Kaus vs. Schuler On Immigration

I’ve been meaning to get around to posting on this for some time but this is the first opportunity I’ve had. Recently, Mickey Kaus posted a summary of his views on immigration, a topic which is important here but has come close to overwhelming the latest incarnation of his blog, kausfiles. I’m going to post them in parallel to my own because I think my views are different from his in some signficant ways:

Kaus Schuler
The immigrants we get, including illegal Mexicans, are mainly hard-working potential citizens, like waves of immigrants before them; I think that most of Mexican immigrants who enter the country illegally are migrant workers, not particularly interested in becoming citizens. After the amnesty of the 1980s, only a minority of the Mexican immigrants then eligible elected to seek American citizenship. Are today’s illegals more likely to seek citizenship than the previous cohort? I think it’s almost exactly the opposite. I’d like to see some evidence.
The problem, as Mark Krikorian argues, is that we’ve changed, and the world has changed. We don’t need unskilled labor like we used to. Our native unskilled workers are having trouble earning a living. I agree with most of that but would go one step farther. IMO importing unskilled workers has been a conscious strategy to avoid dealing with the problem of racism against blacks. Having a reliable stream of new unskilled workers has also allowed business models that depend on such a stream to prosper.
The main reason to limit immigration flow, then, is to protect wages of Americans who do basic work. We desperately need a tight labor market. We won’t get it as long as millions of people from abroad respond to any tightening by flooding our work force. Once again I agree with that. I would add that the demographics of Latin America and the Caribbean means that those who rely on a steady stream of unskilled workers will need to go much farther afield.
The most important thing, then, is getting control of that number by securing the border — stopping illegal immigration. Once that’s done we can argue about what the legal number should be (and what should be done about current illegals). I think that trying to control the border is nearly futile but, since I think that most of the immigrants who arrive across our southern border are economic migrants, I think that getting control of immigration in the workplace would be much more effective.
But if wages are rising, it could be a reasonably big number! See point 1; I think that increasing the number of work visas by several orders of magnitude, i.e. into the millions rather than the present absurd 10,000, would be a practical approach to the problem.
There are second-order worries about cultural assimilation, especially the huge flow from Mexico, a nation a day’s drive away many of whose citizens (polls show) don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of our Southern border. See my first answer above. While I think they’re not illegitimate, I’m not unduly worried about those “second-order worries”.
One solution is to let in more people from other, non-Mexican cultures — Koreans, Chinese, Africans, Indians, etc. We want diversity! Ha ha. That joke never gets old. I suspect that a million unskilled, uneducated Chinese or Indian peasants would be just as difficult to assimilate in the age of the Internet as a million Mexicans are. And they’ll have the same influence on wages at the low end.

There are other issues, e.g. the incompatibility of mass immigration with our burgeoning welfare state, birthright citizenship, and family reunification as a policy goal, that we need to come to terms with but those are a start.

28 comments… add one
  • jan Link

    There was some thoughtful contemplation put into this thread, Dave. As for what is the most important thing to do about immigration, IMO it’s less a multiple choice than a “list” of imperatives that would work synergistically to improve immigration issues 1) securing the border better (not cuffing the hands of border patrol via the dictates of WH politics, but following the rule of law already on the books); 2) tightening up workplace employment verifications; 3) show more discretion while, at the same time, streamlining the immigration process for caliber, stable people “legally” applying for citizenship; 4) calculate seasonal needs with the number of work permits allocated annally.

  • ... Link

    …a topic which is important here but has come close to overwhelming the latest incarnation of his blog….

    I suspect this is because he, like I, lives in a part of the country that has become almost completely unrecognizable due to immigration. It was bad enough when I was a kid and all the goddamn Yankees kept moving down here, but at least they spoke the language and watched football. Now, more and more parts of the Orlando area are hostile to English speakers, and the new immigrants watch futbol. LA might as well be North Mexico City at this point. I think if you lived down here you’d be more obsessed with the topic.

  • ... Link

    After the amnesty of the 1980s, only a minority of the Mexican immigrants then eligible elected to seek American citizenship. Are today’s illegals more likely to seek citizenship than the previous cohort?

    Ignores the point that both the previous wave and the current wave (both part of a rising tide) stay here and have children, who are citizens, thanks to the short-sightedness of an 19th Century amendment meant to deal with a particular problem being very broadly phrased. Their children are going to stay. And nothing suggests that those children and their progeny are going to add to the human capital of the USA.

