​Good Morning Michael,

To apply one of your old standard lines of response:

<Sigh>.....Did you even read my response and/or peruse the research and
articles attached to them?

Apparently not.  Which is typical of far left extremists....I had hoped
that you, being a libertarian and one who many times applies logic, would
do the same.

Once again I've been sadly let down by you.

I had planned to refute all of Nowrasteh's listed "Issues" and write about
each singular issue, but I only got to the first one, when I learned that
Nowrasteh is an outright fraud!

1.  Despite the fact that Nowrasteh sites Professor George Borjas' research
as "New"  (The actual research was done in 1990); Borjas revisits his
research  and pretty much comes to the conclusions that Nowrasteh argues

What's even more ingenuous about Nowrasteh's article, is that Professor
Borjas clearly advocates against the dangers, pitfalls and the potential
cataclysmic effects of the mass of  both illegal and legal immigration!

After reading the synopsis of Borjas' article, (and the revised July 2016
article)  it's quite clear that your author is flat out ingenuous and
bascially, lying!

Borjas did not at all attempt to apply or really compare a literal new set
of standards, principles, and apply the now 11 million to 40 million
illegal immigrants in this Nation as somehow being similar to the
Marielitos of the 1970s and early 1980s.

Now, realizing that your author is not at all credible and has literally
taken an esteemed Harvard Professor's work in an attempt to somehow twist
his findings to meet his logic, I hope you will start considering your
sources and who you choose to cite,  (and the publications that you gather
these pieces of tripe from) with a bit more jaundiced eye.

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:12 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:

> You recycle the same pile of links as though it actually addresses
> something. The author provided actual data to support what he was pointing.
> To Whit: #1 .... there is this guy -- long since dead -- that debunked
> this protectionism nonsense to which you continue to cling.
> His name was Henry George. I can provide a link if you *actually* have an
> interest (which I doubt as you only seem interested in regurgitating
> platitudes long since exploded).
> To put it in simpler terms for you .... Alex Nowrasteh is asserting
> 'gravity exists' and you are positing a bunch of links by which you imagine
> to prove that 'gravity does not exist'.
> If 'Mericans grasped even the most basic ideals of economics ....
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a
> specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal
> science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous
> opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
> -- Murray Rothbard
> At 02:33 PM 9/11/2016, you wrote:
> Let's review;
> *1.  “Immigrants will take our jobs and lower our wages, especially
> hurting the poor.†*
> As we've discussed previously and demonstrated on more than one occasion;
>  despite Mr. Nowrasteh's hype;  illegl immigration (and legal
> immigration!) Â does in fact takes jobs away from Americans, especially
> those who lower skilled jobs:
> (Previous message where this issue was addressed) :
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/politicalforum/37X4Vy1BHe0/cRLTdvDwAAAJ
> *Unemployment and Illegal Immigration: * www.numbersusa.com/problems/
> unemployment
> * Unemployment, Illegal Immigration, and Political Idiocy*
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368141/unemployment-
> illegal-immigration-and-political-idiocy-peter-kirsanow
> *Unemployment Rate Lower For Illegal Immigrants in US Than Nation's
> Black Citizens:*
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2014/03/14/
> unemployment-for-illegals-may-be-lower-than-black-citizens-n1808866
> *2. “Immigrants abuse the welfare state.†*
> They do:
> *Welfare Use by Legal and Illegal Immigrant Households:*
> http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
> *Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households*
> http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
> *Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare*
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/04/most-illegal-
> immigrant-families-collect-welfare/
> *Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families *
> http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Illegal-Immigrants-
> Welfare-American/2016/05/09/id/727875/
> *USA: Muslim “refugees†– 91.4% on food stamps, 68.3% on Cash Welfaare*
> https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/usa-
> muslim-refugees-91-4-on-food-stamps-68-3-on-cash-welfare/
> *Feds Force Public Schools To Enroll Illegal Immigrant Children With No
> Medical Screening * http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/10/feds-force-public-
> schools-to-enroll-illegal-immigrant-children-with-no-medical-screening/
> *Feds to schools: Let undocumented immigrants in*
> http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/feds-schools-cant-
> shut-out-illegal-immigrants-106489
> *Thousands of Illegal Immigrants Enrolled in Obamacare*
> http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obamacare-healthcare-
