I personally like them, and feel that they're more stabilizing than not: we're less likely to go to war with a nation of whose ethnicities make up some substantial fraction of our populace, and may be treated better in the case of war (look at German-American vs. Japanese-American treatment in WWII). But these are only my views.
You can ask Taleb about his views on Middle Eastern immigration to the West; IIRC he's from Lebanon.
Places like the US and Denmark are incredibly non-corrupt, while places like Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria are highly corrupt. Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it.
If there's a clear plan and proven successes on acculturating immigrants, I'm much less worried about opening up borders. Without that, though, we may be risking a highly nebulous yet incredibly important shared resource - the cultural norms that make our communities excellent places to live.
These “cultural factors” have to do with strong social and economic institutions like public schools and libraries, reasonably fair and legitimate court systems, a free press and freedom of association, a somewhat accountable and accessible political system, stable and reasonably clearly defined property rights, highly functioning distribution networks for basic goods and services, a fluid job market with protection of labor rights, a wide distribution of political and economic power across many regions and industries, a taxation system which leaves everyone feeling they have “skin in the game”, and so on.
There’s no evidence that immigrants (documented or undocumented) cause any more corruption or crime than native born residents. Indeed, the evidence we have in the USA generally suggests that first and second generation immigrants are less likely to break the law than other residents.
Nativist anti-immigrant rhetoric today in the USA about Muslims or Latin Americans or Chinese is nearly identical in content and structure to anti-immigrant rhetoric about Germans, Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Catholics, Jews, etc. in the past. There’s no reason to believe that undocumented Guatemalans or Syrian refugees immigrating to the US today will be any different than my Irish ancestors were 150 years ago, w/r/t assimilation.
>There’s no evidence that immigrants (documented or undocumented) cause any more corruption or crime than native born residents. Indeed, the evidence we have in the USA generally suggests that first and second generation immigrants are less likely to break the law than other residents.
The immigration restrictions are a big confounder here. The US is much more likely to let doctors and engineers immigrate. If these folks then have low crime rate, it could either be because of being an immigrant or because of being a professional. If it's more the latter, that isn't great evidence for letting other kinds of immigrants in.
The US has millions of undocumented immigrants, mainly from Latin America, who work as migrant agricultural laborers, factory workers, restaurant staff, and many other low-skill jobs. From what I remember (it’s been a while since I looked at the numbers and I don’t have a link off-hand), they are involved in crimes at a significantly lower rate than native citizens.
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc weren't drastically more corrupt than the United States a hundred years ago, were they? Also, "there were not problems" is questionable; this prior flow of migration may have contributed to the infamously low value of labor during the Gilded age.
> immigrants [...] commit less (or at least not more) crime
For the record I'm agnostic on this issue, but it bothers me that a lot of very smart people seem to be very convinced by this particular red herring. Cohesion of the whole can be impaired despite all the parts being of good quality, if they do not fit together very well.
The idea that immigrants “don’t fit together” with existing Americans is rhetoric pitched toward places where there are few immigrants, making the immigrants a convenient scapegoat / bogeyman because they can’t answer back. The places with substantial immigrant populations are mostly getting along just fine.
Jim and Deb Fallows have recently been doing a nice bit of traveling around the US writing about this and similar issues.
- apparently I've committed the sin of having sympathy for the other side, so I must agree with them
- if it's rhetoric then it's also independent invention because I certainly didn't get it anywhere and never meant to imply it; I only expressed a certain possible flaw in a purportedly logical argument, and there are others (eg that higher housing prices specifically cause crime, or that competition for low-skill labor drives down wages at the bottom and causes crime, or...). The point is not one of them but all of them; the flaw is in the structure of the argument
- I'm not utilizing a fear of immigrants in my argument and I originally said that to you, not to a poor person from eastern Colorado, which makes it hard to think I was
* when questioned, you made an about-face from criminological data to sob stories, "how could you awful conservatives hate those cute immigrant faces", which is both annoying because I'm neither conservative nor against immigration, and it torpedoes your rational credibility
I think you’re taking my comment rather more personally than is reasonable. I don’t have any idea what you believe, who you sympathize with, etc.
