Asymmetrical Information

Why, then, be in favour of immigration? Because over the long run, it builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy, .....

Yep. That is why the Japanese, who allow almost zero immigration, are so uninteresting and why their economy sucks.

Err, except that they aren't and it doesn't.

"it builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy"

If that's a reason for immigration, it seems highly subjective. The reason why America is successful is not because "we are all different" it is our incredibly hard work ethic and respect for the rule of law. Interestingly enough, illegal immgrants have the latter but by definition lack the former.

There are plenty of immigrants in European countries and other nations around the world. They are not more successful because of their diversity.

Many Americans live to work, rather than work to live, and that is why our economy is so strong. On the downside we have a few different social problems we have to deal with that most other "lazy" (if you can call it that) countries don't. Like people going into their office and shooting people because they are overworked and overstressed and realize their life has little meaning when they live to work. I imagine if we got six weeks off a year like some other countries we wouldn't be so overstressed. But there is a balance. Hard work is a virtue.

Actually, tbert, it kinda does. Since hte "Japanese are gonna rule the world" paranoia, they've been mired in a 10+ year recession, from which they are only now emerging, tepidly; a phenomenon unnoticed by most Americans. They're now well down the industrialised world per-capita GDP league tables. And the problems are plausibly attributed to their excessively consensus-based, conservative culture, which has kept the government propping up failing enterprises, and to their demographic decline, which they have failed to make up through immigration.

cdub, Japan has an incredibly hard work ethic; and almost every European country ranks better on corruption than we do. We still kick their asses. Europe's immigration problem is that it doesn't assimilate immigrant strengths into its culture.

Very interesting that most of those linking to John Leo's original article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html) , present company excepted, are ignoring the long-term effects.

The current push by the self-anointed immigrant "leaders" to use the coercive power of government to maintain ethnic separation is, however, new. It'll be interesting to see if Putnam addresses that in his paper/article/book.

and to their demographic decline, which they have failed to make up through immigration.

If you're looking for a "more interesting" way to make up for demographic decline, the more traditional method of population increase has much to recommend it.

Even George Borjas admits that immigration is a net benefit to the USA (he objects because he thinks unskilled immigrants negatively impact unskilled natives). Why shut out people who want to come here and add to the nation's wealth?

And the problems are plausibly attributed to their excessively consensus-based, conservative culture, which has kept the government propping up failing enterprises, and to their demographic decline, which they have failed to make up through immigration.

So then they plausibly didn't have those problems from 1955 to 1989, had them from 1989 to 2003, then in 2003 fixed them, right? Will you let us see your regression analysis of GDP growth per capita across countries and time periods for variables like level and composition of immigration and self-perceived interestingness of culture?

> the more traditional method of population increase has much to recommend it

Actually, WHY the traditional method does not seem to increase the population of most (all?) top-tier countries is an interesting topic in and of itself. Would our gracious host care to proffer an economic analysis?

My nagging suspicion is that policy changes necessary to encourage the, khmmm.... propagation might also remove most of objections to immigration. But I'm not about to back that up.

What can be a non-problem when digging out of near-apocalyptic rubble, and rebuilding from that state, can become a problem at a later date, when people have grown much wealthier and comfortable, and thus have a much larger interest in the status quo.

Marx didn't get much right, but he was dead-on when he said the capitalism was the greatest enemy of the status quo ever devised by humans. Societies which grasp too tightly to the status quo deny themselves capitalism's greatest benefits. When I read people, as I did here last week, advocate lower levels of immigration, because the bakery goods in stores are changing, I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or shudder in fear.

What can be a non-problem when digging out of near-apocalyptic rubble, and rebuilding from that state, can become a problem at a later date, when people have grown much wealthier and comfortable, and thus have a much larger interest in the status quo.

Which is why I chose a starting date that was after the digging and rebuilding to pre-apocalyptic levels was complete, but who's really counting.

