What’s Wrong with the World

I know, through an association of which I am a member, property developers who by their own admission are centimillionaires (or better - what I know for sure is that they could not afford the airplanes they own if they were not centimillionaires) only because they can exploit cheap illegal labor. One of the most glaring things about the immigration debate is the failure of the pro-open-borders side to face the fact that illegal immigration is the new slavery; except that because slaves are taken under a lease, there aren't the problems of conscience associated with prior forms of chattel slavery.

That's modernity for you: same old vices, more efficiently numbed consciences.

That's modernity for you: same old vices, more efficiently numbed consciences.

That observation reminds me of something I've learned from my Russian in-laws in Sevastopol: the mayor, who was appointed by the president, the pro-Western kleptocrat Yushchenko, decided to "reform" property relations in Sevastopol by selling public lands to his lackies, and even openly selling private property to his cronies. That is to say, he just stole property in order to sell it to his retainers.

Not a dime's worth of substantial differences between this and Kelo; it's merely the case that our legal mechanisms more efficiently obscure the moral nature of the process, thus allowing consciences to be salved.

Maximos declares: "Ironically, mass immigration is, economically speaking, one of the most regressive policies in the arsenal of the neoliberal/neoconservative/globalist establishment, one that not only adversely impacts the native-born poor and lower-middle classes..."

Amusing how narrow the lense through which we view our facts here in this recurring diatribe of Maximos at W4 (granted, I don't necessarily subscribe to the liberal view of the Vox-Novans even in this regard in addition to those of theirs previously discussed on the blog), presenting things as if the mass immigration of certain Europeans (e.g., Italians, Irish, etc.) never had occured in the annals of American history. Oh what plight the native-born poor & lower-middle classes suffered then and how incredibly horrible the repercussions America suffered as a result!

Zippy:

I know, through an association of which I am a member, property developers who by their own admission are centimillionaires (or better - what I know for sure is that they could not afford the airplanes they own if they were not centimillionaires) only because they can exploit cheap illegal labor.

Be that as it may, objectively speaking, I doubt that those that comprise such cheap illegal labor would prefer the alternative, which perhaps might be the very reason why they would tolerate such adversity in the first place. Admittedly, that doesn't make this right; however, the severity of the exploitation depends on how you view the facts and from which lense you view them. In the case of those who are actually the "cheap illegal labor" being exploited, they (however horrendous their situation is to the outsider) would prefer that over the alternative.

There are those I know who formerly were "cheap illegal labor" that ended up triumphing over these circumstances and, in fact, went on to become valued members of American society.

One in particular went on to graduate from Johns Hopkins Medical School, became an eminent medical doctor/scientist and presently conducts a prominent Cancer research study.

Oh what plight the native-born poor & lower-middle classes suffered then and how incredibly horrible the repercussions America suffered as a result!

There obtains no equivalence between the vast migrations of yesteryear and those of the present, for reason of the differences between the the respective groups of immigrants themselves, the propinquity and uniformity of the current donor regions, the existence of the apparatus of the welfare state, and the alterations made in our political economy in the intervening decades (a manufacturing economy could absorb millions of European immigrants; while a post-modern, post-industrial, cognitive-meritocratic economy cannot absorb tens of millions of marginally educated poor from the third world).

One of the most glaring things about the immigration debate is the failure of the pro-open-borders side to face the fact that illegal immigration is the new slavery;

People that supported Comprehensive Immigration Reform or at least a good many of them are not really for open borders

I doubt that those that comprise such cheap illegal labor would prefer the alternative, ...

That really isn't the point though. Prostitutes become prostitutes in a great many cases presumably because they prefer it to what they view as their alternatives. That isn't persuasive as an argument in favor of the actions of either the exploited or those who exploit them.

I'm not equating illegal aliens to prostitutes, btw -- I'm just illustrating that "they prefer it" isn't a particularly pertinent argument, generally speaking.

Neither is "things worked out really well for Bob", for that matter. That things worked out for Bob does not justify his own prior actions nor the actions of those who exploited him.

I wrote about some of the considerations which I think apply some time ago in this post.

aristocles: What Jeff (Maximos) said. Additionally, those waves of immigrants did change America, and not necessarily for the better. It's all very well for a descendant of those immigrants to proclaim how much he likes what his ancestors did to the place, but whether a native circa 1830 would have approved of the changes is perhaps more relevant to the question of whether American natives circa 2008 should endorse further immigration. Obviously immigrants, then and now, prefer by definition to be in the US. They've already voted with their feet, but why should they get to vote on whether they get to come here in the first place? If citizenship and national boundaries mean a thing, that is a decision for Americans to make.

That comment, Cyrus, is a marvel of succinct common sense.

The general manner in which Maximos had presented the matter in the original quote skewed things without giving due consideration to certain particulars as those mentioned in his subsequent response to me.

