There's apparently an anti-immigrant zeitgeist today of the took our jobs variety -- the linked post from St. Onge, and this related SN post.
This is one of the issues I don't know much about, certainly not enough to get culture-warry about it. But it does strike me that this anti-immigration take both runs counter to the standard Libertarian / Austrian principle of maximal free trade all the time and everyone benefits from a free exchange etc etc. And it also strikes me that there is an avalanche of well-controlled empirical data on what happens to wages as immigration ebbs and flows. Sort-of Austrian Bryan Caplan goes on about this topic ad nauseum and wrote a book about it basically saying (I'm simplifying, but not drastically) that borders are bullshit and everyone should go and work wherever they want.
So. Can anybody who knows more than I do speak to this? With actual evidence, though?
I'm probably the wrong man for the job, despite being a trained labor economist. I don't feel like I have a great handle on why this has become the biggest concern amongst voters.
I sense several different things that are all being bundled together here:
Each of those topics would warrant it's own discussion and the one I hear discussed the least is probably "taking our jobs". You're right, though, about the evidence generally not supporting that immigration reduces wages of native workers. It does seem to reduce wages amongst previous immigrants, if I'm remembering the paper about Cuban refugees correctly. The quick and dirty explanation is just that productive people increase supply more than demand which benefits almost everyone.
I think the concern now is the enormous numbers of migrants who are just living off of the government and not doing productive work. This doesn't seem to be a big problem in my neck of the woods, but relatives from big cities have told me about the strain being put on local infrastructure. I also think part of the visceral reaction right now is due to parent outrage that schools are being repurposed to house migrants.
is this a widespread thing in America? haven’t heard of this until now
I don't know how many place are doing this, but I've heard it reported from more than one. It's a really big deal in New York. At least that's my impression.
Maybe our resident New Yorker can clarify. cc: @siggy47
I was just about to reply. I'll look for more details, but the other night I was watching local news and there was a story of an NYC school (maybe Brooklyn?) that cancelled classes for a few days to use the building to house migrants. This caused outrage for obvious reasons, but also because resident property taxes fund NY school districts. I wonder if they will be issuing tax refunds 😀
The accommodation problem is real, it's very bad, but this is only the tip of the iceberg.
I think what's usually not easily seen is how unchecked migration
This has been the reality in Europe for a decade now.
I also feel the need to say this: the problem is not the people, migrants or natives, but the governments/the EU/the system that orchestrates and incentivises this whole mess.
What is the incentive? Charity? Cheap labor? Rig elections?
I'm no economist, and admittedly, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that, to remain competitive, Europe doesn't only need cheap (Russian) energy, but also cheap labour from the third world. Nothing is done to stop the migration, on the contrary!
What i know for sure is that in my country of origin, you're more likely to become rich, or even just live decently, by working for the government, and as the government grows, it gets increasingly difficult to make it as an entrepreneur. What do capable people do? They emigrate. First they went to the big cities (rural exodus), but since the mid 90s, they're increasingly leaving the country.
But what happens to the country when more and more capable people emigrate? The less capable get in charge and nothing works anymore. Good luck with finding a plumber, an electrician, a doctor etc, who knows what the fuck he's doing, and is honest and trustworthy! It's kind of a death spiral, the government grows even faster, everything becomes expensive, the country becomes increasingly dependant on foreign aid (remittance, EU aid, etc) then a civil war erupts...
I'm not sure if I actually answer your question but the point I'm trying to make is that even if migration is good for western economies etc. It has terrible long-term consequences for third world countries. Will Syria recover from the massive exodus of all these people that have fled the civil war, and are now living in Germany? Same for many African countries.
What are the long-term global consequences?
All of these things adjust and balance out when markets are allowed to operate.
The problem in Europe is that the government is crowding out private employment and stifling economic activity with regulations. Europe doesn't need 3rd world immigration to stay competitive, per se. That's mostly a result of how distorted your economies are.
On the flip side, if Syria had free markets, the result of the mass exodus would be much higher wages. High wages would attract people back, naturally.
