opportunity. I think it's actually capable of being a dangerous viewpoint which unintentionally has much more costs than benefits.
2/ moving for economic opportunity is likely good for everyone - is there any better signal than country x needing people from country y, and people in country y wanting to move? Ie. capitalism at work. Recommend: https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83
3/ normally 2nd gen immigrants consider themselves American (slightly old but found v. quickly source: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/)
1/ I don't doubt it's utopian, although I would say it's far more realistic and responsive to actual social/political trends than the "open borders" regime touted by Bryan Caplan and others. Not quite sure how it is a "dangerous viewpoint," unless you're suggesting it fuels nativist sentiment in the home country, in which case there's already enough to go around. Also, repressing a viewpoint on the sole basis that it might fuel support for more fringe/disgusting ideas is primitive and stupid: either you believe in free speech or you don't.
2/ I don't doubt that from a purely economic perspective, mass immigration is a net positive; the same could be said of free trade. But man does not live on bread alone, etc. I was mostly speaking about my family's experiences as a diasporic household: living on the other side of the world away from your extended family is very isolating and emotionally-challenging; it's not something most native-born Americans can relate to, and it's especially hard when your culture relies more heavily family/kinships than the nuclear family. It's not something I'd wish upon anybody. It's hard to put a dollar amount on the benefits of having extended family, but capitalism being what it is it's not for lack of trying.
3/ I don't disagree; I'm far more "Americanized" than my parents and have little, if any substantive connection to my ancestral homeland other than family ties and dual citizenship. This is less likely to be true in countries that aren't "settler-colonies": i.e., in countries that don't have a history or cultural/institutional framework conducive to assimilation. I was mostly thinking of Europe and the refugee problem; European countries aren't built for mass immigration, and acting as if they were is naive and irresponsible. I don't particularly care for the whole melting pot/fruit salad debate; everybody supports assimilation until it's THEIR identity/culture being assimilated. Ironically this was the reason why the Puritans travelled all the way to America instead of continental Europe; they initially settled in Holland but hated the idea of their children assimilating the Dutch language and culture.
To what extent are the problems that Europe has coping with influxes of Middle Eastern migrants (refugee or otherwise) down to the migrants themselves rather than to Europe, for example in their extreme cultural dependence on blood ties that you alluded to?
Middle Eastern migrants to the US or Canada are much more "elite" and urban than those to Europe, while low-skilled migrants to the US are typically Latinos who are far less culturally alien to Americans, than Middle Easterners are to Europeans.
Mass migration virtually always leads to societal tension and discontent. If you want to blame the migrants for their misfortune, that's on you. But mass migration is stressful on a society, and some societies just lack the institutional resilience to absorb mass migration and remain stable.
I really don’t think our economy should be based on giving unfairly poor condition and pay wages to immigrants. And wanting to provide a better life for your family is just normal, it’s a LOT of effort to come here. I don’t understand why national pride is such a good thing. The world needs to start operating like one community more anyway, with climate change, and eventual drastic shifts in population. This would reduce all the trauma-causing wars that are only bad except for weapons sellers who should employ their technological ideas for good anyway instead of idiotic destruction. Plus less international conflict and greed would not necessitate as much immigration, which certainly separates family and leads to struggles. An effort to play up worldwide citizenship is utopian, not self-centered national pride—that isn’t helping America’s reputation anyway. Easier paths to citizenship would help people become more proud of local community and mandatory service could get people more integrated or something. All I mean to say is I disagree with all this America-first mumbo jumbo. Bah humbug haha
On 1, the thing that I think is dangerous (not the idea of this, to be clear which I can see is not entirely clear in my initial point, but the implementation) is people moving whilst being unproductive because of a presumed indicator of usefulness. Ie. the best indicator we have of usefulness is economic contribution (you know you are doing something useful because x pays you to do it), this would encourage migration based on something else.
As 1 factor in a plethora of factors I agree w/ you that this (cultural alignment) is v. important but it has to be subservient to economic contribution
Personally, I don't think immigration should be tailored on the basis of economic contribution. If a poor bricklayer from Indonesia or Uganda wants to become an American, so be it; they'll find a way to contribute one way or the other. I don't think we should be selling citizenship to the highest bidder; I understand the need to ensure that immigrants have a plan for what they're gonna do here but conditioning migration status on the basis of one's ability to contribute economically just cheapens the concept of citizenship in my opinion.
"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Those words may not mean much nowadays, but they do to me. Anyone who wants to learn the language and become a citizen ought to have the opportunity to do so. But that's just my two cents.
aaaaaah wow - completely disagree then. They have to be tax contributing.