Yes, there is, admittedly, a confluence of various factors in the modern case that would find mass immigration today as something particularly detrimental to both our nation's economy and its general well-being; but that's just it -- there was no such mention of the various elements that would make that so in our present circumstances.

It seemed to me Maximos was attributing fault to 'mass immigration' alone without any mention of the elements (e.g., the detestable welfare state our nation has become and will continue to devolve into given the prevailing political faction that will ultimately, and unfortunately, consummate its political power come November) that would make mass immigration today a problem for Americans, avoiding even the mere fact that such mass immigration had actually taken place in America's past and, contrary to the originally-stated and your opinion, did actually deliver positive results for our nation -- those of which we continue to reap the positive benefits thereof even in our present day (however, to discuss this at length would require another thread entirely).

As to the matter of the immigrants which comprised the mass migrations of yesteryear, these too consisted of the marginally-educated poor (e.g., the Irish immigrants from the Great Famine were largely impoverished uneducated farmers). However, this didn't stop certain of these from becoming themselves persons of great import to our nation's history or even their descendants.

" It's all very well for a descendant of those immigrants to proclaim how much he likes what his ancestors did to the place, but whether a native circa 1830 would have approved of the changes is perhaps more relevant to the question of whether American natives circa 2008 should endorse further immigration."

Cyrus that is indeed the issue I suppose and at least it is a honest viewpoint. THe issue here is not really about the "illegals" in the broad sense. That issue is only being used by political groups to foist a perhaps more drastic agenda than mnay conservatives realize.

THere should be a deabte including holding conservatives and Catholic voices feet to the fire as to their alliances with some groups (CIS, FAIR, NUMBERS USA) that have quite a Malthusian agenda.

Of course this can be done in a civil manner and perhaps that was missing from the immigration deabte on all sides the last three years

As to the matter of the immigrants which comprised the mass migrations of yesteryear, these too consisted of the marginally-educated poor (e.g., the Irish immigrants from the Great Famine were largely impoverished uneducated farmers).

However, this didn't stop certain of these from becoming themselves persons of great import to our nation's history or even their descendants.

I'm sorry, but since I do not have the ability to predict what would have been or even could have been had the nation consisted only of those descendants which stemmed from the original 13 colonies; as I am only limited to present-day facts as they are, one of these being that we are a world power (and, hopefully, will continue to be).

Although I admit that this can't be attributed solely to the contributions made by immigrants or their descendants; however, you cannot deny that a certain of such people did play a pivotal role to this nation becoming the very world power as it exists today, what with the significant contributions such immigrants (and their descendants) had made in areas as that of art and, in particular, Science!

One other thing. The idea that its the wealthy who reap the benefits of lower labor costs from immigration while the rest of us are stuck with the bill for the higher cost of social services has it exactly backwards. Social services are paid for by those who pay taxes, which in present day America means primarily the wealthy. The lower prices of goods and services brought about by immigration, by contrast, can be enjoyed by all.

"But as conservatives of various stripes, we can see that much has been lost as well,..."

Go ahead and elaborate. Please.

The idea that its the wealthy who reap the benefits of lower labor costs from immigration while the rest of us are stuck with the bill for the higher cost of social services has it exactly backwards.

"Jobs Americans won't do" is to a significant degree code for "jobs employers don't want to have to hire unreliable American blacks to do, and would rather hire more reliable and cheaper illegals to do". So more than one someone is paying here, at least when we construe 'paying' to broadly refer to economic and other impacts.

Also, I expect that if you look at the actual wealthy individuals who benefit versus the amount of taxes they pay, the picture changes rather significantly. Not to mention that spreading tax revenues over a larger body of claimants means less per native claimant.

In general I am very skeptical of 'sound bite' analysis of the putative aggregate economic impacts of illegal immigration. And in any case it is important to keep in mind that economic considerations do not trump other considerations.

Go ahead and elaborate. Please.

Zippy:

That really isn't the point though. Prostitutes become prostitutes in a great many cases presumably because they prefer it to what they view as their alternatives. That isn't persuasive as an argument in favor of the actions of either the exploited or those who exploit them.

I cannot believe that a person of your intellect and supposed virtue would actually draw a parallel between a prostitute and "cheap illegal labor".

This is an egregious error, one which I hope you'll rectify in a subsequent post.

Prostitution, dear chap, is inherently sinful in character; the latter, not.

Should you even attempt to argue the latter as being something even remotely similar to the former, I should think that your excursion is taking a rather damaging toll on your intellect; in which case I would cease and return to work immediately.

"I can't speak for Cyrus, but if the pluralistic open society..."

I think Cyrus was referring to demographics post-Plymouth Rock and not modernity's preferred means for self-strangulation.

I'm sorry, but there is no delicate way to say this; a nation made up only of immigrants (yep, the Lodges were immigrants) tracing their roots to the Mayflower and Jamestown would either commit mass carnage on a golf couse, die of terminal ennui, or be overrun by nomads unimpressed by family crests and lime green pants.