Great reply, thanks.
Did you live there long enough to witness this drain? The logical flow of it makes sense, but I'm wary of too-simple explanations. For instance, in my place of origin we face a similar problem, and there are definitely forces at play that have hollowed the region out so that skilled tradespeople are few and far between, but I don't think you could make a case for it being because those people went to take cush government jobs.
I know of a number of cyclical accounts of history or of development; I wonder if this particular one has been explored anywhere? Seems pretty easy to do empirically.
I remember when Europeans were super judgemental towards Americans for being concerned about illegal immigration. You don't see that view quite so often anymore.
I agree with you that it's more about the types of effects you highlight than the direct taking of jobs and that the governments are to blame.
Not any more! 😅
Look at Denver and Chicago
I hadn't heard about Denver, but Chicago is one I thought I had heard about.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12976873/Denver-migrant-crisis-hospitals-critical-funding.html
Look at Denver. Its largest hospital is on the verge of shutting down because no one is getting paid. Illegal migrants get free medical care. Not free but paid for by legal residents
Within 6 I would say there's 6a and 6b
6b may be legitimate or illegitimate depending on how much a person values soft concepts like "culture". But personally I think liberal westerners are too quick to disregard the importance of culture. For example, I find it strange that everyone is allowed to be proud of their cultural heritage except Caucasians. As an Asian person myself, I greatly appreciate and cherish European culture and I would be very sad if the various European countries were to lose their distinct cultural identities.
In that sense, I consider myself slightly in the 6b camp. Or at the very least, I think this is something that is valued too little by the average western elite.
You become what you import
It's interesting how closely this parallels the conversations we've been having about how to grow Stacker News.
I'm very much in the "proceed with caution" camp, because I don't want the culture we've developed here to be overrun with standard toxic internet behavior. I can certainly see why people feel that way about immigration, even if I don't.
If you want to see name calling go to the thread a few days ago about msnbc. I called Rachel Maddow a lying lesbian which triggered at least one person
That's just true, though. :)
It’s disgusting how much money she makes
I guess this is a shot at me. Another example why we can’t have a conversation about immigration and the rule of law
Have we not been having a conversation about immigration all day?
You might be coming off a bit aggressive, but you've been making real points and you haven't called me any names yet. I'd say that's better than I'm used to on most social media platforms.
Proceed with caution ⛔️
This is how everyone should think about immigration from third world countries
Yes. I think this is the third rail, though. I never see it discussed.
Any discussion about race or ethnicity is taboo
Good point, I should have split those things up. It's a little more complicated to disentangle them for America, though, because of the widely held "melting pot" view of American culture.
Melting pot is assimilation which is what many immigrants and their advocates oppose. Melting pot is the opposite of multicultural
Right, but both cultures change as a result.
"Prepare to be assimilated. Your cultural and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own." -Borg greeting
The Hegelian dialectic view of assimilation
Immigrants from third world countries refuse to assimilate. In fact many hate western culture however you define it
Some do. Some don't. Your absolute statements are hyperbolic. That's not to say there isn't a real problem there.
It’s not 50/50 as your statement implies
Most do not. These are not immigrants who passed thru Ellis Island
Western elites are insufferable, some are evil, most are greedy and power hungry
Voters should have a say who should and shouldn’t enter and how many per year
You mean like language, should all Americans or residents in America be expected to speak and read English?
2, 3 and 4 are legitimate concerns
Illegal immigration has changed the voting patterns of California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Georgia since 1988
I think more importantly it changes the number of Congressional seats and therefor also the number of Electoral College votes.
It’s apportionment and voting patterns. Why do most if not all left wing states oppose voter ID laws? Why the push for amnesty and a short cut to citizenship? Why are ballots printed in Spanish and other languages?
I'm with you on the first few points, but there's no reason ballots should only be printed in English. If a legal citizen's first language is something other than English, isn't it better that they understand what the ballot says as well as possible?