  • It’s pretty different here in the Midwest, too. When I was a kid growing up in St. Louis the Mexican-American community was small enough that they all knew each other. There was exactly one Mexican restaurant in the metropolitan area. No joke. My great-uncle’s wife was from Mexico and his kids, my closest blood relatives other than my siblings and their kids, identify as Hispanic.

    And after California, Texas, and Florida, Illinois has seen one of the greatest increases in Mexican-American population.

  • ... Link

    I would add that the demographics of Latin America and the Caribbean means that those who rely on a steady stream of unskilled workers will need to go much farther afield.

    Given all the Africans that have come here in the last 15 or so years, that won’t be a problem. Especially with the population of Africa expected to increase by a factor of 4 over the next 85 years. Those folks are going to want to go somewhere.

  • ... Link

    And after California, Texas, and Florida, Illinois has seen one of the greatest increases in Mexican-American population.

    So, a third of Chicago land is now Latin American? Because that’s what I’ve seen down here. Only Osceola County officially has a plurality of Hispanics officially, but most of the non-rich areas south of SR 50 are at LEAST plurality Hispanic now, if not out-tight majority.

  • Ignores the point that both the previous wave and the current wave (both part of a rising tide) stay here and have children, who are citizens, thanks to the short-sightedness of an 19th Century amendment meant to deal with a particular problem being very broadly phrased.

    This post is only about immigration not acculturation. Every post can’t be about everything.

    Given all the Africans that have come here in the last 15 or so years, that won’t be a problem.

    IMO Europe is the natural destination for that population. We’ve only had an influx of Somalis for fairly obscure and unlikely to be repeated reasons.

    Maybe I’m wrong about this but I think that rather than looking at our immigration issues as an illegal immigration vs. legal immigration one, we should be thinking of it as a Mexican immigration vs. all other nations of origin. Our Mexican immigration over the last 50 years has been orders of magnitude above all other nations of origin and Mexico is right next door. Under the circumstances it’s a barrier to assimilation.

  • ... Link

    I think that increasing the number of work visas by several orders of magnitude, i.e. into the millions rather than the present absurd 10,000, would be a practical approach to the problem.

    It’s funny to read stuff like that, or Kaus’s opinion, because there are two great lessons to be gleaned from American history.

    First, uncontrolled immigration is a bad deal for the current residents. If you don’t believe me go ask some Native American types whether or not they’d like to have their continent back. Or go ask the Mexicans who would like the half of the country we stole back in their possession. I bet NOW they wish they hadn’t invited all those Southerners to settle Texas THEN.

    Second, pick your own goddamned cotton* – the long term second order effects of creating a permanent underclass outweigh any temporary economic benefits for society as a whole**.

    * Yes, that’s a bit anachronistic, but it gets the point across quite nicely.

    ** Though certainly someone here will benefit from the new underclass, probably someone already rich/powerful.

  • First, uncontrolled immigration is a bad deal for the current residents.

    IMO over the last 60 years we’ve made three big mistakes: ending the bracero program, ending the quota system, and the amnesty of the 1980s.

    We’re always had a lot of seasonal immigrant workers. They used to be legal. Now they’re illegal. We’re going to continue to have a lot of seasonal immigrant workers. Other than workplace enforcement (my proposal) I don’t think there’s any way to change that.

    Or go ask the Mexicans who would like the half of the country we stole back in their possession.

    Poorly informed people will believe all sorts of things. Louisiana, the area of the country drained by the Mississippi-Missouri complex, wasn’t stolen from Mexico in any sense other than the one in which Mexico was stolen from the indigenes. It was bought from the French. The fraction that was ceded to the U. S. as a result of the Mexican-American War was a lot smaller than half. Basically, Arizona and New Mexico. California and Texas had already separated themselves from Mexico.

  • ... Link

    We’ve only had an influx of Somalis for fairly obscure and unlikely to be repeated reasons.

    First, Somalia isn’t the primary driver of immigration from Africa what I’ve heard and read. In fact, I’m not sure there is a primary driver.

    In 2009, almost two-thirds of African immigrants were from Eastern and Western Africa, but no individually reported country accounted for more than 14.1 percent of the foreign born from the Africa region. The top countries of origin for the African born were Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Ghana, and Kenya.

    That from an old article here, but is in line with other sources I’ve seen.

    Second, Africa is looking to add three BILLION people by the end of the century. That would have been the entire world population in 1959, and about 84% of the world population the year I was born (1968). That’s a lot of people. Thirty million from that increase would be a mere 1%, and it’s pretty easy to imagine that kind of spillover to the US, especially once the oligarchs start bitching about more fucking tomatoes rotting on the vine because there aren’t enough Mexicans coming over the border any more.

