Thanks for the great article, Alex. I am finally happy to see someone on the pro-immigration front acknowledge the chaos problem, which few actually do. My critique of open borders has never been about the value and economics, which are solid cases for immigration. For me, it comes down to the process for how facilitate immigration. A wide open, "no holds barred" does not look or feel like the order portion of the generally accepted law and order expectation of government. If more open borders supporters would change their own rhetoric, they would be more successful.
The argument for immigration has collapsed in the last 30 years.
1) Hispanics turned out not to be "natural conservatives".
2) Hispanic vote share was not related to immigration policy (hard on immigration as likely to win Hispanic votes as repel).
3) "High Skill" immigration failed. Canada, the UK, etc went all in on it and it was a disaster.
4) India remains a third world hellhole. All that China vs India stuff in the 90s resolved in China's favor.
5) East Asia in general severely underperformed. It's capped out at 60% of our GDP per capita, low per capita innovation levels relative to IQ, and existentially bad fertility rates.
When I was going to Korean high school in the 90s I genuinely thought that East Asia might be the future. Nobody buys that anymore. The only reason we even care about China is because 4x pop * 60% gdp per capita is still bigger than us (until they all get old and die).
6) Europe opened the door to a flood of sand niggers, perhaps the worst people on the planet.
7) Keyhole solutions totally failed (see prop 187 in California).
Sorry, but I'm reformed. I no longer believe the 90s universalist we are all the same civic nationalist bullshit because the evidence is in since then and it ain't good.
This is a classical static argument and dies nt mention how to set the needed amount of immigration. The real arguments are many more. For example: increased immigration leads to increases consumption and this leads to higher prices with more demand. On point is if wages will rise with increased demand or if wages stagnate as the increased immigration labor input is far more than the consumption. Missing is the fact that new factories are being build and domestic demand is rising. As they will not be able to draw in immigrants to employ they will have to offer higher wages and training, and this needs two years to play out as building factories take time.
Thanks for the great article, Alex. I am finally happy to see someone on the pro-immigration front acknowledge the chaos problem, which few actually do. My critique of open borders has never been about the value and economics, which are solid cases for immigration. For me, it comes down to the process for how facilitate immigration. A wide open, "no holds barred" does not look or feel like the order portion of the generally accepted law and order expectation of government. If more open borders supporters would change their own rhetoric, they would be more successful.
Oren Cass is not an economist.
The argument for immigration has collapsed in the last 30 years.
1) Hispanics turned out not to be "natural conservatives".
2) Hispanic vote share was not related to immigration policy (hard on immigration as likely to win Hispanic votes as repel).
3) "High Skill" immigration failed. Canada, the UK, etc went all in on it and it was a disaster.
4) India remains a third world hellhole. All that China vs India stuff in the 90s resolved in China's favor.
5) East Asia in general severely underperformed. It's capped out at 60% of our GDP per capita, low per capita innovation levels relative to IQ, and existentially bad fertility rates.
When I was going to Korean high school in the 90s I genuinely thought that East Asia might be the future. Nobody buys that anymore. The only reason we even care about China is because 4x pop * 60% gdp per capita is still bigger than us (until they all get old and die).
6) Europe opened the door to a flood of sand niggers, perhaps the worst people on the planet.
7) Keyhole solutions totally failed (see prop 187 in California).
Sorry, but I'm reformed. I no longer believe the 90s universalist we are all the same civic nationalist bullshit because the evidence is in since then and it ain't good.
This is a classical static argument and dies nt mention how to set the needed amount of immigration. The real arguments are many more. For example: increased immigration leads to increases consumption and this leads to higher prices with more demand. On point is if wages will rise with increased demand or if wages stagnate as the increased immigration labor input is far more than the consumption. Missing is the fact that new factories are being build and domestic demand is rising. As they will not be able to draw in immigrants to employ they will have to offer higher wages and training, and this needs two years to play out as building factories take time.