There, I said it.

Social services are paid for by those who pay taxes, which in present day America means primarily the wealthy. The lower prices of goods and services brought about by immigration, by contrast, can be enjoyed by all.

Well, whatever. Let's all cheer the emergence of a postmodern, plutocratic servile state: the wealthy rule for their own benefit, and deprive us proles of our nation and culture, not to mention any realistic prospect of the independence that is the foundation of republican government, but at least we get cheap crapola on the way down the gurgler. Hot d**m!

I cannot believe that a person of your intellect and supposed virtue would actually draw a parallel ...

I'm sorry, but there is no delicate way to say this; a nation made up only of immigrants (yep, the Lodges were immigrants) tracing their roots to the Mayflower and Jamestown would either commit mass carnage on a golf couse, die of terminal ennui, or be overrun by nomads unimpressed by family crests and lime green pants.

Comment of the week.

Well, whatever. Let's all cheer the emergence of a postmodern, plutocratic servile state....

We could do that. Or you could just admit that you were wrong about who bears the burden of paying for social services, just as you are wrong about the meaning of vigilantism (which consists in trying to privately enforcing the law, not simply in breaking it), and just as you are wrong about the highly regressive economic impact of immigration.

Of course, nobody likes to admit they were wrong. I hate it. It's much easier to just change the subject, and launch into some rant about postmodern plutocracy, or whatever.

Social services are paid for by those who pay taxes, which in present day America means primarily the wealthy.

Is there a disproportionate burden at the state and local level?

After all, it's not just the wealthy paying taxes at the state and local level. Do the 'wealthy' really pay more, either as an absolute number or percentage-wise, than everyone else?

Do the 'wealthy' really pay more, either as an absolute number or percentage-wise, than everyone else?

Yes.

Maximos said: Let's all cheer the emergence of a postmodern, plutocratic servile state: the wealthy rule for their own benefit, and deprive us proles of our nation and culture...

Is this the same Maximos that had been found on several past occasions to lead a sonorous hymn to the aristocracy in former threads?

Not that I did not enjoy those posts of his, mind you (in fact, those were amongst the most enlightening on the blog); only that to hitherto take side with the proles in this occasion seems to me quite -- shall we say -- uncharacteristic.

Yes.

And what of the other taxes? (And how typical is California? How different would the numbers be for Arizona or Texas, for example?)

aristocles: aristocracy is not the same thing as plutocracy

T. Chan,

If you want to track down the numbers for other states you can. The answer will be the same.

Or you could just admit that you were wrong about who bears the burden of paying for social services...

Or we could return to reality, in which the wealthy who exploit illegal labour and violate the laws are not engaged in altruistic economic practices, providing us with cheaper goods and services purely out the goodness of their hearts, but actually recognize a financial advantage in the employment of illegal labour - which can be rephrased thusly: the wealthy pay less for labour because they are "rationally self-interested", and realize that this benefits them financially, inasmuch as the benefits to them exceed the increased costs of social services. The broader externalities of this socialization of costs, inclusive of the overburdening of the health care system and the schools, and the increase in rates of crime, are borne principally by the native born poorer and middle classes, who cannot necessarily afford private schooling, access to the finest medical establishments, and housing in the exurbs or well-guarded urban enclaves.

just as you are wrong about the meaning of vigilantism

As a matter of fact, I'm only wrong if one insists, pedantically, upon the strictly literal meaning of the term. More expansively, as with many phenomena in our society, the powerful and the running dogs they purchase to run political interference for them simply opt to enforce the state of legal affairs they wish obtained in the United States.

and just as you are wrong about the highly regressive economic impact of immigration.

I'm right about that, too. The net economic benefit of immigration is roughly nil, although immigration results in a redistribution of wealth to the holders of capital, which is the textbook definition of regressivity.

It's much easier to just change the subject, and launch into some rant about postmodern plutocracy, or whatever.

Actually, such "ranting" is apropos of the entire subject, inasmuch as immigration expansion is merely the pet cause of economic elites, the running-dog think-tankers they purchase, and a handful of sentimental universalists who don't mind the further dispossession of native born poor whites and blacks, provided that the nation-state can be delegitimated - and who, moreover, by repeatedly referencing tax-distribution tables, implicitly endorse a crude materialist reductionism, according to which material wealth constitutes an authoritative claim upon political power: who pays, dictates. If that is republicanism, as a governing tradition, then just men will be tempted to espouse socialism, rather than accede to such a preferential option for the powerful.

The net economic benefit of immigration is roughly nil.

I went into the data on the economic effects of immigration a bit in my first comment, which (probably because it contained multiple links) what sent into moderation, where presumably it languishes still. To repeat, Borjas found a longer term negative wage effect from immigration on two groups: high school drop outs and college graduates (both effects were rather small). For those who finished highschool but either didn't go to college or didn't finish college, the wage effect was positive. And Borjas, it should be noted, is for an economist quite pessimistic about the economic effects of immigration. According to a recent paper by Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, the long term impact of immigration is positive even on the wages of native born highschool dropouts.