If you're looking for a "more interesting" way to make up for demographic decline, the more traditional method of population increase has much to recommend it.

Undoubtedly, but wealth and procreation are, in general, inversely correlated. The US exceeds the replacement rate via immigration, not nativist procreative sex.

Wouldn't Putnam's findings suggest that the regular immigration pauses, similar in kind if not duration to the 1920s-60s pause, are necessary to reap the benefits of immigration? If immigration creates short- and medium-term problems but long-term benefits, then continuous immigration would result in continuous short- and medium-term problems from new immigrants off-setting or even swamping the long-term benefits from previous immigrants. Am I missing something?

America's diverse, stronger, and more interesting culture has also been claimed to be an indirect cause of the rather large difference in homicide rates between it and other countries. Put a lot of different ethnic groups together, and you get tension, of course, and at the extreme end of that is murder.

Not that I'm against diversity. It's just that I believe that fire's great, in that it gives you a lot of light, but one must realize that it can also burn you on rare occasion.

Er, Megan...maybe it's better if you stay off this subject for awhile?

almost every European country ranks better on corruption than we do.

Ranked by whom, how were the ranking done and using what objective measurements?

If you’re referring to the rankings by Transparency International (click on my name for the link) I’m not sure I would put much stock in a study which (a) uses different surveys with different questions for each country rather than consistent questions and measurements, (b) targets different groups for their questions rather than targeting the same group within each country and (c) doesn’t actually measure corruption by any objective measure but just asks the targeted group(s) about their subjective perception of corruption within that country.

But if you have a study that doesn't have these methodological problems, I for one would be interested in seeing it.

Jane Posted: Why, then, be in favour of immigration?

Why is the immigration debate so all or nothing? Why doesn't the argument "it builds a stronger, more interesting culture and economy" favor skilled immigration? Or more geographically/racially diverse immigration? And how do we know we aren't getting the diversity benefit with our current levels of *legal* immigration (ie the price of lettuce won't double/triple if the illegal aliens were encouraged to go home)?

Responding to Jane's response in which she makes the o-so-common mistake of picking and choosing the arguments I made to rebut, rather than refuting the whole. I offered two reasons, you disputed one each of them in two seperate cases and declared fait accompli.

Japan has a good work ethic, but probably not borderline unhealthily so as America does. Japan takes 25 days off a year on average. We take 13.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html

Look at the rest of Europe in that table. Clearly we work longer and harder (as anyone who has worked with Europeans knows anecdotely).

As for the rule of law, I would assume we are pretty equal in that regard to many "western" (including Japan) countries. But I'm sure there are some differences here and there.

Certainly I don't think these two factors are the ONLY factors in determining a success of a nation, but they are two crucial factors. The fact that illegal immigrants do not respect the law is an important element here. And please don't ask me if I have ever exceeded the speed limit. I don't drive 100 miles an hour every time I jump in the car, but every time an illegal immigrant gets up and goes to work they intentionally violate the laws in a variety of ways for their own self benefit. Opening the flood gates and letting them all in just so they can be legal is a foolish thing to do too.

WHY the traditional method does not seem to increase the population of most (all?) top-tier countries is an interesting topic in and of itself. Would our gracious host care to proffer an economic analysis?

I can't speak for our gracious hostess, but I think it's fairly simple. 1) Birth control and 2) women's equality.

Both contribute to wealth by adding workers to the economy, allowing them to work harder and longer, and concentrating the resultant wealth by reducing the number of non-producing dependants. But ultimately a severe birth dearth will kill an economy and way of life. Immigration is a partial way out, provided you get good immigrants (as the US generally does) and not do what Europe's been doing.

AT, I think you overrate the relative level of material comfort achieved by the typical citizen of Japan by 1955, and thus you underrate the difference in degrees of devotion to the status quo in that year, compared to 1989, but who's really counting, especially when juvenile sarcasm is the goal?

It looks like Robert Putnam has shown that ethnic diversity makes people less gullible.

"less gullible"?