You said “Cohesion of the whole can be impaired despite all the parts being of good quality, if they do not fit together very well.”
This sort of vague analogy has been a common rhetorical device used by anti-immigrant populists trying to stir up nativist resentment for 150+ years, without any strong evidence that it’s true. I’m calling the specific sentence out for being usually, in my opinion, toxic nonsense.
* * *
To answer your previous points:
As for the effect of immigration on labor markets during the Gilded Age, I’m not enough of an expert to say. That sounds like a topic which could fill a few academic research careers in labor history and produce several books (or probably has).
On the other hand, the research I’ve seen about low-skill immigration from Latin America in the past few decades has seemed reasonably convincing that such immigration has not had dramatic downward effects on wages for native workers and on average has boosted local wages by strengthening the economy generally, and that downward pressure on wages for unskilled factory work, etc., has a lot more to do with other factors (changes to labor law, global trade, automation, etc.). There’s obviously a lot of debate and controversy about the precise details.
> Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, etc weren't drastically more corrupt than the United States a hundred years ago, were they?
Well, they were all feudal societies with a landed aristocracy ruling by force of arms, with most of the migrants being rural peasant farmers driven off the land (often forcibly) and forced to migrate abroad due to population growth and lack of local employment opportunities. I’m not sure what you count as “corrupt”. In my opinion everything about a feudal society is inherently corrupt.
The situation of peasant farmers fleeing these countries is actually remarkably similar to the situation of migrants from southern Mexico in the 1980s–2000s. If you took my Irish ancestor’s story from the mid-19th century and set it side by side with the story of a rural Mexican peasant migrant from 1995, and changed all the names in both stories, you wouldn’t be able to tell which one was which.
>This sort of vague analogy has been a common rhetorical device used by anti-immigrant populists trying to stir up nativist resentment for 150+ years, without any strong evidence that it’s true. I’m calling the specific sentence out for being usually, in my opinion, toxic nonsense.
Toxic nonsense is what happens when people misuse the idea of scientific proof to lend credence to their political beliefs. Again, I'm not talking to the kind of people who are swayed by that kind of thing. I'm discussing a flaw in the structure of your argument you refuse to acknowledge.
Look, nobody believes "scientific proof" in relation to the things where it's really important (global warming, vaccination) anymore because it's been dragged through the mud by people who want to wave the banner of science in defense of some cause which they think is noble but where the quality of evidence just isn't as strong. That's what I'm concerned about. This is Hacker News, there's nobody for me to scare here.
And, deny it or not, you're being personal, and selective in your responses, which makes me feel this has been a rather unproductive conversation.
It also happens that the Irish (local) and Italian governments were a lot more corrupt than America was in 1916. Italy is much more corrupt than America to this day. You're clearly a crackpot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
>the Irish and Italian governments were a lot more corrupt
You're going to have to provide some numbers. I don't think that you understand what's going on here.
Although, I should point out that you have no objection to discussing the Irish government in 1916. If I want to argue like you, I could try to say that proves you're a moron, but maybe it's okay to be a little less than computer-level specificity while discussing the general governance of those areas. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the British Empire were among the world's largest economies. Italy was the first country to use airplanes in warfare.
I didn't want to get into this side of the argument because it's unsavory and frankly insulting to even consider but the point is that acknowledgment of doubt is necessary for intellectual honesty in any issue this complex. The existence of certainty among people hoping for "open borders" is likely a result of wishful thinking.
>You're clearly a crackpot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
No, I'm explaining flaws in an argument which is touted as airtight and used by a lot of arrogant bullies such as yourself to shut down dissent on a controversial issue, and you're trolling. You have contributed nothing but insults because you don't have a real argument; you just try to catch mistakes (but you didn't catch any) and call people dumb.