By far, though, the biggest beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants themselves.

Here, btw, is the link for the Borjas data I mentioned. I think by putting the links in two different posts I can avoid the filter.

One other thing. The idea that its the wealthy who reap the benefits of lower labor costs from immigration while the rest of us are stuck with the bill for the higher cost of social services has it exactly backwards. Social services are paid for by those who pay taxes, which in present day America means primarily the wealthy. The lower prices of goods and services brought about by immigration, by contrast, can be enjoyed by all.

It is true that the wealthy pay more taxes, but the lifestyle effects are not equal. The after-tax income of the wealthy is still significantly higher in terms of the lifestyle in can provide than the after-tax income of the middle class. A single, middle class man will pay about 28% of his income if he's salaried in a decent job, and an incredibly wealthy, upper class man may pay about 50% of his income, even though 28% of the former represents a very, very significant impact on the individual's purchasing power. So, in that sense, I'm not in the least bit sympathetic to the wealthy, my libertarian sentiments aside, as their taxes do not impinge on their lifestyle the way it does on the middle class.

Furthermore, in most communities, the schools, the largest social service, are paid for by people who are not wealthy, and they are paid for by property taxes. Thus, unless you define wealthy, it is precisely the middle class and upper end of the working class who bear the financial burden of illegal immigrants who put their kids into public schools; every fruit picker who puts his kids into a Virginia public school eats up about $7,500/child/year of tax dollars. What public good does it do to increase the size of the underclass and its burden on society, just to flip some burgers and pick some fruit (these seem to be the only jobs Americans won't do, and only then, sometimes).

By far, though, the biggest beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants themselves.

And that, should not play into public policy at all, when deciding how to advance our own interests.

Borjas and his collaborators are apparently engaged in a running methodological dispute with Ottaviano and Peri, so I hardly think that their work on this problem must be taken, in advance of any response from their critics, as dispositive.

As regards the data themselves, I'm underwhelmed by the Caplanian gloss being placed upon them, for at least two reasons. First, the categorization by educational attainment is insufficiently fine to capture the real politico-economic effects of mass immigration; assuming - which may or may not be methodologically shaky - that the category of college graduates encompasses the majority of those capitalists employing illegal labour, while the aggregate effect may be mildly negative for that category, the distributional effects within that category are assuredly more substantial: in the aggregate, the group loses out perceptibly but minimally, while a small percentage gain handsomely. Analogously, the net effect is nil for the society as a whole, though the distribution tables skew regressively, a fact about which we must be honest: those employing illegal labour benefit much more substantially than those in the two middle categories of the table, otherwise they would not employ illegal labour. This is not exactly a realization of the common good. It's more akin to having a subset of the cleverest portion gaming the system for their benefit, without regard to the effects upon the common good; the benefits accrue, not so much to the upper classes as a whole, but to a subset thereof: the unscrupulous.

Second, Caplan is ideologically committed to free trade, globalization, and open immigration, as a function of his utilitarian economics, according to which the maximization of aggregate economic utility will facilitate a more efficient satisfaction of subjective preferences. However, there obtain no obligations towards aggregates; neither do there obtain obligations to benefit two (educational) subsets of society, to the detriment of the poorest and least-well-endowed, cognitively speaking, and those cognitively-well-endowed souls who adhere to the law.

By far, though, the biggest beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants themselves.

Yes, and the benefits accrue to them by virtue of the losses to certain subsets of the American population, and everything washes out at the end of the calculations. There obtains, however, no ethical basis for benefiting foreigners at the expense of a segment of the native-born population.

Finally, to return to Caplan, Larison's remarks are apposite:

When Caplan talks about voter “irrationality,” he mostly means voter ignorance and perhaps voter prejudice. His complaint is not really that voters are actually irrational, but that they do not have a sufficiently solid grasp on complex systems, particularly when it comes to economics. Because of voter “ignorance” about alleged benefits, say, of free trade or immigration, they are said to have an “anti-foreign bias,” but what this bias actually represents is very often an entirely different set of priorities and values that cannot be tabulated by the economist. If economic growth were the only good and the only concern of voters with respect to trade or immigration policy, Caplan might have a point about this “bias.” However, the picture is often complicated by many factors, political, legal and cultural, that are not connected to economic questions at all. It is the mistake of economists (and the libertarians who love them) to think that voters are hopelessly confused about these matters simply because they come to significantly different conclusions about policy. Voters may be misinformed about the economics of trade and immigration, and they may not, but many of them are opposed to certain trade or immigration policies for reasons that go beyond the merely economic.

T. Chan said: "aristocles: aristocracy is not the same thing as plutocracy"

They are the same to me as Socialism & Communism are to each other; i.e., animals of the same species.