So a Japanese man should be just as trusting of the guy next to him in Tokyo as he should be in NYC, LA or Rio?

The road to hell seems to be paved with taking a sociological study as the all important key to the word of G-d, everything should fall down before it. This happened to us in the early 50's with the sociological study that found that black kids did better in school in an integrated environment. Separate but equal was therefore not correct, and therefore schools had to be integrated according to a recipe and anybody who hadn't been integrated, had to have exactly the right recipe. That, in light of the fact that black kids that were integrated seemed more interested in vengance than education made the schools much less usuable, increased the cost to nonblack people to having children and probably contributed to our needing more Mexicans to get things done and we're still angry about it.

" ... wealth and procreation are, in general, inversely correlated. The US exceeds the replacement rate via immigration, not nativist procreative sex. ..."

Wealth and procreation are inversely correlated only because the Welfare State (e.g. Social Security) has totally distorted traditional family structures. If each one of us knew that our own children were going to be the only thing standing between us and starvation in our old age, then we would be damned sure to (a) have an optimum number of children, and (b) make sure those children grew up to be responsible, hard-working adults rather than perpetual adolescents.

Is anybody really naive enough to think that, once all these immigrants become citizens and start voting, they're going to vote for policies to benefit a bunch of geriatric Gringos who never liked them much in the first place? Hell No! They're going to vote for programs that benefit themselves and their own children. They're not stupid.

P.S.: What exactly is "nativist sex," anyhow???

P.S.: What exactly is "nativist sex," anyhow???

I could be mistaken but I believe it starts with hula dancing and those drinks in a coconut with a little umbrella in them.

"it [immigration] builds a stronger, more interesting culture," quoth Jane.

"May you live in interesting times." says an ancient Chinese curse.

So is there data or isn't there? Or are we just allowed to assume that "over the long run, [immigration] builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy," because immigration is good?

And anyway, the article says that after the "devastating short- and medium-term influence," "in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties." It doesn't say whether these are stronger than the old ties, or are just repairing the damage done. We'd have to see the study for that, which apparently the author won't release until he's decided how he can spin it toward his preferred policy goals.

Japan's highly efficient, creative-inhibiting hive-structure suffered repeated blows in the late 1980's. By the 1990's they failed to keep pace with world-wide innovation and lost focus that was exemplified by Akio Morita, Sony's founder.

After WWII, a number of Japanese 'entrepreneurs' were eager to return honour to the country, show the Americans they were their equal, even their superiors, in making the country strong again. When Morita, and his peers, passed on their very successful organizations to their successors, things were looking pretty good for the Japanese machina. In the next 2-3 generations of leaders, they became complacent, interested in more pleasure time (less hive-like) and got their butts waxed (so to speak).

Immigration has never been a major factor in the country, although they've allowed more of it in the past 15 years than ever before in their history. If you look at the narrowness of that factor, they've declined in economic power once they started letting in MORE immigrants. Still, when you pinky-sip your lattes in the Ginza (yep, they gottem), there is an amazing number of non-Japanese that you see working there (Koreans, and other Asians). Nothing like in the 70's, when it was impossible to find anyone, even an Ainu, anywhere in the Tokyo-Yokohoma metroplex.

Long story short (sorry!)...the real long term result can be stronger, the way mutts are genetically stronger to overly pure breds. What can happen, though, is if the new influxes are more dominant to the prevailing societ, due to their cultural energy, then the blend of these two creates a new cultural that can (and has) be unalterably changed, and not always in good ways.

CCRWCN
(Card-Carrying-Right-Wing-Conspiracy-Nut)

It should not be news to anyone in Americ that if you juxtapose large ethnic groups, they have trouble getting along? This is the academic equivalent of "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here".

I don't think this was the shocking bit, although some people might find it so -- the shocking bit was that it wasn't a problem of inter-ethnic tension. People didn't trust other people regardless of race. There was an across-the-board drop in community feeling, trust, etc. Or so I understand from the news reports.

