There is what strikes me as a good, reasonable article articulating the opposing positions on immigration by historian Yuval Noah Harari at the Economist. Here’s a snippet:
Term 1: The host country allows the immigrants in.
Term 2: In return, the immigrants must embrace at least the core norms and values of the host country, even if that means giving up some of their traditional norms and values.
Term 3: If the immigrants assimilate to a sufficient degree, over time they become equal and full members of the host country. ‘They’ become ‘us’.
These three terms give rise to three distinct debates about the exact meaning of each term:
He goes on to frame three different debates—on the obligations of host countries, assimilation, and full participation.
I wouldn’t say I was anti-immigration but an immigration skeptic. I think the burden of proof is on those who favor immigration. I don’t think that those who favor immigration are doing a good job of persuasion. More like browbeating.
I think there are underappreciated risks related to immigration. Take language, for example. I think that language has a close relationship with a country’s deep culture. You can’t really assimilate unless you speak a country’s language and, unlike some, I think that assimilation is an obligation that immigrants undertake. Do you know which immigrant group are the least likely to speak English at home? According to the Census Bureau, it’s South Asians. I think that says something about recent immigration and immigrants.
However, the gravest challenges posed by immigration aren’t to the United States. We’ve had substantial immigration for all of our history and will weather the present storm. The gravest challenge is to the ethnic states of Europe. I do not know what they will do. Right now they’re not handling the situation well.