A little light on cultural and political impact, such as: multiple languages in schools, crime in the streets, antisemitic attacks and other terrorism, riots, Michigan effect on foreign policy, etc., etc. Low social trust throughout because low social trustworthiness. Read some sociology.
If all we were getting were good citizens (by our lights) with approximately our spread of political views but different skill sets and tastes, the micro-economic case would be the only one relevant, and determinative pro open borders. But we’re not.
Want data? Check out the United Kingdom. Or France. Or Germany. Or Sweden.
The United States, unlike Europe, has a more civic-based nationalism and a strong track record of assimilating diverse ethnic and religious groups: Germans, the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, etc. Unsurprisingly, the assimilation of recent immigrants is proceeding much more successfully in the U.S. than in Europe.
As I noted in the article, immigrants to the United States do not differ significantly from natives in their political views. Economists Alex Nowrasteh and Benjamin Powell have also shown that immigration flows to individual states have no measurable impact on their economic freedom scores.
The data on immigration in the U.S., which I presented in the article, is overwhelmingly positive. America is not Europe.
The recent immigration wave of Muslims is different, obviously. And even the Latin-American gangsters who slipped through the asylum loophole in substantial numbers are different. For that matter, the former Mexicans waving the Mexican flag at demonstrations and riots in Los Angeles and elsewhere are different. Don’t be doctrinaire. Look at the damn data.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether you do. The people who live near these immigrants vote, and they can see the data.
We should be tough on criminals/rioters regardless of their country of origin. But the fact is, immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans.
You are lumping these particular immigrants in with all immigrants. Easy to do if your kid doesn’t go to school with them.
Moreover, what evidence is there that bears on whether your measure of crime rate is equally good over these different groups of people?
Yet again, as you don't have or won't grapple with the particular data, I am done trying to convince you. Once again, I will let the voters have their say.
Texas is the only state that records immigration status in criminal cases, and both legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Sanctuary counties, which don't deport illegal immigrants, also tend to have lower crime rates compared to similar counties.
If gang members entered the country through an asylum loophole, they should be deported. However, immigrants as a group still have lower crime rates than native-born citizens. We should just punish criminals and leave law-abiding immigrants who contribute to our economy alone.
Other than seeking new Democratic voters (and increasingly Hispanics are voting Republican) it’s not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. It ended up costing the Democrats the 2024 election. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea.
This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I also don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them. No one believes that they have a right to visit Paris as a tourist, rent an apartment and live their life there without the permission of the French people and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
"Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in." -- Thomas Sowell
Great question! Ellis Island was a place where immigrants were processed before entering the U.S. Its heyday was from 1892 to 1924, but it was open until 1954. Before the 1924 immigrant restrictions, the US had a system close to open borders, and I would like to go back to something like the Ellis Island system.
Many American Muslims are open about their desire to impose Sharia law on the country. Muslims in Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom have made serious progress in this regard. Are you okay with this?
A little light on cultural and political impact, such as: multiple languages in schools, crime in the streets, antisemitic attacks and other terrorism, riots, Michigan effect on foreign policy, etc., etc. Low social trust throughout because low social trustworthiness. Read some sociology.
If all we were getting were good citizens (by our lights) with approximately our spread of political views but different skill sets and tastes, the micro-economic case would be the only one relevant, and determinative pro open borders. But we’re not.
Want data? Check out the United Kingdom. Or France. Or Germany. Or Sweden.
The United States, unlike Europe, has a more civic-based nationalism and a strong track record of assimilating diverse ethnic and religious groups: Germans, the Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, etc. Unsurprisingly, the assimilation of recent immigrants is proceeding much more successfully in the U.S. than in Europe.
As I noted in the article, immigrants to the United States do not differ significantly from natives in their political views. Economists Alex Nowrasteh and Benjamin Powell have also shown that immigration flows to individual states have no measurable impact on their economic freedom scores.
The data on immigration in the U.S., which I presented in the article, is overwhelmingly positive. America is not Europe.
The recent immigration wave of Muslims is different, obviously. And even the Latin-American gangsters who slipped through the asylum loophole in substantial numbers are different. For that matter, the former Mexicans waving the Mexican flag at demonstrations and riots in Los Angeles and elsewhere are different. Don’t be doctrinaire. Look at the damn data.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether you do. The people who live near these immigrants vote, and they can see the data.
We should be tough on criminals/rioters regardless of their country of origin. But the fact is, immigrants have a lower crime rate than native born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/illegal-immigrant-murderers-texas-2013-2022
You are lumping these particular immigrants in with all immigrants. Easy to do if your kid doesn’t go to school with them.
Moreover, what evidence is there that bears on whether your measure of crime rate is equally good over these different groups of people?
Yet again, as you don't have or won't grapple with the particular data, I am done trying to convince you. Once again, I will let the voters have their say.
Texas is the only state that records immigration status in criminal cases, and both legal and illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans. Sanctuary counties, which don't deport illegal immigrants, also tend to have lower crime rates compared to similar counties.
If gang members entered the country through an asylum loophole, they should be deported. However, immigrants as a group still have lower crime rates than native-born citizens. We should just punish criminals and leave law-abiding immigrants who contribute to our economy alone.
Generally agree. Account for externalities, of course.
Other than seeking new Democratic voters (and increasingly Hispanics are voting Republican) it’s not clear to me exactly why the Biden administration decided that it was a good idea to open our borders to millions of unskilled, uneducated people. It ended up costing the Democrats the 2024 election. Allowing a relative small number of the well educated in each year is probability a good idea.
This was one of the most disastrous policies the country has seen in my long lifetime. Importing millions of people who will work for next to nothing just to be here undermines the wages of our working class and exacerbates our national housing crisis when we can’t house our own citizens. It consumed billions of our tax dollars which could have been put to better use.
The age of mass migration is over. People cannot overpopulate their home country and just expect to move to greener pastures. There are no more green pastures. They need to voluntarily reduce their country's population to an environmentally sustainable level, stay there and work to improve their living conditions.
I also don’t understand those who say that we should not deport the majority of these interlopers. They violated our laws and continue to violate them. No one believes that they have a right to visit Paris as a tourist, rent an apartment and live their life there without the permission of the French people and no one would argue that the French have no right to kick their sorry asses out of that country. Why do the same rules not apply to the United States? They clearly do.
"Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in." -- Thomas Sowell
What is that picture?
Great question! Ellis Island was a place where immigrants were processed before entering the U.S. Its heyday was from 1892 to 1924, but it was open until 1954. Before the 1924 immigrant restrictions, the US had a system close to open borders, and I would like to go back to something like the Ellis Island system.
Many American Muslims are open about their desire to impose Sharia law on the country. Muslims in Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom have made serious progress in this regard. Are you okay with this?