Words are failing me right now, too. Very briefly, the bigness to which 19th century immigration contributed and the resulting power of the US among states are not unalloyed blessings. Secondly, as the descendants of more recent immigrants have become sufficiently numerous, they have, very unconservatively, used their new preeminence to construct a new American history which starts at Ellis Island rather than Jamestown and Plymouth Rock. This has, in the form of Kevin's snarky contribution, made it to WWWTW, and manifests itself in George Bush's post-ethnic propositionalism in the realm of politics and in the casual anti-WASP bigotry of popular culture. Kevin's post owes more to Caddyshack than to history. Diversity is the health of the administrative state - it fosters conflicts to mediate and presents inequalities demanding official redress - and immigration is what makes diversity. It creates fissures that don't close for generations. Even when an immigrant groups material conditions improve to those of median, its ethnic loyalties and amour propre often remain. "Assimilated" Irish and Italians are a perfect example of that. Besides, in addition to the Einsteins, immigration brought us Sirhan Sirhan, a line of anarchists and agitators stretching back at least to 1848, and the Frankfurt School. Not everything foreign that's landed on these shores has been good or desirable. Just ask the Indians, who I'm sure wish their ancestors had had some immigration controls.

P.S.
I don't belong to a country club, and though my mother's father liked to golf and rocked plaid pants (I write this for my wife), I am not a WASP, possessed as I am of primarily German and Scottish ancestry and a last name with too few vowels.

Anti-WASP bigotry is a staple element of popular culture, and much of it is fueled by the psychological unease of later immigrant populations, who sense a need to legitimate themselves as real Americans, more authentic Americans, or simply more deserving. In other words, it is a function of status-striving and competition. That said, I read Kevin's comment as more in the vein of a satire of the Hamptons set, reminiscent of this. (Video, alas, no longer available.)

Besides, in addition to the Einsteins, immigration brought us Sirhan Sirhan...

Amazing how all the manifest and momentous contributions made hitherto by such persons as the former (be they descendants of former immigrants or immigrants themselves) were in one fell swoop obliterated all for one "Sirhan Sirhan".

I should perhaps due likewise with Christianity given the Judas Iscariot out of the many.

The arrogance in such notion seems resonant of the ubermensch.

The fact of the matter is that several of the advances that have propelled America to the forefront of the Arts & Sciences were made possible by such persons. Moreover, I would posit the notion that in the absence of such people, I doubt America would have actually become the great nation that it is today!

Thanks Max. Cyrus, for some reason your earlier comments reminded me of an episode from my youth when I worked on a Senatorial campaign for a Goldwaterite seeking the GOP nod for US Senate. He had a habit of quietly referring to an undefined "them" when privately discussing causes for our cultural decline. One day I finally asked who "they" were and he replied through his lockjaw; Italians.

After his defeat, I shared a post-mortem with a female staffer whose Anglicized last name concealed what her Mediterranean voluptuousness couldn't - her Italian ancestry. In an act of shameless pandering, I shared the candidate's comment with her and she replied; "funny, he told me it was the Irish" - my tribe. We had some great laughs over ethnic allegiances and the unique rituals, quirks and outlooks fostered by membership.

I do wonder though, what would have become of a nation made up only of white Northern Europeans immigrants - and yes, German and Scottish ancestry is WASP. Based on the European history of 1914-1945 there is reason to fear it might not have ended well, though the cocktail hours would be...fabulous

Mike T: Furthermore, in most communities, the schools, the largest social service, are paid for by people who are not wealthy, and they are paid for by property taxes.

These are some of the numbers I was trying to get at.

I've never understood the argument "they did X then, so we therefore must do this (very) roughly parallel thing Y now".

I mean, even if we grant the premises how does the normative claim follow from them? Where is the sequitur? How exactly are people getting from their tendentious historical claims to their tendentious normative claims, even if we grant the tendentious historical claims?

"I've never understood the argument "they did X then, so we therefore must do this (very) roughly parallel thing Y now"."

Are you saying a people given to things like; http://www.croquet.com/ will suddenly abandon such practices? Why?

Zippy,

Kindly refer to my earlier comments on the thread. I believe you have mistakened my formal stance on the current matter. Suffice it to say, I am merely arguing against the seemingly narrow view of Cyrus (and others) which paints mass immigration generally as anathema.

Suffice it to say, I am merely arguing against the seemingly narrow view of Cyrus (and others) which paints mass immigration generally as anathema.

Could you provide historical examples of it generally not being anathema? The only largescale migrations that I know of tended to end in tragedy for the host population and original culture.

Maybe part of the problem is with the term 'mass' in 'mass immigration.' I don't claim any historical expertise, but were the numbers even at the height of the "waves" of Irish-Italian-etc. immigration anywhere near what we're looking at presently? My impression is that they were not. Did we not at that time have a much more controlled immigration procedure, including the requirement for sponsors, evidence that the person would not become a drain on society, and the like, and very real threats of deportation for what would nowadays seem relatively minor matters?