Re:

Actually, tbert, it kinda does. Since hte "Japanese are gonna rule the world" paranoia, they've been mired in a 10+ year recession, from which they are only now emerging, tepidly; a phenomenon unnoticed by most Americans. They're now well down the industrialised world per-capita GDP league tables.

Not that far down, actually, although they have sunk (and at least part of that is the koureika shift as the aging population retires and moves out of the workforce). On GNP and GNI, they still ranked higher than the UK, France, Germany, Australia, and Canada in 2005. Possibly this is because they have transferred a number of operations abroad to take advantage of cheap local labour or to evade tariffs, or maybe they're just deriving income from their massive real estate purchases in the 80s. Or something. Whatever the reason, it's hard to see the 90s as much of a recession -- apart from the bubble popping, it wasn't negative growth so much as economic stagnation.

And the problems are plausibly attributed to their excessively consensus-based, conservative culture, which has kept the government propping up failing enterprises, and to their demographic decline, which they have failed to make up through immigration.

Well, yes. They're still conservative and consensus based, but the consensus has been moving slightly over the past decade. The employment system has shifted away from the old lifetime employment system to increasing reliance on temporary and short term workers (haken). The corporations law was recently revised. The practice of Amakudari, where bureaucrats retire to cushy jobs in private industry to lobby their former co-workers, has been curtailed. The practice of gyousei shidou, "administrative guidance" has been banned. And Koizumi and Abe have been helping the postal savings system, with its $3 trillion in assets, to privatise, hopefully so some of that capital can be put to more productive uses.

Anyhow, that's all beside the more fundamental issue, when looking at Japanese society in connection with immigration, which is that they live in an astonishingly safe country, one that is polite, orderly, and efficient in ways we can only dream of here in the US. Honestly, it's by far the most pleasant city I've ever spent any length of time in. And that's why they're reluctant to let unruly foreigners (like you or me) in the country permanently.

There's a meme going around that immigrants have no respect for the rule of law. I find that hard to swallow, because the current law is *so* risible. There's no enforcement mechanism. It's disobeyed to the tune of 10%+ of the American work force. Moreover, Congress has known about this for 20 years and hasn't fixed it.

You can say "yes, but people should obey that law anyway, and if they don't, then they have no respect for the rule of law", which is nice and pat. But a really thoughtful Mexican might consider the marginal damage to the rule of law on the one hand, if he sneaks across; and the marginal benefit to himself, his family and the economy on the other hand; and decide the latter outweighs the former. I can't fault that moral logic.

Wealth and procreation are inversely correlated only because the Welfare State (e.g. Social Security) has totally distorted traditional family structures.

Social welfare structures can certainly contribute to those kinds of attitudes, but that's not the thrust of the argument here. It is well known that there are certain general trends that occur in virtually any society as people become more wealthy. One of the very first is that they increase meat consumption in their diet. And one of the later ones is that they have fewer children.

3rd strawman.

3rd knockdown.

Yawn 3X.

anony-mouse: having FEWER children is one thing; committing auto-genocide or cultural suicide is a bit more extreme. That is what's happening in Europe, and it could happen here also.

Why, then, be in favour of immigration? Because over the long run, it builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy, which is why America kicks the rest of the world's ass on such a regular basis.

Well, a corollary to this is the feasibility of stopping or substantially reducing immigration. It's not like our choice is immigration vs. no immigration. Our choice rather is: the costs and benefits of immigration vs. the costs and benefits of stopping/reducing immigration.

It's obviously not impossible to radically slash immigration. But it would be incredibly expensive to do so, given the economic dynamics involved (ie., large numbers of people who don't cooperate with the law as it now is). I can't think of any countries that have managed to dramatically reduce the flow of people in and out that aren't highly militarized. So sure, we could, given the political will, make America's southern border resemble the one between North and South Korea, but why would we want to?

As for the rule of law, I would assume we are pretty equal in that regard to many "western" (including Japan) countries. But I'm sure there are some differences here and there.

