Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog

This is an interesting breakdown on the different stands of restrictionist thought. Mickey Kaus starts off with his own position:

My party line, in clip and save form, was:

1. The immigrants we get, including illegal Mexicans, are mainly hard-working potential citizens, like waves of immigrants before them;
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. But if wages are rising, it could be a reasonably big number! See point 1;
6. 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.
7. 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.

But Kaus also notes that Ann Coulter (whom I’ve generally ignored over the last several years or so due to her tendency to say outrageous things solely for media attention) has some cognizant points for even more restriction of even legal immigration. The points Kaus summarizes seem to be from her book Adios, America:

1) Cultures differ, and culture matters: “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society,” said Daniel P. Moynihan in his finest try for Bartlett’s.** Does anyone really doubt this? If businessmen can make millions babbling about corporate “culture” — If Reddit can have a culture — why can’t we talk about the cultures from which immigrants come?

Snip.

2) Some cultures are “better” at becoming American than others: The fatal mistake, in Coulter’s eyes, was Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act, which “snuffed out the generous quotas from countries that had traditionally populated America–England, Ireland and Germany”–and added “family reunification” policies, allowing recent immigrants to bring in their relatives [not just their nuclear families], and those relatives to bring in their relatives, until entire Somali villages have relocated to Minneapolis.”

Snip.

3) Crime, in particular is an issue: Coulter was driven to focus on immigration, she says, out of frustration when she discovered that the government makes it virtually impossible to find good statistics on the amount of crime committed by immigrants:

Every time you think the government has finally produced a real number of immigrants convicted of crimes in America, there’s a catch. Legal immigrants will be excluded, convicted criminals whose country of birth is unknown are left out, Hispanic criminals will be classified as white …

Like Trump, Coulter thinks the actual amount of immigrant crime is “staggering.” Unlike Trump, she doesn’t claim the Mexican government is intentionally sending us bad actors. She argues culture, not conspiracy (or genetics). The habits we don’t like — a non-progressive view of women, for example — are characteristic of many “peasant” cultures. Mexico just has the closest.

Snip.

4) Legal immigration matters: When I first heard the restrictionists at the Center for Immigration Studies lump illegal and legal immigration together, I thought they were weird. After all, border-controllers spend a lot of time fending off the charge that they’re “anti-immgrant.” The usual response: “That’s not true! I’m not against immigration! I’m against illegal immigration,” etc. And if you want to get control of the situation — well, that almost by definition means targeting illegal immigration (while allowing whatever immigration you decide to permit).

Yet if you worry about the effects of uncontrolled immigration on wages and culture, you have to admit that legal immigration, if large enough, could have exactly the same wage-depressing and culture-dissolving effect. Scott Walker got in huge trouble a few weeks ago when he dared to suggest setting the level of legal immigration low enough to allow U.S. workers to find good jobs. Had he joined Numbers U.S.A? No. He was just carrying the logic of supply and demand to its conclusion.

Snip.

5) Diversity sucks! According to Coulter, my idea of a Los Angeles in which Korean immigrants live with Latino immigrants to produce a vibrant synergistic whole is insane. Diversity is “a train wreck.” Her big gun in this argument is the inconvenient work of a beloved liberal professor, Robert Putnam:

Contrary to his expectations–and desire –Putnam’s study showed that the greater the ethnic diversity, the less people trusted their neighbors, their local leaders, and even the news. People in diverse communities gave less to charity, voted less, had fewer friends, were more unhappy …It was not, Putnam said, that people in diverse coummnities trusted people of their own ethnicity more, and other races less. They didn’t trust anyone.

Snip.

6) We need a moratorium on immigration: You don’t need to accept any of Coulter’s heresies — cultures are unequal, diversity is bad, maybe today’s immigrants really are more problematic than previous waves — to oppose the smug consensus CW favoring “comprehensive” immigration reform. It’s enough to recognize that a) too much immigration bids down pay at the bottom, and that b) we’ll never control immigration if we try to do an amnesty before the border is secure (because the border security arrangements will promptly be undermined, as happened after the last amnesty)….She wants a 10 year “total immigration moratorium,” on the grounds that any loopholes will be abused and expanded by the immigration bureaucracy. “Just shut it down.”

I agree with all Kaus’ points and about half of Coluter’s. One exception to that moratorium I’d make is letting in the very best knowledge-workers around the world, people with critical technical skills (advanced programming, chip design, etc.) that can be done anywhere in the world in the Internet economy, so it would be best for them to do the work here. (Of course, since even that program is currently abused (“My cousin Sanjay knows Sharepoint, let’s write the rec so only he can apply so we can get him over here…”), the minimum wage threshold to qualify should be something like three times the national average wage.)

Even though this is an old post on an old book, the basic dynamics Kaus/Coulter outline are still highly relevant, if not more so after the election of Donald Trump.

The American public wants a halt to illegal alien entry into America and limitations on immigration. The ideological core of the Democratic Party wants open borders at any cost. Something has to give.

(Hat tip: Director Blue.)

Tags: Ann Coulter, Border Controls, Mickey Kaus

This entry was posted on Monday, August 13th, 2018 at 8:45 AM and is filed under Border Control. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.