And it strikes me as not truly necessary to try to decide so vast and complex an after-the-fact question as, "Was the net effect of Irish immigration good for America?" in order to have a good clue about the answer to the question, "Will the net effect of mass, uncontrolled, Mexican (and also Muslim) immigration _now_ be good for America?"

Maybe part of the problem is with the term 'mass' in 'mass immigration.' I don't claim any historical expertise, but were the numbers even at the height of the "waves" of Irish-Italian-etc.

The fact that you hold Mexican immigration as the standard for 'mass immigration' does not automatically nor justifiably disqualify former immigrations of former peoples (e.g., Irish, Italians, etc.) as 'mass immigration'.

And it strikes me as not truly necessary to try to decide so vast and complex an after-the-fact question as, "Was the net effect of Irish immigration good for America?" in order to have a good clue about the answer to the question, "Will the net effect of mass, uncontrolled, Mexican (and also Muslim) immigration _now_ be good for America?"

Like Zippy, you seemed to have mistakened my stance on the underlying issues our nation currently faces with respect to immigration.

As to Zippy's assertion that my claim of contributions made by former immigrants (and their descendants) help propel America to the forefront of the Arts & Sciences as being 'tendentious', I beg to differ; what is tendentious, on the contrary, is the claim that America would have achieved likewise without benefit of such immigrants.

Finally, as for the negligible opinions of the ever insufferable "Mike T", I take it that the technological benefits that he so enjoys today is just one of many 'tragedies'.

"Was the net effect of Irish immigration good for America?"

Don't everybody rush to judgement. Take your time. Think it over and use an alias if you feel a little uncomfortable about your answer.

Amazing how all the manifest and momentous contributions made hitherto by such persons as the former (be they descendants of former immigrants or immigrants themselves) were in one fell swoop obliterated all for one "Sirhan Sirhan".

I'm simply trying to argue that mass immigration is something that brings costs as well as benefits, and that we tend to indulge in a great deal of nostalgia and present-ism about earlier waves of immigration to the United States. Looking backward, the descendants of the "Great Wave" of immigration constructed a history with themselves as heroes. That ought to go without saying. I can guarantee that the descendants of today's immigrants three generations hence will likewise look quite favorably upon the achievements and the presence of their ancestors and themselves, and if they are powerful enough, that view will become the official narrative, just as Ellis Island!! has become today's official narrative. That tells us not a thing about whether it was wise of 1840's America to allow mass immigration, or whether it is wise of 2000's America to do the same. Even if we do conclude that on balance the Great Wave was beneficial (to whom being the unposed question), it does not follow that the current wave of immigration is likely also to be beneficial. Present circumstances are vastly different to those of 100 or 150 years ago.

He had a habit of quietly referring to an undefined "them" when privately discussing causes for our cultural decline.

Based on the European history of 1914-1945 there is reason to fear it might not have ended well, though the cocktail hours would be...fabulous

And it strikes me as not truly necessary to try to decide so vast and complex an after-the-fact question as, "Was the net effect of Irish immigration good for America?" in order to have a good clue about the answer to the question, "Will the net effect of mass, uncontrolled, Mexican (and also Muslim) immigration _now_ be good for America?"

what is tendentious, on the contrary, is the claim that America would have achieved likewise without benefit of such immigrants.

From my perspective, plunking economic averages and individual achievements on the table under a rubric of "the greater good", apparently for the sake of making me ignore the humanity of those harmed, doesn't do it.

From my perspective, plunking economic averages and individual achievements on the table under a rubric of "the greater good", apparently for the sake of making me ignore the humanity of those harmed, doesn't do it.

The open borders advocates are fundamentally hyper-materialistic. Anything that results in more wealth is clearly good, even if it also results in allowing millions of people from corrupt, collectivist countries to flood our country.

I've never gotten a straight answer from any open borders advocates of whether or not it would be a good thing for a few million Saudis to suddenly move to one of our smaller states. Even if they work hard and contribute well to our economy, one would have to be a liberal to not think that there would be a distinct chance that they would end up (as is happening in Britain) bucking for Sharia.

I've never gotten a straight answer from any open borders advocates of whether or not it would be a good thing for a few million Saudis to suddenly move to one of our smaller states.

Perhaps because your speculation is grossly fanciful given that we have estimated total 12 mil illegal immigrants in this country and we average 1 million new immigrants each year, not all of whom will become permanent residents ( http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cohn.immigration.us )

Cyrus,
Gee, you're awfully sensitive. Relax the stiff upper-lip and lighten-up.

I used the example of the candidate to point out the inherently comical aspect that accompanies the whole issue of ethnic, racial and national identity.

My reference to WWI & WWII, it's a reminder that even the seemingly most advanced of peoples and cultures are capable of unfathomable
acts of self-destruction. So if you ever fantasy about what could have been if the gates were closed around 1820, & Ellis Island was reserved for lawn picnics and idyllic jogs along the Hudson, think again. 80 million dead and the accumulated cultural riches of 2000 years lost forever, for reasons that will never quite suffice. A little humility goes along way in keeping illusions to a minimum.