Rule of Law means something different in Japan than it does in the US, I think. Some people criticise Japan for a lack of the rule of law after all, pointing to their lack of a jury system (although they have been debating introducing one), to the widespread use of mild torture in extracting confessions from accused criminals, and from the resulting 99.999% conviction rate in the courts. In other ways, the practice of gyousei shidou, or administrative guidance, which many commentators understood to underly MITI's ability to guide the progress of Japanese industry, operated almost wholly outside the boundaries of the law. Regulators would use obscure threats and rewards in private communications to promote development here and suppress investment there and so on. Until the introduction of the Administrative Procedure Law (Gyousei Tetsudzuki-Hou), I don't think this practice was regulated in any way, or even formalised as a power of the bureaucracy. Even today, at the national level, legislation seems to be produced less through the public efforts of members of the Diet than through shingikai, analogous to Cheney's Energy Task Force, in which interest groups meet to advance their objectives, potentially producing reports and draft legislation and so forth. Closed to the public, limited or no minutes, and so forth. As a system, it is very different from what we understand to be a "rule by law" country, here in the US. It's produced a country that works quite well, by international standards, but . . . it's not really governed according to written laws and the punctilio of procedure in the way that the US is.

There have been shifts to make it more like the US, in some ways, such as the Administrative Procedure Law and various other government reforms, and since the popping of the bubble, the LDP's absolute dominance over the national government has been shaken (well, once. For a few months). And they're going to have juries or jury-like entities at some point. And people are suing more. But even when these changes come to full fruition, I suspect it will be a lot less legalistic than we have here in the US. The shape of their society is very different.

Girlfriend, are you mocking me? heh. That's okay. I deserved it. I came to the same conclusion as you in the comment section.

I am in favor of immigration -- but not uncontrolled immigration. We should manage both the rate of influx and try to make sure we get good people.

Sometimes people trundle along, with varying degrees of friction, to cultural and economic benefit, eventually coalescing and forging a new identity. Such is the history of nations. In other times and under other circumstances, violence, corruption, disintegration, balkanization are the rewards of diversity. Actually, a time-lapse history map would demonstrate both tendencies working away at once. It is preposterous to believe that diversity from high immigration, in and of itself, gives your nation eternal butt-kicking super-powers. (Does Jane really think that high immigration could in itself keep the party going, despite even a declining devotion to rule of law, as she seems to be suggesting in noting our corruption rating relative to European nations?) Equally preposterous is the implication that Japan's homogeneity and lack of immigration is rendering it some pathetic basket-case among the nations of the earth. (And I don't know by what metric the Japanese have a culture less "interesting" than anybody else's, diverse or homogeneous.)

Optimists (or Pollyannas, if you prefer) like Jane believe that because the American polity really has shown itself to be astoundingly dynamic and flexible, its fibers are therefore infinitely elastic, and it can pretty much continually absorb vast number of immigrants, of any kind, from any culture, under any geopolitical conditions, and remain the same prosperous, stable, rule-of-law, and cohesive nation we know and love. The gloomier among us, on the other hand, can be "very disturbed" by demonstrable short- and medium-term effects, as we know full well that the long-term effects are not always jolly.

"If he’s right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a 'new, broader sense of we.' The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation."

I will note that Jane treats the serious questions of large-scale immigration in "an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation" with glib dismissals and lots of hand-waving about how she herself of course deplores anti-assimilative attitudes and legal measures, while at the same time insisting that anti-assimilative forces are no different or no greater than they ever were. (The same treatment she gives to the thorny question of immigration in modern welfare states). Note also that Putnam "is hopeful", not that Putnam's research definitively demonstrates that it will all work out in the long term. In fact, I suspect that Putnam’s "two positive points" are grounded more in wishful thinking than in any exhaustive historical study: that "in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies 'dampen the negative effects of diversity' by constructing new identities". The question-begging in the second point is not reassuring.

