Before I turn to the end of Greg Ip’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the revolt against globalization, I want to remark on this passage:
This is also when globalists overreached. In 2000, Mr. Clinton blessed China’s entry into the WTO. Echoing Truman, he predicted China’s membership was “likely to have a profound impact on human rights and political liberty.â€
It didn’t. China adhered to the letter of its WTO obligations while systematically violating their spirit with discrimination against foreign investors and products and an artificially cheap currency. A wave of Chinese imports wiped out 2 million American jobs, according to one widely cited 2016 study, with no equivalent boom in U.S. jobs linked to exports to China. Meanwhile, China became more repressive at home and antagonistic abroad. By behaving quite differently from other members of the global trading club, China has undermined support for it.
The emphasis is mine. The problem with the highlighted statement is that it isn’t true. China has not reduced the opacity of its banks or achieved the level of foreign ownership of Chinese banks both of which were included in the terms under which China was admitted to the WTO. It has routinely failed to enforce the intellectual property rights of its trading partners. Additionally, as I have documented, China has repeatedly violated its obligations under the WTO in a way that can’t be explained by the size of China’s economy or any explanation other than China will not allow its international agreements to stand in the way of its goals.
Here’s the conclusion of the op-ed:
Above all, globalists should not equate concern for cultural norms and national borders with xenophobia. Large majorities of Americans, for example, welcome immigrants so long as they adopt American values, learn English, bring useful skills and wait their turn. Australia’s low tolerance for illegal immigration helps to maintain public support for high levels of legal entrants.
“We’ve created this false dichotomy that if you’re not for open borders, you’re racist,†says Avik Roy, president of the conservative Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a former adviser to Republican presidential candidates. “There is some sort of middle ground between a nationalist and globalist approach,†Mr. Roy argues.
There’s a genuine lack of meeting of minds between “Davos man” and the rest of us. It could be rectified by compelling globalists to live in the world that the rest of us do, one without Black Cards, Admiral’s Clubs, Sidwell Friends Schools, or gates or walls around their residences.
The open borders people tend to be either vaguely unaware or actual blithering idiots. The small-Britain, small-America people tend to be xenophobes and bigots. Extremists do have a tendency to be extreme.
I’ve never had the slightest doubt that we have a right and an obligation to control our borders, to let in who we choose, and to choose primarily those immigrants we believe will benefit the existing population. And we have a right to exclude those we don’t believe will be useful.
I think the argument should take place around that basic assumption. We should be discussing what is or is not good for us – with ‘us’ being defined as American citizens.
My position on immigration continues to be that we should adopt policies along the lines of those fascist hellholes Canada and Australia. With the battle lines drawn the way they are that, remarkably, would be a radical reform.
“I’ve never had the slightest doubt that we have a right and an obligation to control our borders, to let in who we choose, and to choose primarily those immigrants we believe will benefit the existing population. And we have a right to exclude those we don’t believe will be useful.”
This paragraph could have come from a speech of president elect Trump. Instead, it’s written by Reynolds. Go figure!
No, it could not have been written by Trump, it is in reasonably clear English, several multisyllabic words are involved, and I didn’t illustrate my point with a tweet calling a woman a fat pig.
America is a nation of immigrants, and this is part of what has made America such a rich, vibrant and successful country. When we close our borders, we are changing what America is.
We need to look at how many people our country can absorb, and should vary the immigration rates with the employment rates. We should also look at the ethnic foods they will be bringing (we have far too many southern Thai restaurants, and not nearly enough northern Thai restaurants, for instance).
We should be tracking outcomes, and adjusting our policies based on that. If Latvians have particularly high unemployment rates when they come here, and are dependent on services, we want less of them.
We can also afford to be generous and welcoming of those in need — and I would say that we, simply by virtue of being human, have a moral obligation to help people when we can comfortably do so (even Latvians, if conditions in Latvia deteriorate, despite how boring Latvian food is)
I don’t necessarily disagree with that but that would require a drastic change in our immigration policies. We’re presently at around 15%—equal to the highest in our history. The likelihood that exceeds our ability to absorb is pretty good.
I do disagree with the appeal to the U. S. being a nation of immigrants. All countries are with the possible exception of Ethiopia or Kenya. It’s just a question of timeframe.
Conditions change. For nearly two centuries the U. S. was a country where the marginal product of labor was rising. It isn’t any more and policies suited for a half century ago need to change to match modern realities.
Rather than Latvians a better example might be Somalis, if only because future immigrants are more likely to resemble Somalis than they are Latvians. Our Somali immigrants have had double digit unemployment since their arrival. The U. S. economy just isn’t producing that many jobs for people without education or skills. The percentage that remain on welfare is distressingly high.
There were specifically ethnic proportional requirements for immigration all the way into the 1950s. Now it’s the vindictive “diversity” is necessary bigotry, dominating the choices. Any proper solution will be viewed by many as “small America bigotry” in force so force will probably have to be met by force.
I picked Latvians over Somalis in my example just to avoid bringing up race. We should be tracking outcomes along as many axis as possible.
Somalis may require extra help — even if they don’t succeed as quickly as other immigrants, they fall under my belief that “we, simply by virtue of being human, have a moral obligation to help people when we can comfortably do so”
We don’t have to destroy our country, or compromise our entire way of life on charity, but we shouldn’t be stingy either.
Also, Seattle has a thriving Ethiopian community, go figure. Learning what makes that work, may help us help the Somali immigrants. (Or it may be as simple as Ethiopia isn’t as screwed up as Somalia)
Somalia is just about as different from Ethiopia as Albania is from Ireland. Different people, different customs, different religions, different languages.
A lot of Somalis have settled in Minneapolis/St. Paul and the people there have been extremely supportive. There’s a limit to what can be done.