Scallops,
I don't know if America benefited from Irish immigration, but I know assimilation has been hell on the Irish.

Zippy:

From my perspective, plunking economic averages and individual achievements on the table under a rubric of "the greater good", apparently for the sake of making me ignore the humanity of those harmed, doesn't do it.

Pray tell, what is this great harm inflicted on the American people by previous mass immigrations that you would cast them instead as the villainous demons who invaded our nation then, causing you to deliberately ignore the historic contributions of these people which have led to interalia our current state of technological advancement?

I suggest that you & Cyrus read up on the various principle agents responsible for many current and past inventions including the sophisticated research which have helped our nation remain on the leading edge of technology in several of the sciences.

Amongst these you will find several immigrants (or descendants thereof) who you can direct your condemnation to personally.

Technology is not an end in itself, though it should probably be debated elsewhere.

...what is this great harm inflicted on the American people by previous mass immigrations...

The entire point is that, contra reductionist/abstract views of the matter, there is no aggregate index of 'great harm' or 'great benefit' to an aggregated abstraction called 'the American people'. The persons harmed and benefited are actual persons, not measures, milestones, or mean megatons of meat.

O'Callahan,

Presumably if one still isn't sure whether we should have let the Irish into this country, the chances of convincing him that current immigration isn't a threat are slim.

I guess one new argument against liberal immigration policy is that any historical prudential judgment to permit it is going to be used as a cudgel against any attempt to make a prudential judgment about it now or in the future. Rather, once the prudential judgment has been made in favor in a particular circumstance, immigration will necessarily and forever after be viewed as a moral imperative, impregnible to any prudential analysis of who is actually harmed or helped, what is lost and what is gained.

Those who opposed the immigration of the Irish may or may not have been right on the particular prudential judgment, but one terrifically bad effect of Ellis Island has been the loss of our capacity to actually reason about immigration in general.

"Those who opposed the immigration of the Irish may or may not have been right on the particular prudential judgment, but one terrifically bad effect of Ellis Island has been the loss of our capacity to actually reason about immigration in general."

Actually it works the other way around. Those who secretly resent any change to the original Anglo-Saxon make up of America and can't accept or articulate the contributions made by those who arrived from say, southern and eastern Europe (remember, the 1921 Emergency Quota based on notions of racial superiority) are useless in any current attempt to restrict immigration.

An obvious distinction between now and previous
waves of newcomers is the question of assimilation. It is far easier for those who arrive from the heart of Western civilization to adapt because they have the motivation and affinity to do so, than it is for those who come from the West's outer-edges and arrive intrinsically hostile to it. The one obvious exception to this general rule is of course, Asians, who generally make up in motivation what they lack in affinity.

Yet, I also think it's the spiritual exhaustion and loss of confidence by "natives" (I won't go as fas as Cyrus;"America's destroying itself, and it's mostly been "WASPs" who've done it.") that complicates the whole process of assimilation.

Holding Ellis Island up as an impediment to immigration reform is an example of this moral fatigue.

Actually it works the other way around.

I don't buy it. At all. Immigration restrictionists have been bludgeoned by Ellis Island relentlessly and for generations, as if there were a sequitur to be found in there somewhere, even though there isn't. It is no doubt irrational for a restrictionist to doubt the virtue of the club that is being used to beat him, of course, but the notion that it is being used as a club to beat him because he doubts its virtue isn't tenable, in my view.

Indeed the whole reason some irrationally think Ellis Island is such a compelling argument for permitting mass Mexican immigration is because they have constructed this simplified moral categorical abstraction out of Ellis Island.

Ellis Island was a prudential judgment. It may or may not have been a good one, but the idea that an open Rio Grande follows as a moral imperative is just nonsense on stilts. It is like claiming that because the War of 1812 was a just war, it follows that the Iraq war is a just war.

Well, in a sense I _think_ I see Kevin's point (in honesty, I'm not sure I've gotten where Kevin is coming from here). I think his point is that there is a refusal to make distinctions and to say, "If it worked out reasonably well to have all that Irish immigration, that doesn't mean all this mass Mexican immigration will work out well, because the Irish were different from the Mexican and other--esp. non-Western--immigrants coming in in such numbers now." So I think Kevin is saying that it wouldn't matter so much if we had positive images about Ellis Island so long as we didn't use that in exactly the way Zippy is saying--to create a moral imperative for present-day immigration that has significant differences from the earlier immigration.

So I think Kevin is saying that it wouldn't matter so much if we had positive images about Ellis Island so long as we didn't use that in exactly the way Zippy is saying--to create a moral imperative for present-day immigration that has significant differences from the earlier immigration.