My father came to this country on a student visa, became an electrical engineer, and got his citizenship while working. He's been working as an engineer for about 40-45 years. About 30 of those years was as a public-sector employee for the local Department of Public Works. He's worked on buildings like the local transit system, a police training facility, and doing building inspections after earthquakes. Is he a "net economic contributor" to the country, even though his salary was paid for by the taxpayer? If yes, then the whole idea of "tax contributing" is baseless. If not, well, I don't know if I can dignify a response to that.
I agree completely
I think Elie is envisioning a world where MASS immigration is a thing of the past, as the only people migrating would be the relatively small number who genuinely preferred a foreign culture over the one they were born into.
I am pro (legal) immigration. It has to be more diverse (not based on who can walk here) and fully controlled. There are people across Asia, Africa, E Europe, and Latam (places like Argentina and Brazil- too far for many to walk) who would love to come here, who are literate and with high school (or better) educations in their own countries and who have some English capability. We should draw from around the world and on a limited basis (in terms of number and also time allowed), only letting the more successful and law abiding stay on a more permanent basis, and if unskilled it should be mostly young people without children (and eliminate birthright citizenship - that should be for those who pass the provisional time periods and wish to become citizens).
I’ve noticed that the tipping point is around 15% foreign-born. Shortly after that, Trump won here, and similarly lots of populist/right-wing parties won or increased vote shares dramatically in other countries. And if you go back 100 years, that’s when we drastically reduced immigration in the US.
Right. Immigration ought to be just one more growth-promoting policy like lower deficits, freer trade and lower-cost avoidance of CO2 emissions.
Framing immigration as a "growth-promoting policy" feels crude and mechanistic. We're talking about real people here, with real problems and real personalities: not numbers on a spreadsheet. By all means talk about how immigrants contribute economically to the country, but treating them as a cash cow for economic growth just rubs me the wrong way.
Treating immigrants like a cash cow for growth (or for plugging labor shortages) IS effectively treating them like numbers on a spreadsheet. Maybe that's for the greater good, maybe it isn't. But if you're saying the ends justify the means, then just say it outright. I'm not against economic growth; 95% of the time, more growth is better. But there are some things I won't support no matter how growth-enhancing it is: treating immigrants like they're a cash cow or an exploitable natural resource is one of them.
Also, Dubai (and every MENA country tbh) has a lot to answer for when it comes to the question of labor exploitation. The kafala system effectively treats migrant workers like serfs, and that's not even dealing with issues like slavery and human trafficking. I don't know how it works in Dubai, but from what I've seen and read it's not pretty. If importing second-class citizens and using them to grow your country is your plan for economic development, so be it. But it's not something I can or will support. Not all ends justify the means.
"Personally, I think an ideal immigration system is one where people are allowed to migrate because they WANT to become citizens of fill-in-the-blank country, not because they need a job"
This argument seems very flimsy to me. How do you decide that you want uproot yourself and your family and permanently move to another country without a sense of what it's like to live there? The temporary visas - student, work, travel, etc. give people an exposure to life in the US and then they can decide whether they want to live here permanently or go back. I don't think most legal immigrants are being forced to move here or forced to become citizens. People come here for different reasons but stay because it offers something better.
Well said. I think you accurately resolve the apparent dissonance in public opinion on this issue. To pick up on another aspect of this dissonance: "The rule of law," so frequently invoked in opposition to Trump, can't be affirmed in one instance (our election laws) and ignored in another (immigration) without damaging the civic consensus needed to sustain a viable democracy. The positions staked out by many of the left in the Democratic Party in the last decade or so (and echoed in the Democratic primary debates of 2020) -- namely, the non-enforcement of our border laws and the implied acceptance of uncontrolled, open-ended immigration -- had consequences beyond the immigration issue itself, setting the stage for my-side-ism in how we view and accept the laws that apply that we enact within our borders.
Actually, the "rule of law" is that asylum claims must be heard. Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or democratic will or .... By all means, it would be great if Congress decided to actually address all this, but there is no chance in hell of that happening
The legislation that would have tightened the asylum process did pass the House and will be ripe for passage in some form or another post-election.
I was referring to the no-consequences attitude of those on the left when it comes to those who take up residence here outside of the legal processes now in effect.
Nice post Noah, very compelling reasoning. I'll say that from my experience in Southern California it's also hard to see a surge of migrants in the last few years. Maybe there are a few more people doing day labor or other informal vending running fruit stands by the side of the road.
But I was surprised to see that when I visited the in-laws in Michigan, I saw immigrants running fruit stands there too! I personally love being able to get a mango + chamoy + tajin combo outside of LA so it's great news for me, but I could see how it could be a shock if you're not used to seeing undocumented immigrants doing these types of things.
