The title is meant to be ironic.
Throughout my reading of debates between (American) immigration restrictionists and immigration anti-restrictionists, I have never remembered hearing the typical economist’s view: the view that something must be done until its marginal costs reach its marginal benefits.
Here I take Sailer’s citizenist view on what is meant by marginal costs and marginal benefits: total marginal costs and benefits to the citizens of a country.
What are the marginal costs of Asian immigration? Political liberalism, firstly and foremostly. Asians are a third more liberal than Blacks and Hispanics, and this cannot have a positive impact on the future of the country.
What are the marginal benefits of Asian immigration? Lower crime, more innovation, more and cheaper skilled professionals.
Do the marginal costs of Asian immigration exceed the marginal benefits? It’s not at all clear at the present. The most important marginal costs can be mitigated by increasing the time necessary for naturalization to twenty years in place of the current five. In the long run, it may well be that Asian immigration over the next twenty years was a mistake, though it seems that Chinese immigration has so far been beneficial for New York City. Indeed, you could see numerous Chinese faces in Times Square last New Year’s Eve. It’s interesting Steve Sailer didn’t write about that.
What are the marginal costs of Pakistani immigration? Firstly and foremost, terrorism. Pakistanis perpetrated the deadliest terrorist attack (despite it being eagerly blamed on White men by the usual suspects in the fog of early reporting) in America since 9/11. Secondly, clannishness. Pakistanis are a clannish and a religious people; they often cluster in families of hundreds in American towns via chain migration. The Pakistani-Americans I have met have also struck me as generally less sophisticated than their Indian equivalents.
What are the marginal benefits of Pakistani immigration? More and cheaper taxi drivers, more and cheaper skilled professionals.
Do the marginal costs of Pakistani immigration exceed the marginal benefits to the citizens of the United States? The answer is either “almost” or “yes”. Clearly, Pakistani migration to the United States should be more selected and tightened with a strong focus on skilled migration, if it is not to be banned entirely and replaced by superior-quality Indian immigration.
Mexican immigration, due to housing construction restrictions and the end of the 2000s housing boom, seems to be an issue that solved itself over the past decade or so. Nevertheless, Mexican immigration provides few marginal costs or benefits to the citizens of the United States.
While my examples are only preliminary, it is clear that this marginal costs/benefits approach should be used more often.