> Affordable-Care-Act-illegal-immigrants/2014/09/23/id/596383/
> *42 percent of new Medicaid signups are immigrants, their children*
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-42-percent-of-new-
> medicaid-signups-are-immigrants-their-children/article/2556114
> * Some illegal immigrants to qualify for Social Security benefits from
> time worked illegally*
> http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/14/some-illegal-
> immigrants-to-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-from-
> time-worked-illegally/
> *Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social
> Security, Disability*
> http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/
> obama-claims-power-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-social-security
> *Obama amnesty granted 500,000 Social Security numbers to illegalÂ
> immigrants*
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/15/obama-
> amnesty-granted-more-500k-ssn/
> *4.  “Immigrants increase economic inequality.†*
> See Numbers 1 & 2 Above
> *5.  “Today’s immigrants don’t assimilate like previous immigrant
> groups did.†*
> *No Assimilation Needed in U.S., Obama Tells Millions of Migrants*
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/no-
> assimilation-needed-u-s-obama-tells-millions-migrants/
> *Immigrants don’t crave adaptation*
> http://lasvegassun.com/news/2016/mar/27/immigrants-dont-crave-adaptation/
> *Mexican, Central American immigrants lag behind at assimilating into U.S.
> culture*
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/21/mexican-
> central-american-immigrants-slower-to-assi/
> *Immigrants making no effort to assimilate into U.S. culture*
> http://thecitizen.com/articles/03-06-2012/immigrants-making-no-effort-
> assimilate-us-culture
> *Why don't Muslims assimilate to western culture when they immigrate?*
> https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-Muslims-assimilate-to-
> western-culture-when-they-immigrate
> The previous message where this issue was addressed:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/politicalforum/37X4Vy1BHe0/cRLTdvDwAAAJ
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 12:38 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: *August
> 11, 2016* 15 Common Arguments against Immigration, Addressed Alex
> Nowrasteh
> Arguments against immigration come across my desk every day but their
> variety is limited – rarely do I encounter a unique one.  Seveeral times a
> year I give presentations about these arguments and rebut their points.Â
> These are the main arguments against immigration and my quick responses to
> them:
> *1.  “Immigrants will take our jobs and lower our wages, especially
> hurting the poor.†* This is the most common argument and also the one
> with the greatest amount of evidence rebutting it.  First, the displacement
> effect
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/cis-all-job-growth-2000-went-immigrants-flawed>
> is small <http://www.nber.org/papers/w8660> if it even affects natives at
> all.  Immigrants are typically attracted to growing regions and they
> increase the supply and demand sides of the economy once they are there,
> expanding employment opportunities.  Second, the debate over immigrant
> impacts on American wages is confined to the lower single digits
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reducing-immigration-will-not-satisfy-trump-voters-its-bad-idea-anyway>
> – immigrants may increase the relative wagees for some Americans by a tiny
> amount and decrease them by a larger amount for the few Americans who
> directly compete against them.  Immigrants likely compete most directly
> against other immigrants so the effects on less-skilled native-born
> Americans might be very small or even positive
> <http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/jeea2012.pdf>. New research
> <https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/ILRR2017.pdf>
> by Harvard professor George Borjas on the effect of the Mariel Boatlift – a
> giant shock to Miami’s labor market thaat increased the size of its
> population by 7 percent in 42 days – finds large neegative wage effects
> concentrated on Americans with less than a high school degree.  To put the
> scale of that shock to Miami in context, it would be as if 22.4 million
> immigrants moved to America in a six-week period – which will not happen.Â
> Some doubt Borjas’ <http://www.nber.org/papers/w21801> finding ( here
> is Borjas’ response
> <https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/working%20papers/Mariel2015a.pdf>
> to the critics and here is a summary
> <http://blog.givewell.org/2015/10/21/why-a-new-study-of-the-mariel-boatlift-has-not-changed-our-views-on-the-benefits-of-immigration/>
> of the debate) but what is not in doubt is that immigration has increased
> the wages and income of Americans on net.  The smallest estimates
> immigration surplus, as it is called, is equal to about 0.24 percent of
> <https://www.amazon.com/Immigration-Economics-George-J-Borjas/dp/0674049772/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470492669&sr=8-1&keywords=immigration+economics+borjas>
> – which excludes the gains to immigrants annd just focuses on those of
> native-born Americans.