OH. MY. GOD.

At the start, did Jane actually imply that Japan's problems are partially caused by a lack of immigrants? With immigrants the problems of the nineties would have been even worse. Japan exudes what is known as external diversity, like France used to. When you go to Japan you feel like you're in a different universe, unlike when you go to Europe nowadays, where every city is a carbon copy of New York.

Steve Sailer discusses the differences between external and internal diversity here

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/11/diversity-means-homogeneity.html

"France was an example of external diversity. It worked hard to make itself culturally homogenous internally, so therefore, when observed from the outside, it was obvious that it had a distinct character of its own. It took in a steady but not overwhelming flow of immigrants, mostly from other Roman and Orthodox Catholic countries in Europe, such as Chopin from Poland and Zola's father from Italy, and brought all the considerable resources of the French state and society to forcing them to adopt French culture. But, now it has taken in too many people from Africa who don't want to, or can't, or both, adjust to French culture."

In the end diversity and mass immigration mean global homogeneity.

Taeyoung - your post on Japan and rule-of-law is very interesting. What about "rule of law" on the day-to-day, individual level? For example, while there is certainly corruption, anti-democratic procedure, and back-room dealing in the U.S., the average joe (at least in the parts of the U.S. I've lived in!) can be confident that impersonal rules will be applied in most of his dealings with others and with the law. My property rights will (most of the time) be respected. I've never had to cough up la mordida to obtain services, etc. I assume a Japanese can have the same sort of confidence in his quotidian dealings, no?

Yugoslavia had an "interesting" culture back in the 1990's; so did Rwanda. Algeria also had an "interesting" culture in the 1950's.

A three-way race war (black / brown / white) ought to be REALLY interesting. I can't hardly wait.

Jane Galt said

"[Japan's] problems are plausibly attributed to their excessively consensus-based, conservative culture"

Yes this has really set them back developmentally, the Japanese are the most notoriously uninnovative and uninventive people on the planet. I can't think of a single thing they invented.

Yes this has really set them back developmentally, the Japanese are the most notoriously uninnovative and uninventive people on the planet. I can't think of a single thing they invented.

Scanning for intended or unintende irony...beep...beep...beep...

*click* scan inconclusive.

Well, which is it?

"Because over the long run, it builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy": there's just a hint there that you picture a burst of immigration that somehow slows or stops until some optimal degree of assimilation occurs. (I suppose that roughly describes your late 19th century immigration?)But what if you are facing an exponential growth of immigration for 4 or 5 generations without pause?

Talk about a religion of sociolgy. We haven't even seen the study. All of a sudden, it's most novel conclusions are gospel truth at all times in all places, in any frame of reference, apply in any and all circumstances, are THE most important thing. Your personal experience, your lieing eyes; forget about 'em. Naturally, this 'dangers of mixed peoples' study is the perfect rebuttal to that last sociological study, that black kids HAD to be mixed with white or the world wouldn't be level which launched our last cultural revolution even if the implications are a perfect contradiction.

anony-mouse,

As a patent attorney, I can assure you that the Japanese are very prolific inventors.

On behalf of all fobs a huge THANKS for your series of posts on immigration - they are the best! screw wikipedia & f**k japan! we ofcourse go overboard on diversity occasionally (there's an excellent 'office' episode mocking it-2nd season i think) but so long as meritocracy isn't at risk i think its a big plus & probably why why we kick everyones ass everywhere -& why would anyone want to live in a homogeneous culture anyway!
some interesting projections here
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c02cont.htm

The reason why America is successful is not because "we are all different" it is our incredibly hard work ethic and respect for the rule of law. Interestingly enough, illegal immgrants have the latter but by definition lack the former.

In my experience, about 90% of native-born Americans violate the speed limit whenever traffic allows doing so. The other 10% don't drive much, or at all. So does this mean the native-born have no respect for the rule of law? Or just that they have no respect for regulations that are applied blindly without regard to the particular situation? I think that's how Mexicans regard our immigration laws.