Maybe it’s better if they don’t vote
Probably, but I don't like how most people vote and don't believe in democracy.
Great list. So much bundled into what appears, from the outside, to be one topic.
There are many reasons for opposing open immigration but it’s still one topic.
There is criminal behavior inland too not just at the border. Did you see the attack on NYPD? NY is not a border state unless you are concerned about Canada 🇨🇦 too
deleted by author
What is the difference between far right and not so far right? Serious question
Apparently the higher the incidence of extreme or divisive rhetoric the further the relative rightness…
The definition of extreme and divisive rhetoric is however entirely subjective and it is numerically unquantifiable by sensible people.
On a serious note and as an observation the ‘far right politicians’ seem to come from outside politics.. they rarely ‘grow more extreme’ while in politics… but I could be talking out of my arse.
I think you're correct that "far-right" really isn't about political philosophy. It seems to be more about how much the establishment dislikes someone.
Is the climate agenda far left or science
The climate agenda is not science. Climate science is science.
I agree, but as a highly politicized issue that is largely funded by politicians, there's relatively little climate science.
I've written about the struggles and experiences I've had as someone who occasionally does work related to climate change and has a background in climate science. It is much easier to publish work that comes to the "right conclusions" and much more difficult to get research approved that may counter the narrative.
I'd say it's pretty fair to call most of what the public thinks of as "climate science" leftwing propaganda.
Milei, Trump, Le Pen, PVV in Netherlands 🇳🇱, the right wing populist in Brazil, etc
Extreme and divisive are not the same. Most if not all important issues are divisive. Divisive is an excuse to shut down debate and suppress right wing views
deleted by author
deleted by author
That's been my concern with most of the ridiculous left-wing stuff over the past decade or so.
As a counter-reaction to it?
As an aside, Illegal migration was actually covered up by some socialist European governments in the 00s. It was their dirty secret… and now many left wing parties have no solution for the voters concerns feeling they have been betrayed.
There are 70+ elections in the world this year.. I can see this being the year of the ‘strong man’ (and I use that word deliberately).
Exactly. While I think many of the policies being pushed by the left are dumb, I think the potential reactions to them are more dangerous. When people feel threatened, high-minded moral principles go right out the window.
That ship has already sailed and isn’t coming back
We'll have to build a new one then.
We need to build a wall
Voters feel betrayed because that have been betrayed and ignored
Your statement is appallingly elitist. Unchecked immigration is a legitimate concern for the middle and working class
Not sure how it’s elitist… I guess I could say i am an unskilled labourer by day and it’s a concern for me and my cohort. Or just suggest that not all the ‘facts’ that politicians spread about immigration come to pass… hence real and imagined.
Maybe politicians should listen to voters, real voters with real concerns.
Which part is imaginary?
Ok. I’ll pick - the drug crisis is the result of illegal migration.
To quote Mike Johnson: “America is at a breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration. We have lethal drugs that are pouring into our country at record levels.”
Johnson never said the drug crisis is caused by illegal immigration. He implied it is exacerbated by illegal immigration from Mexico
“Our southern border is already overwhelmed with illegal migrants and dangerous drugs.”
Implied? That seems like conflagration.
It’s like saying my problem with unchecked violent crime is that it attracts anti crime politicians
Why do you assume populists are authoritarians? Authoritarians can and frequently are left wing and elitist
The argument in the St. Onge link is so bad it is barely worth discussing, but I am a sucker for this type of stuff.
First, does it seem plausible that "semi-literate manual laborers" will come with such a high demand for dentistry that it would lead to an extreme shortage of dentists?
Second, his example about annexing France is absurd. The type of migrants he is discussing typically go somewhere because they can't find work in their current country. If France had high poverty and unemployment rates, we probably would get a bunch of new workers.
Third, he does not mention anything about technology. There is evidence that when firms do not have access to low-cost labor, they switch to capital. In other words, if I don't have "cheap fruit pickers" an investment in machines to pick fruit might become advantageous. As such, immigration can have a positive effect on long term wages.
