"Immigrants also patent at disproportionately high rates (especially those from some regions of the world), immigrants are more likely to start businesses of every size, and they’re upwardly mobile."
Alex, I think facts like these touch upon why immigration is so beneficial for America and why your worries are unfounded; immigrants are a self-selecting group. Those who uproot their lives, learn a new language and culture, and are willing to adapt to such a radically different lifestyle are 1) Probably not all that keen about certain aspects of their homeland and 2) uniquely industrious. They will only take the aspects of their homeland that they like and leave the rest behind.
For this reason and some of others you touch on, the doors for immigrants should be wider, not narrower.
You need to make a distinction between high skilled legal immigrants and low skilled illegal immigrants. The latter are much more likely to depend on welfare and drive down wages, which by definition lowers economic freedom. Democrats entire platform is to create a poor, dependent voter base that supports more government welfare and taxes.
I think as long as law enforcement doesn't completely cuck out on criminality for the sake of not wanting to appear racist, whether due to their own will or the will of their highers-up, there'd be significantly less negative stigma towards immigrants. Especially since the remaining stigma would come mostly from exactly the sort of embarrassing, racist chauvanists civilized people don't want to associate with anyway.
"In sum, I hypothesize that immigrants increase diversity, which undermines the formation and existence of labor unions that indirectly reduces demand for bigger government."
Why did immigrants not stop California from going from Ronald Reagan to The People's Republic of California? Same for NY, etc.
Why did Mitt Romney lose an election with 59% of the white vote to a guy whose chief policy platform was Obamacare?
Government spending (including state & local) was 25% of GDP in 1964. It's in the 4X% now.
"Immigrants also patent at disproportionately high rates (especially those from some regions of the world), immigrants are more likely to start businesses of every size, and they’re upwardly mobile."
Alex, I think facts like these touch upon why immigration is so beneficial for America and why your worries are unfounded; immigrants are a self-selecting group. Those who uproot their lives, learn a new language and culture, and are willing to adapt to such a radically different lifestyle are 1) Probably not all that keen about certain aspects of their homeland and 2) uniquely industrious. They will only take the aspects of their homeland that they like and leave the rest behind.
For this reason and some of others you touch on, the doors for immigrants should be wider, not narrower.
You need to make a distinction between high skilled legal immigrants and low skilled illegal immigrants. The latter are much more likely to depend on welfare and drive down wages, which by definition lowers economic freedom. Democrats entire platform is to create a poor, dependent voter base that supports more government welfare and taxes.
I think as long as law enforcement doesn't completely cuck out on criminality for the sake of not wanting to appear racist, whether due to their own will or the will of their highers-up, there'd be significantly less negative stigma towards immigrants. Especially since the remaining stigma would come mostly from exactly the sort of embarrassing, racist chauvanists civilized people don't want to associate with anyway.
You'd think more people would pick up on this.
"In sum, I hypothesize that immigrants increase diversity, which undermines the formation and existence of labor unions that indirectly reduces demand for bigger government."
Why did immigrants not stop California from going from Ronald Reagan to The People's Republic of California? Same for NY, etc.
Why did Mitt Romney lose an election with 59% of the white vote to a guy whose chief policy platform was Obamacare?
Government spending (including state & local) was 25% of GDP in 1964. It's in the 4X% now.
This analysis is pathetic.