> *2. “Immigrants abuse the welfare state.†* Most legal immigrants do
> not have access to means-tested welfare for their first five years here
> with few exceptions and unauthorized immigrants don’t have access at all
> – except for emergency Medicaid.
> Immigrants are less likely to use means-tested welfare benefits that
> similar native-born Americans
> <http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/edb17.pdf>.  When
> they do use welfare, the dollar value of benefits consumed is smaller.  If
> poor native-born Americans used Medicaid at the same rate and consumed the
> same value of benefits as poor immigrants, the program would be 42 percent
> smaller.
> Immigrants also make large net contributions to Medicare
> <http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2013/05/20/hlthaff.2012.1223.full>
> and Social
> <http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/SocialSecurityStudy2005Revised.pdf>
> Security <https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf>, the
> largest portions of the welfare state, because of their ages,
> ineligibility, and their greater likelihood of retiring in other
> countries.  Far from draining the welfare state, immigrants have given the
> entitlement portions a few more years of operation before bankruptcy.  If
> you’re still worried about immigrant use of the welfare state, as I am,
> then it is far easier and cheaper to build a higher wall around the
> welfare state, instead of around the country
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/building-wall-around-welfare-state-instead-country>
> .
> *3. “Immigrants are a net fiscal cost.†* Related to the welfare
> argument is that immigrants consume more in government benefits than they
> generate in tax revenue.  The empirics on this are fairly consistent –
> immigrants in the United States havve a net-zero impact on government
> budgets
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration>
> (the published version of that working paper is published here
> <https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Immigration-Market-Based-Approaches-Science/dp/0190258799/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1470493232&sr=8-2&keywords=immigration+economics>).
> It seems odd that poor immigrants don’t create a larger deficit but
> there are many factors pushing explaining that.  The first is that higher
> immigrant fertility and the long run productivity of those people born in
> the United States generates a lot of tax revenue.  The second is that
> immigrants grow the economy considerably (this is different from the
> immigration surplus discussed above) and increase tax revenue.  The third
> is that many immigrants come when they are young but not young enough to
> consume public schools, thus they work and pay taxes before consuming hundreds
> of thousands
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/they-spend-what-real-cost-public-schools>
> of dollars in public schools costs and welfare benefits – meaning they give
> an immediate fiscal boost.  Theree are many other reasons
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration>
> as well. Although the tax incidence from immigrants is what matters for
> the fiscal consequences, between 50 percent
> <http://www.bellpolicy.org/research/state-and-local-taxes-paid-colorado-undocumented-immigrants>
> and 75 percent
> <https://www.rienner.com/title/Impacts_of_Border_Enforcement_on_Mexican_Migration_The_View_from_Sending_Communities>
> of illegal immigrants comply with federal tax law.  States that rely on
> consumption or property taxes tend to garner a surplus from taxes paid by
> unlawful immigrants while those that rely on income taxes do not.     Â
> Â Â Â Â
> *4.  “Immigrants increase economic inequality.†* In a post- Piketty
> <https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/1491591617>
> world, the argument that immigration is increasing economic inequality
> within nations is getting some attention.  While most forms of economic
> inequality are increasing among people within nations, global inequality
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/08/stop-obsessing-about-inequality-its-actually-decreasing-around-the-world/>
> is likely falling due and at a historic low point due to rapid economic growth
> in much of the world over the last generation
> <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/13603aa2-0185-11e6-ac98-3c15a1aa2e62.html>.
> The evidence on how immigration affects economic inequality in the United
> States is mixed <http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-economic-inequality>
> – some research finds relatively small effects and otherss find substantial
> ones.  The variance in findings can be explained by research methods –
> there is a big difference in outcomes between a study that measures how
> immigration affects economic inequality only among natives and another
> study that includes immigrants and their earnings.  Both methods seem
> reasonable but the effects on inequality are small compared to other
> factors.