I could go on and on, but there is a lot of research that has empirical evidence for this stuff. GJ Borjas is a very well known economist who studies this: here are links to his research: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Patm-BEAAAAJ&view_op=list_works
Yeah, I often find his stuff similarly discombobulating, but this one seemed worse than usual. Perhaps audience capture at work in earnest.
Give em a dollar, they spend it on getting braces. Typical.
Thanks for the link, that's what I was hoping for :)
Have you seen the hospital situation in Denver?
The economy does not need anyone per se. People and markets adjust.
The economy does need rule of law
I think it's generally a short hand. The question, I believe, is whether the economy needs immigration to meet it's full potential (whatever that means).
The answer is no. But more importantly we can’t treat immigrants in the abstract. Not all immigrants are created equal. Not all countries are equal. Are immigrants from Japan 🇯🇵 preferable to Mexico 🇲🇽?
"The Economy" is an abstract concept, it doesn't "need" anything. People have needs, they satisfy them through production and trade.
Some libertarians argue that open borders can only work if there is no welfare state.
Just looking at the game theory this seems obvious.
Only a sick mind would come with such a shit…
In many countries like Germany the unemployment is like what? 4%? A part of people essentially unemployable. So hearing “they take our jobs” narrative in those countries, in particular since there are so many open positions, is like seriously? I totally agree with Caplan (btw., I like his work a lot).
When I was a student and had a summer job in a neighboring wealthier country, where I manually dug holes for cables, the guy I worked with told me that people in that country don’t want to do such jobs anymore, he had a hard time to find someone.
Another thing is that people don’t seem to accept that the world is constantly changing. They are scared of changes, in particular, if they happen in their neighborhood. And then there are politicians who build all their existence on that fear. Trump, republicans, AfD, name it.
These fears are legitimate. Violent Crimes committed in Europe are overwhelmingly from North Africa, Middle East, Afghanistan
In the US, illegal immigration may help to keep wages artificially low (bad for workers, good for employers), ensures future population growth (good for economic growth, bad for government obligations), and supports growth of the democratic national party membership (good for democrats, bad for republicans).
It's a nuanced issue here.
Growth of Democrat voters is a dealbreaker.
Hispanics have the second largest incarceration rate in USA.
25 to 30 percent of prison population is foreign born.
9-11 terrorists had expired tourist visas.
Regarding population growth, USA population is currently 330 million. How much growth can we support? 1 billion?
Regarding population and economic growth, explain India … we should not aspire to be India or Indonesia
Can you provide some data for this statement? Because I don’t think this is true.
Where do you live? Germany?
Does it matter? Don’t take me wrong, I think it’s ok people are scared, I think this is something we as humans have encoded in our genes and that helped us to survive. I have problem with the politicians who are feeding the devil.
Which politicians? Trump? Le Pen? Geert Wilders?
Exactly! And many others.
I support Trump because he agrees with me not because he persuaded or brainwashed me
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/12/01/europe_shows_a_clear_link_between_immigration_and_crime_-_like_the_one_the_us_seriously_downplays_867625.html
I can tell from your skepticism that data will not change your mind
Thanks for sharing, I will give it a try. The article could be better written though, for example, the key findings by Adamson lack reference but I will try to look it up. Also there are parts that need more time to think through like this graph
https://m.stacker.news/15540
I just don’t see where this 3.6% increase in the rate comes from. The reference gives some nonsense data table at this point. Moreover, as always, this would be still a correlation analysis-these are tricky.
Yup. I haven't read it, but just from what you showed it's got the signs of the classic ice cream causes people to drown argument.
Who doesn’t love ice cream except for dieters?
Presumably the people who drown are less enthused, but admittedly I'm guessing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45419466
“According to Germany's Interior Ministry, 27 illegal migrants either committed or attempted to commit murder or manslaughter in 2017. The 447 figure used by AfD actually refers to all asylum seekers and refugees, most of whom are in Germany legally. Overall this group was 15% of the total 2,971 suspects linked to these crimes in Germany last year.”