Well, if that is what he is saying then he is saying the same thing I am saying. I suppose that, in addition to that, it isn't surprising (though it may be irrational) for present-day immigration restrictionists to take a dim view of Ellis Island after getting beat over the head with it for decades. This latter would indeed be a mistake -- it would be a classic case of a paleoish position buying into the narrative of its critics. Ellis Island and the Rio Grande both stand or fall individually on their own merits. If Kevin is pointing that out then good show.

"So I think Kevin is saying that it wouldn't matter so much if we had positive images about Ellis Island so long as we didn't use that in exactly the way Zippy is saying--to create a moral imperative for present-day immigration that has significant differences from the earlier immigration."

Thanks Lydia, you summed that up very well. I will only add that a very big problem for new immigrants is what they find, or rather don't find, when they arrive here; a confident cultural elite eager to transmit and share their heritage. An empty shrine cannot engender allegiance or sustain a coherent social order.

Zippy, I am surprised that you of all people would allow Ellis Island to be a cudgel used against you, when it actually supports the restrictionist case. Buck up, lad!

My reference to WWI & WWII, it's a reminder that even the seemingly most advanced of peoples and cultures are capable of unfathomable acts of self-destruction. So if you ever fantasy about what could have been if the gates were closed around 1820, & Ellis Island was reserved for lawn picnics and idyllic jogs along the Hudson, think again. 80 million dead and the accumulated cultural riches of 2000 years lost forever, for reasons that will never quite suffice. A little humility goes along way in keeping illusions to a minimum.

It's not a question of superiority or inferiority, but of a common culture or not. North America used to have one, and it was what is now referred to scornfully as WASP. Had a few wars turned out differently, it might have been French instead, but it was something other than the armed doctrine of state transcendentalism it is now.

"It's not a question of superiority or inferiority, but of a common culture or not."

Since you seemed understandably partial to the demographics of our early settlers, I thought it worth pointing out, that had WASPs remained the exclusive or primary compostion of our country there was still no guarantee that things would not go horribly wrong. Look at what happened to their
"places of origin", as they sat at Customs, during the mid-20th century.

Your point, if I understand you correctly is; an influx of other nationalities from southern and eastern Europe lead to our nation adopting a "propositional creed". Yet, such a notion was first advanced by WASPs, so I don't see the connection.

Still, I do beleive some culture superior to others, and think what is referred to as the West, is stiil the best.

Since you seemed understandably partial to the demographics of our early settlers, I thought it worth pointing out, that had WASPs remained the exclusive or primary compostion of our country there was still no guarantee that things would not go horribly wrong. Look at what happened to their "places of origin", as they sat at Customs, during the mid-20th century.

Exactly!

What Cyrus seems to be ignoring here is the likely possibility that, all in all, it was the immigrations of such people which led to the very salvation of America as opposed to what would have been its very destruction had these people been absent.

Nobody here seems to be aware of how technology plays a pivotal role in the very survival of a nation.

If Cyrus was more well-versed with the various historic contributions made by those that comprise of America's past immigrations (although, I should give him credit I suppose for having been familiar with the two he made mention in previous comments), he would be more sympathetic to such a notion.

Since you seemed understandably (understandably? Why "understandably"?) partial to the demographics of our early settlers, I thought it worth pointing out, that had WASPs remained the exclusive or primary compostion of our country there was still no guarantee that things would not go horribly wrong.

Look at what happened to their "places of origin", as they sat at Customs, during the mid-20th century.

Your point, if I understand you correctly is; an influx of other nationalities from southern and eastern Europe lead to our nation adopting a "propositional creed". Yet, such a notion was first advanced by WASPs, so I don't see the connection.

What Cyrus seems to be ignoring here is the likely possibility that, all in all, it was the immigrations of such people which led to the very salvation of America as opposed to what would have been its very destruction had these people been absent.

"We don't know what might have happened. We only know what did happen."

Yes, and you have wasted a lot of time lamenting what indeed has happened in order to grind your paleo axe; "An ethnic or religious nationalism doesn't work for a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state, so the state itself must become the focus of loyalty."

Are you saying the WASP settlement that was America during the War of 1812, the war with Mexico, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, or even WWI, was based on a worship of the state? If so how does that support your nifty sounding PoliSci 101 theory about immigration being the driver?

Besides, the state is not the focus of loyaly for most Americans as we view it with deep suspicion and prefer to live within our families and local communities.

Besides, the state is not the focus of loyaly for most Americans as we view it with deep suspicion and prefer to live within our families and local communities.

Are you saying the WASP settlement that was America during the War of 1812, the war with Mexico, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, or even WWI, was based on a worship of the state?

So the WASP worship of the state predates the immigration waves that trouble you so. In other words, immgirants have not been the cause of state worship as you stated.

Did we really have to go around and around on this for you to realize the contradiction in your argument? Wow.

And yes a mobile population is an unstable one given to transient bonds and ephemeral pursuits, but that still doesn't mean nomadic folks are worshiping the state. I see Mammon filling the void.