> Frankly, I don’t see the problem if an immigrant quadruples his income
> by coming to the United States, barely affects the wages of native-born
> Americans here, and increases economic inequality as a result.  The
> standard of living is much more important than the earnings distribution
> and everybody in this situation either wins or is unaffected.
> *5.  “Today’s immigrants don’t assimilate like previous immigrant
> groups did.†* There is a large amount of research
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/great-assimilation-scare> that indicates
> immigrants are assimilating as well as or better than previous immigrant
> groups – even Mexicans
> <https://www.russellsage.org/publications/italians-then-mexicans-now-0>.Â
> The first piece of research is the National Academy of Science’s (NAS)
> September 2015 book titled The Integration of Immigrants into American
> Society
> <http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21746/the-integration-of-immigrants-into-american-society>.Â
> It’s a thorough and brilliant summation of the relevant academic
> literature on immigrant assimilation.  Bottom line:  Assimilation is
> never perfect and always takes time, but it’s going very well.
> The second book is a July 2015 book entitled Indicators of Immigrant
> Integration 2015
> <http://www.oecd.org/migration/indicators-of-immigrant-integration-2015-settling-in-9789264234024-en.htm>
> that analyses immigrant and second generation integration on 27 measurable
> indicators across the OECD and EU countries.  This report finds more
> problems with immigrant assimilation in Europe, especially for those from
> outside of the European Union, but the findings for the United States are
> quite positive.
> The third work by University of Washington economist Jacob Vigdor compares
> modern immigrant civic and cultural assimilation to that of immigrants from
> the early 20th century (an earlier draft of his book chapter is here
> <http://www.depts.ttu.edu/freemarketinstitute/research/immigration_papers/TheCivicandCulturalAssimilationofImmigrants.pdf>,
> the published version is available in this collection
> <https://www.amazon.com/Economics-Immigration-Market-Based-Approaches-Science/dp/0190258799/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1452963361&sr=8-2&keywords=immigration+economics>).Â
> If you think early 20th century immigrants and their descendants eventually
> assimilated successfully, Vigdor’s conclusion is reassuring:
> “While there are reasons to think of contemporary migration from
> Spanish-speaking nations as distinct from earlier waves of immigration,
> evidence does not support the notion that this wave of migration poses a
> true threat to the institutions that withstood those earlier waves.  Basic
> indicators of assimilation, from naturalization to English ability, are if
> anything stronger now than they were a century ago.â€
> For the nostalgic among us who believe that immigrants assimilated so much
> more smoothly in the past, the plethora of ethnic and anti-Catholic riots
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_nativist_riots>, the nativist 
> Know-Nothing
> movement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing>, and immigrant
> groups that refused to assimilate
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_German-American_Alliance> are a
> useful tonic.  Immigrant assimilation is always messy and it looks bad
> from the middle of that process where we are right now, but the trends are
> positive and pointing in the right direction.
> 6.  “Immigrants are especially crime prone.â€
> This myth has been around for over a century
> <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2761631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.  It
> wasn’t true in 1896
> <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2761631?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>, 1909
> <http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dillingham.html/> , 1931
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickersham_Commission>, 1994
> <https://lbj.utexas.edu/uscir/>, and more recently
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says>.Â
> Immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated for violent and property
> crimes and cities with more immigrants and their descendants are more
> peaceful.  Some immigrants do commit violent and property crimes but, on
> the whole, they are less likely to do so.
> 7.  “Immigrants pose a unique risk today because of terrorism.â€
> Terrorism is not a modern <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins>
> strategy.  There were a large number
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Galleani> of bombings and terrorist
> attacks in the early 20th century, most of them committed by immigrants,
> socialists, and their fellow travelers.