15% is not “overwhelming”, or? I am not saying immigrants do not commit crime either.
I think 15% is high or disproportionate unless asylum seekers and refugees are more than 15% of German population.
Here is USA 🇺🇸 example: over 50 percent of homicides are committed by blacks
What is over 50%? 51% or 90%? How many of those “black” are refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants?
60 percent
I have the same reaction. I'm willing to accept that the argument could be true, but it's the same in the States -- basically permanently short-staffed bc they can't hire. So it's a lot to swallow.
Of course, the other side would say: you just can't hire at that wage.
And then the other side would say: if I pay wages I could hire with, I'm out of business.
So if immigrants will work for wages natives won't, are we better off or worse? I can't figure it out.
Permanently understaffed?
Which industry? Don’t say agriculture
Drive down main street of a small to medium sized town. The ones that are there -- restaurants, car mechanics, drug stores, basically everything.
Those businesses are not understaffed and it’s not permanent
The wage issue is the least important. The latest arrivals are getting free room and board and medical care.
Labor markets adjust. Employers adjust. Old businesses go under, new businesses start. Circle of life
Good Point. I was starting to read this article:
The Natural Order, The State and the problem of inmigration. First published in Journal of Libertarian Studies, volumen 16, número 1 (2002).
https://www.hanshoppe.com/2022/09/el-orden-natural-el-estado-y-el-problema-de-la-inmigracion-natural-order-the-state-and-the-immigration-problem/
It's simple. You can't have a welfare state with open borders.
Immigration has already changed America and Europe for the worse. It will only get worse
The recent report published by the Centre for Migration and Control, based on the latest official ONS [1] numbers, suggests that immigration has costed the British taxpayers up to £36billion since 2020 for services such as education, police services, transport, and housing. Here's the breakdown for the previous year.
https://m.stacker.news/16858
According to the report:
https://m.stacker.news/16859
Assuming the report is not flawed, i wonder what the political consequences and implications would be.
Sources:
Office for National Statistics ↩
Economic Inactivity is defined by the ONS as “people not in employment who have not been seeking work within the last 4 weeks and/or are unable to start work within the next 2 weeks.” They are individuals that are considered to have fallen out of the labour market. Reasons for this include long-term health, housekeeping, the ambiguous category of ‘other’, or being a student. ↩
In my experience, immigrants start more businesses at a higher percentage than the percentage of average americans doing so. They create jobs. Additionally, the shock of merging cultures, while uncomfortable, creates such a rich environment for growth and new ideas that I think it's worth it. If you're christian, your book says a hell of a lot, very often, about welcoming and treating immigrants well... like listed-as-a-reason-for-destroying-israel importance level. And then the pure hypocrisy of wanting to vote with ones feet but not allow those from poorer countries to do the same is painful af.
We need to be specific to find out if the economy needs migrants. Who specifically benefits? What are the pros and cons? Usually people act like the economy needs something when in reality its just something They need or They benefit from at the cost of everyone else.
BREAKING: Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D) announces cuts in services at the DMV and Park & Recs to free up more resources for illegals. He warns there will be more cuts coming.
He blames Republicans for his decision to cut services to Denver residents.
Democrats made Denver a sanctuary city in 2017. Democrats control Colorado and passed progressive immigration policies in 2021.
Intelligence is never considered in the immigration debate. IQ tests should be part of the vetting process. Do we want millions of low IQ immigrants?
If the economy ran on Bitcoin, people would quickly learn what low time preference is and would not need outside help. Unnecessary businesses would be closed and necessary ones would thrive under such conditions.
The problem with the Bryan Caplan argument is that he assumes any country regardless of size can absorb 1 billion immy
Look at crime stats. Is every ethnicity committing crimes at equal rates?
A welfare state cannot afford open borders
deleted by author
They came from England which was not a shit hole country in 1763
Enjoy your patriotic conversation, then... Seeya
I'm pretty sure they mostly came from America, actually.
deleted by author
deleted by author
deleted by author