  • ... Link

    I suspect that a million unskilled, uneducated Chinese or Indian peasants would be just as difficult to assimilate in the age of the Internet as a million Mexicans are. And they’ll have the same influence on wages at the low end.

    I believe that’s his point.

  • especially once the oligarchs start bitching about more fucking tomatoes rotting on the vine because there aren’t enough Mexicans coming over the border any more.

    Now there I agree with you. IMO the solution is to hold firm by which I mean “shoot straight”.

    Still, a lot of that hypothetical depends on the persistence theory. All sorts of things can thwart it. Famine, pestilence, plague, and war lead the pack.

  • ... Link

    I didn’t mean half the US, I mean half of Mexico.

    Area of First Mexican Empire: 4,925,283 km²
    Area of Current Mexico: 1,943,950 km²

    I undersold it.

  • Yes, the Mexicans are undoubtedly still smarting over the loss of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador, and Panama.

  • ... Link

    That’s not our problem. California, Texas & the rest are.

  • ... Link

    Also, knock the size of all of Central America off that total (not just the nations you mentioned), and that still leaves a rump of the First Mexican Empire that even Kim Kardashian would envy: about 4.4 million square kilometers.

  • PD Shaw Link

    “Are today’s illegals more likely to seek citizenship than the previous cohort?”

    I don’t have any evidence on hand, but one thing that is different with more recent immigration is the disparity of political/economic conditions btw/ the U.S. and the origin country. For example, I think nearly half of Italian immigrants returned permanently to Italy. I don’t think reverse immigration is studied that well (it is a non-event in the origin country and embarrassing to the rejected country).

    I think whatever the push/pull factors between the U.S. and Central/Western Europe, they could shift almost as easily as at the Mexican border. European immigrants retained family/community ties; benefitted from strong trade and shipping connections, and in many cases could afford the ticket back.

    The U.S. is receiving people from collapsing areas of the world, in many cases with strong religious support to a variety of host cities; but once in the country they network and move to areas where they can concentrate. They will not go back, but they may not assimilate as well.

  • ... Link

    They will not go back, but they may not assimilate as well.

    Yep, and they’re bringing all their cultural practices with them, including the ones that are repugnant. Female genital mutilation now coming to a community near you, Mr. and Mrs. America! (Assuming it hasn’t already, of course.)

    Not only will a lot of the cultural wars have to be fought over and over again, the people in charge of running these things (inevitably well-educated and rich whites and Jews) will be constrained by fear of being called racists from actually addressing the issues. Expect for more shouting about the evils of white racism & Christianity whilst completely ignoring Third World cultural & religious practices that are a good deal more offensive that a Confederate flag painted across the top of a car from a TV show that’s been off the air for over 30 years.

  • CStanley Link

    they may not assimilate as well.

    I guess I have a different perspective based on my own experience- living in a middle class suburban area with a large percentage of Hispanic immigrants who are assimilating very well. I know it isn’t so in all locations but it’s hard for me to agree with the strong anti-immigration pitch based on my experiences. I do agree with the labor arguments.

  • ... Link

    When all the immigrants I knew where actuaries, doctors, engineers, and mathematicians, I also thought arguments about assimilation were silly.

    (Although the signs were there that even for this group cultural assimilation was far from easy. A lot of stories that were funny at the time, and some that weren’t, take on a different aspect when viewed as a whole. “Dog!” was a funny bit. The family of Arab Americans who were almost entirely rooting for Saddam to gas all Jews both in Israel and NYC to death during Gulf War I? Not so much.)

    But that was innumerate thinking on my part. According to one set of data I’m looking at, there were 40,000,000 foreign born folks living in the US in 2012. That doesn’t include all the first generation Americans they’ve created. Are they really all actuaries, doctors, engineers, mathematicians, and the like?

    And now, living amongst poor Haitians, PRs, other islanders, and seeing a large Mexican/Central American presence around town, I can tell you they’re not assimilating, they’re demanding we assimilate to them. Not surprisingly, the most popular sport in Orlando is now soccer, which allows well-off whites to side with poor foreigners to keep African Americans and middle and lower class white Americans in their place. It’s easier to find Kaka* swag in town than it is to find NFL or college football gear. So, assimilating to American culture isn’t as much a priority as replacing it.