> Today, the deaths from terrorism committed by immigrants are greater than
> they were a century ago but the risk is still low compared to the benefits
> of immigration.  For instance, the chance of an American being killed in a
> terrorist attack committed on U.S. soil by a refugee was one in 3.6
> billion <http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refugees-precationary-principle>
> from 1975 to 2015.  For all foreign-born terrorists on U.S. soil, the
> chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack is one in 3.6 million during
> the same period of time.  Almost 99 percent of those murders occurred on
> 9/11 and were committed by foreigners on tourist visas and one student
> visa, not immigrants.  Cato has a paper coming out in September that
> explores this in greater detail.  Every death from terrorism is a tragedy
> but immigrants pose a relatively small
> <https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Ghosts-The-Policing-Terrorism/dp/0190237317?tag=catoinstitute-20>
> threat
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/responsible-counterterrorism-policy>
> relative to the big benefits of them being here (remember the immigration
> surplus above).
> 8.  “It’s easy to immigrate to America and we’re the most open
> country in the world.â€
> It is very difficult to immigrate to the United States.  Ellis Island
> closed down a long time ago.  In most cases, there isn’t a line and when
> there is, it can take decades or centuries
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-will-have-wait>.Â
> This chart
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-will-have-wait>
> shows the confusing and difficult path to a green card.  Does that
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-will-have-wait>
> look easy to you?
> America allows greater numbers of immigrants than any other country.Â
> However, the annual flow of immigrants as a percent of our population is
> below most other OECD countries because the United States is so large.Â
> The percentage of our population that is foreign-born is about 13 percent – 
> below
> historical highs
> <http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time>
> in the United States and less than half of what it is in modern New Zealand
> and Australia.  America is great at assimilating immigrants but other
> countries are much more open
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/defending-green-cards>. Â
> 9.  “Amnesty or failure to enforce our immigration laws will destroy
> the Rule of Law in the United States.â€
> For a law to be consistent with Rule of Law principle, it must be applied
> equally, have roughly ex ante predictable outcomes based on the
> circumstances, and be consistent with our Anglo-Saxon traditions of
> personal autonomy and liberty.  Our current immigration laws violate all
> of those.  They are applied differently based on people’s country of
> birth via arbitrary quotas and other regulations, the outcomes are
> certainly not predictable, and they are hardly consistent with America’s
> traditional immigration policy and our conceptions of liberty.
> For the Rule of Law to be present, good laws are required,
> <http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-18/news/35187656_1_immigration-laws-immigration-system-immigration-reform>
> not just strict adherence to government enforcement of impossible to follow
> rules.  An amnesty is an admission that our past laws have failed, they
> need reform, and the net cost of enforcing them in the meantime exceeds the
> benefits.  That’s why there have been numerous amnesties
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/legalization-or-amnesty-unlawful-immigrants-american-tradition>
> throughout American history.
> Enforcing laws that are inherently capricious and that are contrary to our
> traditions is inconsistent with a stable Rule of Law that is a necessary,
> although not sufficient, precondition for economic growth.  Enforcing bad
> laws poorly is better than enforcing bad laws uniformly despite the
> uncertainty.  In immigration, poor enforcement of our destructive laws is
> preferable to strict enforcement but liberalization is the best choice of
> all.  Admitting our laws failed, granting an amnesty for law-breakers, and
> reforming the laws does not doom the Rule of Law in the United States – it
> strengthens it.
> 10. “National sovereignty.â€
> By not exercising control over borders through actively blocking
> immigrants, the users of this argument warn, the United States government
> will surrender a vital component of its national sovereignty
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/national-sovereignty-free-immigration-are-compatible>.Â
> Rarely do users of this argument explain to whom the U.S. government would
> actually surrender sovereignty in this situation.  Even in the most
> extremely open immigration policy imaginable, total open borders, national
> sovereignty is not diminished assuming that our government’s institutions
> chose such a policy (I am not supporting totally open borders here, I am
> just using it as a foil to show that even in this extreme situation this
> argument fails).  How can that be? Â
> The standard Weberian definition of a government is an institution that
> has a monopoly (or near monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence within
> a certain geographical area.  The way it achieves this monopoly is by
> keeping out other competing sovereigns that want to be that monopoly.  Our
> government maintains its sovereignty is by excluding the militaries of
> other nations and by stopping insurgents.