Legitimate court systems, accountable political system, protection of labor rights, they are all examples of things not being corrupt. So the reason for less corruption can't be less corruption. You're talking in circles here.
You’re missing my point, which is that the “cultural factors” are not about individual people being inherently “corrupt”, but more about institutional strength and power distribution in the whole society. The US has a long history of integrating immigrants from a variety of cultural backgrounds, historically including large numbers of rural peasants from quasi-feudal societies, and plenty of people from places dominated by local “corruption”.
Individual people make up society. If those individuals are mostly corrupt, then society becomes corrupt as well, isn't it? If a judge knows that he won't get in trouble for accepting bribes because the DA won't prosecute, then the "institutional strength and power distribution" would be affected by that. Where is the difference here?
And not to nitpick, but why are you now scare quoting corruption, when before you did not? Do you not think corruption is a real problem?
If you don't have a legitimate court system or an accountable political system it's very hard to fight corruption, which makes it rather unlikely that either of those things will be established. So the reason for less corruption now can indeed be less corruption in the past.
I would consider the US a proven success on acculturating immigrants. Over 200 years of importing people from broken corrupt and broken regimes, creating a prosperous and relatively uncorrupt society.
Do you even read what you write. I see comments like this all over the internet and it amazes me how the irony of your statement completely eludes you.
You basic argument is that immigrant culture has no effect on violence but the culture of another group(the white people) does. Ok, so in that case, nations completely ruled by the culture the immigrants comes from, must inherently be free of major violence. Hmmm does that sound correct.
If anything, the west post world war 2 bred a new culture that gave birth to true liberty. The democracies formed in this period shaped the freedoms we have today, and pushed for human rights and equality. There is still progress to make, but targeting groups of people is no solution.
Btw I am Indian, and if you want to argue that ruling whites are a source of major violence, just go and read the history of India from 1000-1800. No white people, lots and lots of violence. All races are the same.
I was replying to specifically the last 200 years in America. As you right as you are it has nothing to do with what the comment was about. Also how is pointing out that the ruling class/race is responsible for violence "singling" them out? White people aren't some specific out-group here. Who fought to keep slaves? White people. Who only wanted to free the slaves to put moral pressure on other countries during they eqyptian cotton crisis? White people. Who roamed the country side after slaves were free to Lynch free men for the color of their skin. White people. Who imported crack to the inner cities? Who started the devastating war on drugs? Who defunded public welfare and health programs for the poor? Us every time.
This goes on too. Concentration camps for asian-americans, constant abuses of Native American populations, the constant harassment of immigrant cultures- none of this was imported with immigrants, it's the product of a society they desperately wants to remain homogenous
> how is pointing out that the ruling class/race is responsible for violence "singling" them out
It's not just because it stereotypes individuals, groups them, and judges them based on involuntary criteria (skin color). There is a rich history of American white culture absolutely opposed to racism. For example, white Quakers fought slavery since the 17th century, often at personal cost [1]. Countless white people died in the Civil War over the issue of slavery.
So I reject the entire idea of a 'ruling race'. I guess 'ruling class' is technically more fluid, but people often have notions of class foisted on them, including here, so it's not necessarily any better.
As someone who originated from a developing country and now resides in a developed one, there's much truth and not a lot of racism in that sentence.
It's not about race, it's about values, i.e. culture. Speak to an immigrant, they'd tell you this. My Aunts say it all the time - "I do miss home but we have such bad leaders....yes the food is terrible but life is so much simpler here.....people here are so trusting and kind".
Cultural norms are important and fascinating. Let's not hijack the opportunity for interesting conversation with accusations of racism.
It's treading close to the line though. It's assuming that corruption is a result of some kind of internal pro-corruption tendency in the people of those countries, rather than structural issues within the countries that would be left behind when they left. For example, one of the problems with Brazil right now seems to be that allegations of corruption and corruption investigations are themselves untrustworthy, tools used by corrupt individuals to get rid of others who might investigate them.
