I’m featuring two Comments of the Day on the same post, the discussion of whether legal immigration to the U.S. should be more carefully limited by the culture and characteristics of the nation of origin, as the Trump immigration policies seem to be heading. The discussion among the commentariate has been excellent; indeed it was difficult narrowing the COTD field down to just two.

First up is the Comment of the Day by CEES VAN BARNEVELDT on the post, “A New York Times “Expert” Thinks It’s Wrong To Make Informed Judgments About Who Is Fit To Be An American…”

***

The primary criteria for allowing immigration should be…

• a) whether an immigrant would be able to become a good US citizen
• b) whether the immigrant fills an economic and cultural need for the USA

Take for example Sergey Brin. He was born in 1973 in the Soviet Union, and immigrated with his parents to the USA in 1979, during the Cold War. He is one of the two founders of Google. I would say this his immigration is a success story on both criteria. The Soviet Union at the time was the main adversary (some say enemy) of the United States at the time.

This means that we need to be careful with solely looking at country of origin as a criteria for immigration eligibility. We may want to exclude immigration from certain countries, however allow immigration on humanitarian grounds for those who flee the country due to persecution (e.g. Christians from Iran, Jews from Nazi Germany), and seek asylum.

At the other hand, a country needs to be smart. Mass immigration from dysfunctional and war-torn countries such as Somalia (USA) and Syria (Germany), with immigrants who do not integrate but instead import the dysfunctional cultural attitudes from their home country into their host country cause disruption and harm. And then I am not even talking about all those adventurers and luck seekers (basically illegal immigrants) who pretend to be asylum seekers….

For all legal immigration that is non-asylum related, the USA needs to only allow immigrants a) who have skills needed within the USA b) who are self-reliant and have proper sponsors, so they will not need public assistance c) speak decent English d) are law abiding e) display a positive attitude to American values.

***

And now Chris Marschner weighs in…

***

“But where some immigrants were born is a strong clue about what they can do for the country (or against it.)”

I think this is the crux of the issue. Can we say that all Somali refugees will undermine our values. Of course not. Just as we cannot say that anyone under 18 is not educated enough or mature enough to vote in a national election or enter into binding contracts. It is the experience of those who are elected to make judgements as to whether or not the experience remains a valid reason for exclusion. Sometimes exclusion is warranted to preserve the values that are held by the majority. I for one would not want to see an influx of persons from the British Isles who would work to promote legislation that jails people for thought crimes like they have over there. This has nothing to do with race, but rather ideology.

The claim that we need more of X to offset declining populations of one sector flies in the face of environmentalists who demand we reduce our carbon footprint. I can argue that unfettered immigration increases the US carbon footprint unjustly. Every added car, house, or mouth to feed requires production and every bit of production requires energy that increases carbon emissions. So reducing our population effectively reduces our carbon footprint and reduces demand on housing which makes housing more affordable for all who remain,

We fought a war over the idea that some wanted or needed cheap labor. Personally, I don’t know how slaves were considered cheap when the average cost was about $1000 ($800 – $1200)for a plain field hand or $20K-80K in today’s dollars and that did not include the ongoing costs of housing, feeding and medical care. Skilled slaves like Blacksmiths could command significantly higher prices.

Silly argument I know, but no sillier than the argument that we need immigrants to do things cheaply. Boiling immigration down to mere transactions which elevate GDP we do not account for spillover costs. Prisons add to GDP; so does rebuilding burned-out businesses from riots because the people were told to feel oppressed, but neither add to well being.

How often have we heard that major corporations fail to pay a living wage and rely on the government to offset those costs through SNAP, housing subsidies, Medicaid etc. ? We pay substantial amounts to maintain federally-funded child care in the form of Head Start, and NGO’s get grants to provide afte-school programs that allow mothers to work at below equilibrium wages thanks to federal subsidies. Someone is paying that bill, and the someone is future generations. Migration depresses wages in the lesser-skilled ranks and cause the Lorenz curve (income distribution) to be more skewed in favor of the few.

If anyone takes the time to read the Times article and look at the claims it makes, one of them is that immigrants or children of immigrants created more than half the Fortune 500 firms. The first one listed is Thomas Edison, founder of General Electric, whose father emigrated from Nova Scotia. Using that criteria, every Fortune 500 firm was founded by some person whose family hailed from somewhere else. The article touts stats that fail to identify from where the migrants proving most entrepreneurial come from but instead lumps all migrants together. It would be interesting to learn the sources of capital these immigrant entrepreneurs used to finance their new enterprises. It seems to me that if these immigrants have the money to open businesses then they have the resources to enter through the legal channels, and all will be well.

Collectively all the statistics are stacked to make a formidable argument in favor of open borders. That is usually the case when other statistics are deliberately omitted, such as numbers of permitted immigrants receiving social benefits, numbers of persons below 150% of the poverty level, etc.

Another fact that people forget is that minority/ethnic communities close ranks when crimes are committed by others in their community. The idea that immigrants commit fewer crimes relative to native born persons fails to consider that many crimes go unreported out of fear of being deported, or the communities facilitate “justice” through unofficial channels. When that occurs others wind up paying the costs

Ultimately, vetting requires discrimination. To discriminate in a manner that will provide for the ideal level of immigration that maximizes the benefits to both native and immigrant populations, we must have some type of screening method. Eliminating candidates who are from failed states or unstable nations is prudent, and our obligations to populations in those failed states should be seen as no more pressing than our obligations to any other nations. Refugees should be taken in by countries closest to them where the migrants will be safe. That is typically the rule for asylum seekers. Consequently, in order to determine which countries’ migrants have priority because the expected gains for both them and the U.S. are relatively high, we must identify those nations and cultures that promise the least potential. Working from the top to bottom, efficiency and equity will rule the day.