> However, U.S. immigration laws are not primarily designed or intended to
> keep out foreign armies, spies, or insurgents.  The main effect of our
> immigration laws is to keep out willing foreign workers from selling their
> labor to voluntary American purchasers.  Such economic controls do not aid
> in the maintenance of national sovereignty and relaxing or removing them
> would not infringe upon the government’s national sovereignty any more
> than a policy of unilateral free trade would.  If the United States would
> return to its 1790-1875 immigration policy, foreign militaries crossing
> U.S. borders would be countered by the U.S. military.  Allowing the free
> flow of non-violent and healthy foreign nationals does nothing to diminish
> the U.S. government’s legitimate monopoly on the use of force in the
> Weberian world.
> There is also a historical argument that free immigration and U.S.
> national sovereignty are not in conflict.  From 1790-1875 the federal
> government placed almost no restrictions on immigration.  At the time,
> states imposed restrictions on the immigration of free blacks and likely
> indigents through outright bars, taxes, passenger regulations, and bonds.Â
> Many of those restrictions weren’t enforced by state governments and were
> lifted in the 1840s after Supreme Court decisions.  However, that open
> immigration policy did not stop the United States from fighting two wars
> against foreign powers – the WWar of 1812 and the Mexican-American War –
> and the Civil War.  The U..S. government’s monopoly on the legitimate
> use of force during that time was certainly challenged from within and
> without but the U.S. government maintained its national sovereignty even
> with near open borders.
> The U.S. government was also clearly sovereign during that period of
> history.  Those who claim the U.S. government would lose its national
> sovereignty under a regime of free immigration have yet to reconcile that
> with America’s past of doing just that.  To argue that open borders
> would destroy American sovereignty is to argue that the United States was
> not a sovereign country when George Washington, Andrew Jackson, or Abraham
> Lincoln were Presidents.  We do not have to choose between free
> immigration and U.S. national sovereignty.
> Furthermore, national sovereign control over immigrations means that the
> government can do whatever it wants with that power – including
> relinquishing it entirely.  It would be odd to argue that sovereign states
> have complete control over their border except they can’t open them too
> much.  Of course, they can – that is the essence of sovereignty.  After
> all, I’m arguing that the United States government should change its laws
> to allow for more legal immigration, not that the U.S. government should
> cede all of its power to a foreign sovereign.
> 11.  “Immigrants won’t vote for the Republican Party – look at what
> happened to California.â€
> This is an argument used by some Republicans to oppose liberalized
> immigration.  They point to my home state of California as an example of
> what happens when there are too many immigrants and their descendants:
> Democratic control.  The evidence is clear that Hispanic and immigrant
> voters in California in the early to mid-1990s did turn the state blue but
> that was a reaction to the state GOP declaring political war on them
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/proposition-187-turned-california-blue>.Â
> Those who claim that changing demographics due to immigration is solely
> responsible for the shift in California’s politics have to explain the
> severe drop-off in support for the GOP at exactly the same time that the
> party was using anti-immigration propositions and arguments to win the 1994
> election.  They would further have to why Texas Hispanics are so much more
> Republican than those in California.  Nativism has never been the path
> toward national party success and frequently contributes to their downfall
> <http://??.htm>.  In other words, whether immigrants vote for
> Republicans is mostly up to how Republicans treat them. Â
> Republicans should look toward the inclusive and relatively
> pro-immigration policies and positions adopted by their fellow party
> members in Texas and their subsequent electoral success there rather than
> trying to replicate the foolish nativist politics pursued by the California
> Republican Party.  My comment here assumes that locking people out of the
> United States because they might disproportionality vote for one of the two
> major parties is a legitimate use of government power – I do not believe
> that it is. Â
> 12.  “Immigrants bring with them their bad cultures, ideas, or other
> factors that will undermine and destroy our economic and political
> institutions.  The resultant weakening in economic growth means that
> immigrants will destroy more wealth than they will create.â€
> This is the most intelligent anti-immigration argument and the one most
> likely to be correct
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/best-argument-against-immigration>,
> although the evidence currently doesn’t support it being true.Â
> Economics Michael Clemens lays out a wonderful model