Jane, we're still waiting for an explanation of, "almost every European country ranks better on corruption than we do." In particular, I'd like to know if this takes into account such things as the corruption in the oil-for-food program, and troops on loan to the UN using refugees as sex slaves.

In the long run, we're all dead.

Don't the arguments in favor of unrestricted immigration sound exactly like those for ratifying Kyoto? Do it our way, now. Trust us. It won't hurt as much as you think. The future benefits will be worth it.

That one isn't flying, either.

Is it ethnic diversity per se, or rather the fact this diversity allows for a greater number and mix of high-striving individuals from varied backgrounds that is immigration's strength?

Also, the "We are a Nation of Immigrants" stuff is not quite accurate. We are a nation of settlers. It's this "settling" and accepting certain core American values and the concept of American nationhood that allows immigrants to thrive here and the rest of us to accept them.

In the past, the upheavals brought on by mass immigration were resolved when the newer arrivals began to actually "settle." Nowadays, assimilation is more difficult because of this fraudulent "multiculturalism."

So does this mean the native-born have no respect for the rule of law? Or just that they have no respect for regulations that are applied blindly without regard to the particular situation? I think that's how Mexicans regard our immigration laws.

People may well disregard a law they consider capricious and arbitrary, but I'm not sure that the cited examples rise so high as to implicate respect for rule of law. Red lights are generally heeded, for example, even when the intersection is clear and no cops are visible.

Seems to me (in either the speeding or the illegal immigration) that the particular law is of so little consequence to those it addresses, it can be quickly reduced to a basic cost/benefit analysis -- where the expected cost is anticipated to be extraordinarily low (as a function of likelihood and magnitude) compared to the benefit (which is certain and immediate).

This is hardly shocking enough to merit "very disturbing". It should not be news to anyone in Americ that if you juxtapose large ethnic groups, they have trouble getting along? This is the academic equivalent of "I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here".

It's hardly shocking that a mommyblogger got it wrong.

Why, then, be in favour of immigration? Because over the long run, it builds a stronger, more interesting culture, and economy, which is why America kicks the rest of the world's ass on such a regular basis. But there are short term costs

Except that when America was truly "kicking" everyones ass in the world we were not as diverse as you seem to believe.

Wasn't a lot of our massive innovation taking place during times when we had lots of immigration without a heck of a lot of diversity in most places? Diversity across the country, even within a big city, yes, but not so much within the neighborhood, right?

Massive immigration worked out really well for us for the last century and a half, but not nearly as well for most other places. But the US is a unique case; by the same token, you could argue that merchantilism, a large empire of brutally-won and held colonies, and a heavy investment in the slave trade were good paths to follow to power and wealth, since they worked so well for the British Empire in the eighteenth/ninteenth centuries.

And the externalities, Jane? You expect the government to address these in other contexts.

JG, the dynamics of now (last 30 years) and the 200 years before that, have been totally different. Trying to say that what happened more than three decades ago, will happen with the more recent immigrants, is ignoring a lot of danger signs.

The latest immigrants (mainly illegal) are not at all interested in assimilation. On the contrary, their absolute desire to self-insulate, start their own television and radio stations, is much more extreme than any previous immigrant group. They are fracturing the US, as Putnam's study shows, not making the USA stronger.

A great writer to read, Ilana Mercer (www.ilanamercer.com), has some very pointed ideas while discussing Putnam's ideas:

"Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, ‘the most diverse human habitation in human history.’” Since this is all very perplexing to the “progressive” Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, allow me to save the good professor from another future shock. People are doing more than hunkering down in these unhappy habitations; they are fleeing."

It is much too simplistic to say all immigration is good, this immigration group will do the same as all others, etc. What we need to do, is take power from the government and their Liberal organizations, to direct immigration itself, and how they are let in and assimilated. If they aren't assimilated, the whole USA thing fails. I don't want that.

Comments are Closed.