The past decade of latino migration into North Carolina has been a bit shocking. I grew up in California so the absence of latino culture and food was shocking too when I moved here. But over time, small rural communities I've driven through have fully transformed. Where previously there might have been some mixture of white/black, a school, a single "southern restaurant" and if you are lucky a good bbq joint in a town. Now you might have 3 taquerias and se hablo espanol signs over every storefront. You can walk these little downtowns that were starting to just shut down, that now, "appear" at least to have almost 100% swapped populations. I'm sure that isn't that case, but I can see where the reactions are coming from. It is something that might not show up in the numbers that get drowned out by larger metro areas.
If Kamala Harris loses, this will be one of several items to doom her candidacy. One she should have never had.
Joe Biden should have done what he said he would do. Return to normalcy, not try to be the next FDR, he also should fire whoever told him the American public would love to see hordes of immigrants crossing the border illegally then sent to every corner of America.
Had to he stuck to his caretake plan and Kamala had to go through the nominating process. Democrats may have had someone who, when asked what the difference would be in your administration, maybe he would have said, get control of the border and be believed.
Huh? Harris and Biden agreed to a comprehensive immigration reform bill that had broad bi-partisan support which, as I assume you know, was killed by that racist POS Trump and the Republican bootlickers who fear him and his racist minions.
But maybe you're just a MAGA dumbfuck here as a troll.
I agree the bill should not have been killed by the GOP, but it wasn't even brought forward until somewhat recently. Original Biden border policy was far more lax, I think that's what the previous comment is referring to.
Biden was appointed after the 2020 SC primary to be the compromise figurehead atop a progressive agenda. He was never making the decisions (except in foreign policy). Kamala has been appointed to take over from Biden as figurehead by the same party elders, donors and activists who have set Biden’s agenda.
There never was a plan for “normalcy” and there won’t be one under Harris (or Trump, obviously)
Why should we believe these assertions?
I don't know if there ever was a real plan. But the sales-pitch Biden made the American people after Trump's first term was a return to normalcy. It wasn't about any particular policy position just: not any more of this trump craziness. And not just trump, also political polarization. He was to bring back bi-partisanship.
he failed
yep - he sure did
Likely correct. Both will be hated and have low approval ratings very quickly.
Since I live in Denver, I *did* see the huge influx of Venezuelan migrants. It affected different Denver residents differently.
I'm Anglo, I'm retired from a professional/managerial job that required a Masters degree, and my husband is a lawyer. We live in a comfortable house in an affluent neighborhood. Was there ever any threat to my own job prospects? Nope. I participated a little bit with the army of Earnest White Ladies who tried to help get the migrants fed and housed. I paid a couple of guys to detail my car (they did an excellent job!). My rec center was closed for several months when it was being used as a temporary shelter, so I had to drive further to swim laps. I was boggled by the suffering I saw and also by the strength and determination the migrants have.
Many in Denver's Mexican population saw competition for lower-skilled jobs. There was also resentment that "the red carpet" had been rolled out for the Venezuelan migrants when no such help was extended to the Mexican arrivals in previous years. There are a bunch of reasons for that -- some reasons are better than others. But there is lingering tension between the Mexican residents and citizens and the new arrivals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some Mexican-American citizens vote for Trump because of it.
Can you share the top 3 books you read on migration policy whilst doing research for your book?
Do you have an opinion on which country integrates legal migrants best and why?
I should write a post about the books!
As for the best country, it's America.
yes, re the books.....
UK / Australia might beat US out due to better fiscal contributions (source: https://www.ft.com/content/c6bb7307-484c-4076-a0f3-fc2aeb0b6112)
Good comment. I'll just not that in our area (Bethesda, MD), we have a huge amount of construction going on right now, office and apartment space. It appears that 80% of all the workers are Latino. Lawn care companies the % is higher, maybe over 90%. Whether these are current immigrants or sons/daughters of immigrants, I do not know. I'm assuming the ones who are immigrants all have the correct papers that allow them to work. If not, mass deportation will gut each of these employment sectors.
Agree with everything except to say that I think people also want the selection (and rejection) process to be humane, not intentionally cruel, and cost effective. Getting irregular immigration down to zero point zero coud be very costly in dollars and infringement on the liberties of non-immigrants.
You say no-one want to reform the system; it looks to me like only Republicans do not want to reform the system. They want a perpetual issue.
Epic post. I want to control immigration because I want to live in an America much like the America I grew up in. We can assimilate new arrivals and ideas, but this tolerance demands some control over the process. I love America and I want being an American, especially being an American by choice to mean something.