Parent comment was using a series of phrases that are repeated to reinforce the idea of importance of cultural homogeneity and keeping out groups out in the name of traditionalism and "values."
Okay I'm going to spell out a major factor then. What this poster was implying that they are against immigrants because they believe immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin. This ignores centuries of confounding factors such as possible imperial rule, internal resources collapse, or failed economic experiments and makes it purely about nationality. Somewhat importantly, op only listed PoC's nationalities. Dog whistle racism, or coded racism, is all about subtext
> "Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it."
How did you make the leap from 'cultural factors' to "immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin."?
There is nothing about inherent inclinations. The point - one I have firsthand experience with - is that the institutions the West have ("they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it") are lacking in many parts of the world.The reason for this are complex - something the OP alludes to - but culture definitely plays a part.
Why my taxi driver gets hustled for bribes at gunpoint when in Nigeria but not in Laos, or why a lost wallet was handed in at a Kyoto train station but not in my hometown is more a matter of culture than of chance.
We can have that discussion without crying racist.
> We can have that discussion without crying racist.
I hope so, but threads like these are depressing.
It's a good thing to point out that argument <x> is often used as veiled racism, or to explain how the underlying dynamic might be more racist than we might be aware of. But what I'm seeing here is false equivalence: "because racists say <x>, <x> is a racist argument merely by association. or too close for comfort to be able to discuss at all." This shuts down any conversation and the person holding view <x> walks away feeling misjudged and quite likely still holding view <x> because we humans have trouble separating a good argument from any judgment that comes with it.
I would very much like it if we could avoid that here, even if we know for a fact that the person bringing forward argument <x> is an actual racist.
That's the point of dog-whistle politics. That's exactly it.
If you're not already part of the subculture primed to pick up on these cues--if you don't hear the dog whistle--you don't get what the speaker/writer is saying.
Yeah no, I'm not that complicated of a person. When I say that my community has better culture, it's because I like the cultural factors we have. People here don't care if I'm openly bisexual, whereas Uganda has lynch mobs that will set you on fire. Or how I can easily speak the truth as I see it on religious matters here, but get sentenced to torture for atheistic twitter messages in Saudi Arabia.
If having these preferences gets me called racist, then fine. Whatever. All I wanted to do was remind people that these cultural differences exist, and that I really do not want an Eternal September that threatens them. Hell, I even think that America probably should have somewhat looser immigration laws than they currently do.
Sure, you get the freedom to say and think whatever you want, about whoever you want. So do I.
So go ahead, by all means, have whatever views you want. Espouse whatever views you want.
I don't really care, because I don't know you and will never, ever need to work with you, do business with you, invite you to my wedding or holiday dinner, whatever.
All that said, dog whistle politics is a real thing, even if you or other people here don't know about it. And not knowing about the specific cues just means you're not part of the group that'll respond to that dog whistle.
"A little bit of adversity results in things, a little bit of strain, of stress, results in a little more performance on anything." - Taleb on the Lebanese diaspora
Worrisome because consequences of climate change have the potential to cause 100s of millions of humans to move in a timeframe that is impossible to deal with.
In Australia, immigration is used to increase the population, which is used to increase gdp. The problem is that infrastructure is not improved to meet the growing population, and the increase in gdp is not enough to go around for the new people, so everybody in the middle and lower class gets a smaller part of the gdp. Cities where you could afford a nice house in a quiet area become concrete jungles where people are stacked on top of each other in apartments. House prices (for the same type of house people were used to living in) increase massively due to the increase in demand.
I am assuming something similar happens in America. The increase in population just means a decrease in quality of life for the existing people.
I personally like them, and feel that they're more stabilizing than not: we're less likely to go to war with a nation of whose ethnicities make up some substantial fraction of our populace, and may be treated better in the case of war (look at German-American vs. Japanese-American treatment in WWII). But these are only my views.
You can ask Taleb about his views on Middle Eastern immigration to the West; IIRC he's from Lebanon.