> <http://www.nyudri.org/research-index/2016/migrationrestrictions> of how
> immigrants could theoretically weaken the growth potential of any receiving
> countries.  In his model, he assumes that immigrants transmit these
> anti-growth factors to the United States.  However, as the immigrants
> assimilate into American ideas and notions, these anti-growth factors
> weaken over time.  Congestion could counteract that assimilation process
> when there are too many immigrants with too many bad ideas, thus
> overwhelming assimilative forces.  Clemens is rightly skeptical that this
> is occurring but his paper lays out the theoretical point where immigration
> restrictions would be efficient – where they balance the benefits of
> economic expansioon from immigration with the costs of institutional
> degradation. Empirical evidence doesn’t point to this effect either.Â
> In a recent academic paper
> <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-015-0254-y?sa_campaign=email/event/articleAuthor/onlineFirst>,
> my coauthors and I compared economic freedom scores with immigrant
> populations across 100 countries over 21 years.  Some countries were
> majority immigrant while some had virtually none.  We found that the
> larger a country’s immigrant population was in 1990, the more economic
> freedom increased in the same country by 2011.  The immigrant’s country
> of origin, and whether they came from a poor nation or a rich one, didn’t
> affect the outcome.  These results held for the United States federal
> government but not for state governments.  States with greater immigrant
> populations in 1990 had less economic freedom in 2011 than those with fewer
> immigrants, but the difference was small.  The national increase in
> economic freedom more than outweighed the small decrease in economic
> freedom in states with more immigrants.  Large immigrant populations also
> don’t increase the size of welfare programs or other public programs
> across American states
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/political-externalities-immigration-evidence-united-states>
> and there is a lot of evidence that more immigrants in European countries
> actually decreases support for big government.
> Although this anti-immigration argument could be true, it seems unlikely
> to be so for several reasons.  First, it is very hard to upend established
> political and economic institutions through immigration.  Immigrants
> change to fit into the existing order rather than vice versa.Â
> Institutions are ontologically collective – my American conceptions of
> private property rights wouldn’t accompany me in any meaningful way if I
> went to Cuba and vice versa.  It would take a rapid inundation of
> immigrants and replacement of natives to change institutions in most
> places.   Â
> The second possibility is immigrant self-selection: Those who decide to
> come here mostly admire American institutions or have policy opinions that
> are very similar to those of native-born Americans.  As a result, adding
> more immigrants who already broadly share the opinions of most Americans
> would not affect policy.  This appears to be the case in the United
> States
> <http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/political-assimilation-immigrants-their-descendants>
> .
> The third explanation is that foreigners and Americans have very similar
> policy opinions
> <http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/09/emerging-and-developing-economies-much-more-optimistic-than-rich-countries-about-the-future/inequality-01/>.
> This hypothesis is related to those above, but it indicates an area where
> Americans may be unexceptional compared to the rest of the world.Â
> According to this theory, Americans are not more supportive of free markets
> than most other peoples, we’re just lucky that we inherited excellent
> institutions from our ancestors.
> The fourth reason is that more open immigration makes native voters oppose
> welfare or expanded government because they believe immigrants will
> disproportionately consume the benefits (regardless of the fact that poor
> immigrants actually under­consume welfare compared to poor Americans).Â
> In essence, voters hold back the expansion of those programs based on the
> belief that immigrants may take advantage of them.  As Paul Krugman aptly
> observed
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/opinion/paul-krugman-immigration-children.html?_r=0>,
> “Absent those [immigration] restrictions, there would have been many
> claims, justified or not, about people flocking to America to take
> advantage of [New Deal] welfare programs.â€
> As the late labor historian (and immigration restrictionist) Vernon M.
> Briggs Jr. wrote
> <http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100851920>, “This
> era [of immigration restrictions] witnessed the enactment of the most
> progressive worker and family legislation the nation has ever adopted.†Â
> None of those programs would have been politically possible to create
> amidst mass immigration. Government grows the fastest when immigration is
> the most restricted, and it slows dramatically when the borders are more
> open.