The fundamental driver of illegal immigration is the availability of jobs in the US. Cell phones and supporting apps post job openings in the US, e.g. a person in Honduras can get notified there is a dishwasher position in Chicago. Illegal immigration slowed dramatically after the 2008 financial crisis for example. Employers need more workers than we have at times. The employer gets the workers, who make far more than they can in Honduras, so even a few weeks of work is worth it, and if they get caught there is no penalty on the employer. In other words illegal immigration is exactly what any critical thinker would expect in a market economy that doesn’t penalize illegal workers or employers who hire them. If we wanted to slow illegal immigration it wouldn’t be hard to do. And in the process we could fix social security for a long time. Create a robust E-Verify system and require all employers to use it. Create steep penalties for employers who violate it. Create a new Green Card category (Lime Card) for previously illegal workers which they would have to use to work. Charge these new Lime Card workers 3x to 5x the payroll tax rate (but 1x for employers) which decreases over time if they remain employed and out of trouble. After some time, 10-15 years, have a pathway to citizenship.
At the core of any economic model is the roll of labor combining with physical capital to create new physical capital. To first order GDP is linear in the labor supply. Deporting workers is therefore a negative contribution to GDP. Why not take advantage of the economy in the US which often needs workers and allow new immigrants to fix our social security system for a while.
Honestly Chris Hayes has close to red-pilled me on immigration. If you listen to his podcast his position is that:
1. Immigration Layers are unbiased and best authority for understanding the immigration system.
2. The experience of immigrants 100 years ago is a good guide to what immigrants go through today. The fact that phones, airplanes, and english becoming more common has drastically lowered the cost of being an immigrant is not to be referenced or change your point of view that migrants are a 1 in a million brand of people.
3. People who are more skeptical of immigration are mislead on values and need to be converted and preached to, even if skeptics are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants who are trying to tell you #2.
Add this all up, you get some empathy with Trump voters, there really are elites that view open borders as a moral imperative who are indifferent to opinions of their fellow citizens on the topic.
“The idea that this moral obligation transcends or binds the democratic popular will of those countries is a direct challenge to the idea of a nation on a exclusive club.”
If one wished to cite ‘moral obligation,” why is there no mention of illegal labor practices, not just the hiring of illegal immigrants, but exploitation of child labor laws. There was a brief dust-up in the mainstream media in re the extent of illegal child labor. And illegal labor paying into the system (taxes, etc.). I guess that okay because the illegal labor subsidizes the cost of meat and produce. This exploitation will continue because the public tolerated it.
A few years back, the Alabama State Legislature passed a very strict bill that would crack down on
Illegal immigrants working in the stare. Katie, bar the door! The switchboards lit up like Christmas trees — mostly farmers, but other employers, who depend on illegal labor. Intimidated and shocked, the legislature called a special session to bin that bill. I guess they discovered they had a moral obligation to get reëlected.
I'm curious what specific policies we would need to stop the asylee immigration wave. Ideally we'd hire a LOT more immigration judges, and build temporary well-run camps where people with pending asylum cases can stay, with the goal to get a yes or no decision from a judge within 90 days.
It's worth noting that Biden offered the Republicans a deal on immigration and the Republicans didn't take it
The international rules are you apply for asylum at the US consulate in your own country or the consulate in the first foreign country you arrive in, and then you wait. You don’t get to walk through several countries and cross the US border. Biden (and Obama) allowed them to do this.
US asylum laws haven't changed in decades. You won't mention them because you're a liar but this was allowed to happened under Bush (both), Clinton, Trump and Reagan as well. Trump did issue an executive order in 2020 (Title 42) to stop it using the pandemic as a reason but US followed these asylum laws during his first three years, before the pandemic started.
Biden (and Obama) did allow them to do this (walk across multiple borders). So did 2 Bush's, Reagan, Clinton, and a parade of presidents before them.
What's the explanation which things require democratic control for social stability? Why do we need democratic control over immigration and what kind of housing I'm allowed to build on my property and how much I have to pay someone I hire for a job, but not over which career I pursue or who I get to date or what kind of diet I eat? When do we get to say that an impulse demanding democratic control is bad?
Legal immigration affects the electorate. Illegal immigration affects wages. Both matter.
Actually, most all the studies show that illegal immigration has very little effect on wages and has had no significant effect on us citizen employment (prime age employment is near an all time high). I am quite sure that in some localized situations, it depresses wages (ex. that illegal immigrants get taken advantage of), but that only depresses overall wages if there were us citizen workers who wanted those same jobs and couldn't get other paying work.
Isn’t it as simple as whether that affects the collective? High levels of immigration affect the entire country by increasing the strain on infrastructure, housing, and services.
By that logic, maybe we should implement democratic control over how many children people have...