    * Yes, the most popular athlete in Orlando has a name that, when spoken, to American ears, is synonymous with crap. Nós já percorremos um longo caminho, bebê!

  • PD Shaw Link

    @CStanley, I really wasn’t thinking of hispanics. I was thinking of Bosnians; there are more Bosnians living in St. Louis than anywhere not in Bosnia. Also, the Nepali-Bhutanese refugees consolidating in Akron. There are more Hmong in Minneapolis than any other city in the world. They didn’t necessarily dream of coming to America, but they were trapped in refugee camps and wanted to go anywhere, and U.S. religious organizations made the arrangements, though not necessarily to go to one location; these groups resettle together once they arrive.

    While the humanitarian concerns are admirable, some of these refugees are suffering PTSD, some are recreate self-governing organizations from the remains of former para-military organizations, and some lack any of the skills, education or experience to make a living in this country. Groups from very different cultural backgrounds are weak in legal compliance, particularly in an “advanced regulatory” system like ours.

  • some are recreate self-governing organizations from the remains of former para-military organizations

    That underscores a point I’ve tried to make again and again. When people move here from another country they may leave their possessions behind but they tend not to leave their political beliefs or the social structures they’re comfortable with behind.

    The 19th century famine Irish brought their political structures with them, what Pat Moynihan described as “an Irish village writ large” and that’s still with us today. The mid-19th century Scandinavian immigrants formed the basis of the late 19th century Progressive movement; the late 19th century Eastern and Central European immigrants formed the backbone of the American socialist movement.

    Groups from very different cultural backgrounds are weak in legal compliance, particularly in an “advanced regulatory” system like ours.

    Something that completely baffles me are the blithe assurances that people whose sole connecting link is the willingness to break American law if it gets in their way will suddenly become law-abiding citizens. It flies in the face of all reason.

  • ... Link

    Something that completely baffles me are the blithe assurances that people whose sole connecting link is the willingness to break American law if it gets in their way will suddenly become law-abiding citizens.

    It’s just like the idea that we were going to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland and Iraq into France.

  • PD Shaw Link

    There are a lot more subtle points on the legal issues. People new to this country legally often lack the intuitive sense of when laws apply or how they are administered. I’ve been referred clients who are successfully running businesses without regard to the applicable regulatory framework, who seem to be under the impression that I am to receive the requisite bribe when the regulators come. And let me emphasize, I do not believe these to be corrupt assumptions, it was just an artifact from a society in which public harms were remedied by paying someone of importance. And public harms in the U.S. are often malum prohibitum, i.e. wrong because someone prohibited it — it’s an offense against the state. And the state in this sense is the people who run it, and their benefactors.

    These rules are far from intuitive, as I learned from the recent SCOTUS case which decided on a 5-4 vote that tossing undersized grouper overboard was not a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Tossing undersized fish overboard after being confronted with law enforcement is not an innocent act, though still malum prohibitum, but nobody would think it was the equivalent of financial fraud. IOW, I now know this is prohibited for powerful people for reasons I don’t care to understand, who do I pay?

    This is sort of the context in which I think people from less-legally developed systems operate, which is a serious problem when by far most of regulatory compliance in the U.S. is voluntary, and assumes a certain level of social norms.

  • Most of the people in the world live in places that are completely lacking in a robust system of civil law, in which due process is unknown, and in which the law is whatever the guy in charge says it is.

  • Andy Link

    “That underscores a point I’ve tried to make again and again. When people move here from another country they may leave their possessions behind but they tend not to leave their political beliefs or the social structures they’re comfortable with behind.”

    I think that’s exactly right. Assimilation is a generational thing.

    “This is sort of the context in which I think people from less-legally developed systems operate, which is a serious problem when by far most of regulatory compliance in the U.S. is voluntary, and assumes a certain level of social norms.”

    In many other parts of the world patronage is the norm corruption is defined as almost the opposite – for example, if one is in a position of influence and doesn’t use that position to help family, tribe or clan, then that person is “corrupt.”

  • ... Link

    PD, the kind of thinking you describe may help explain why immigrants are more likely to start businesses: it’s a lot easier to do when you ignore the legal & regulatory framework of the USA & its constituent parts!

  • ... Link

    Also, I assume all societies function only with a large set of assumed and unspoken social norms. This helps explain the fact the ethically diverse areas have lower levels of trust – many different sets of norms are at work, and people only understand the ones they grew up with. Thus, as people violate one or several sets of norms it creates social friction which wears away the understanding of home things work. Thus another argument against large scale migration.

Leave a Comment