> Even Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels thought
> <https://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393040984/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1470671363&sr=8-1&keywords=it+didn%27t+happen+here>
> that the prospects for working class revolution in the United States were
> diminished due to the varied immigrant origins of the workers who were
> divided by a high degree of ethnic, sectarian, and racial diversity.  That
> immigrant-led diversity may be why the United States never had a popular
> workers, labor, or socialist party.
> The most plausible argument against liberalizing immigration is that
> immigrants will worsen our economic and political institutions, thus
> slowing economic growth and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.Â
> Fortunately, the academic and policy literature does not support this
> argument and there is some evidence that immigration could actually improve
> our institutions.  Even the best argument against immigration is still
> unconvincing.
> 13.  “The brain drain of smart immigrants to the United State
> impoverished other countries.â€
> The results of the empirical evidence
> <http://www.cgdev.org/publication/skill-flow-fundamental-reconsideration-skilled-worker-mobility-and-development-working>
> on this point are conclusive: The flow of skilled workers from
> low-productivity countries to high-productivity nations increases the
> incomes of people in the destination country, enriches the immigrant, and
> helps (or at least doesn’t hurt) those left behind.  Furthermore,
> remittances that immigrants send home are often large enough to offset any
> loss in home country productivity by emigration.  In the long run, the
> potential to immigrate and the higher returns from education increase the
> incentive for workers in the Developing World to acquire skills that they
> otherwise might not – increasing the quanttity of human capital.  Instead
> of being called a brain drain, this phenomenon should be accurately called
> a skill flow. Â
> Economic development should be about increasing the incomes of people not
> the amount of economic activity in specific geographical regions.Â
> Immigration and emigration do just that.   Â
> 14.  “Immigrants will increase crowding, harm the environment, and
> [insert misanthropic statement here].â€
> The late economist Julian Simon
> <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5941.html> spent much of his career
> showing that people are an economic and environmental blessing, not a
> curse.  Despite his work, numerous anti-immigration organizations today
> were funded and founded to oppose immigration because it would increase the
> number of high-income Americans who would then harm the environment more.Â
> Yes, seriously <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5941.html> – just read
> about John Tanton <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton> who is the
> Johnny Appleseed of modern American nativism.
> Concern about crowding is focused on publicly provided goods or services –
> like schools, roads, and heavily zoned urban areas.  Private businesses
> don’t complain about crowding, they expand to meet demand which increases
> their profits.  If crowding was really an issue then privatizing
> government functions so they have an incentive to rapidly meet demand is a
> cheap and easy option.  Even if the government doesn’t do that, and I
> don’t suspect they will in the near future, the problems of crowding are
> manageable because more immigrants also mean a larger tax base.  Reforming
> or removing local land use laws that prevent development would also go a
> long way to alleviating any concerns over crowding.
> Although we should think of these issues on the margin, would you rather
> be stuck with the problems of crowding like they have in Houston or the
> problem of not enough crowding like in Detroit?
> 15.  “Some races and ethnic groups are genetically inferior.  They
> need to be prevented from coming here, breeding, and decreasing America’s
> good ethnic stock.â€
> These arguments were more popular a century ago when notions of eugenics
> and racism were widely believed, based on extraordinarily bad research
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/thomas-sowell-immigration>, and were some of
> the main arguments for passage of the Immigration Act of 1924
> <http://www.cato.org/blog/reflections-immigration-act-1924>.  They have
> resurfaced in the comment sections of some blogs and on twitter, frequently
> directed at yours truly, but these types of arguments still aren’t
> publicly aired very often and are quite silly.  I don’t spend time
> engaging with them but I had to mention that they are still out there.
> There are other arguments that people use in opposition to immigration.Â
> Many of those arguments revolve around issues of “fairness†– a word
> with a fuzzy meaning that diffeers dramatically between people and
> cultures.  Arguments about fairness often depend on feelings and, usually,
> a misunderstanding of the facts that is quickly corrected by reference to
> my 8th point above.
> https://fee.org/articles/15-common-arguments-against-
> immigration-addressed//?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=
> learnliberty&utm_content=FEE
> -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For
> options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum Â
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's
> active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest
> breaking news, and more.
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
> receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@
> googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> optout.
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "PoliticalForum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to