Views of the Immigrants

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.

Author: pithom

An atheist with an interest in the history of the ancient Near East. Author of the Against Jebel al-Lawz Wordpress blog.

3 thoughts on “Views of the Immigrants”

  1. Seems like you’re missing one of the major benefits of immigration here, which is long-term benefits from the fusion of cultures and the development of links between different societies and nations. Back in the early 1900s, particular nationalities such as the Irish and the Italian were seen as undesirables by nativist Whites in the US (indeed, the Irish were delegated to a level right next to Blacks), but clearly as they were integrated into a homogeneous “White American” ethnicity, there were huge benefits via less conflict and more cooperation.

    The same holds true today. We’ll all be better off as we blur the boundaries between different cultures and nations and move closer and closer to a real global community. The United States is uniquely situated to lead in this, but that requires overcoming nativist prejudices and the continuing power of racialized thinking.

    1. What, exactly, are the huge benefits from more cooperation you’re speaking of? I surely don’t see them. Sure, I agree with the general universalist dream of breaking down barriers between ethnic groups for superior cooperation, but I just don’t see that as something resulting in huge benefits, and, in any case, it’s a highly non-specific one, not dependent on any specific group of immigrants. That specific marginal benefit can be outweighed by even small marginal costs.

      As for the global community, doesn’t seem to have worked with Russia.

      Racialized thinking is very powerful because it pays a lot of untapped rent in terms of forecasting ability. I don’t see why it should be overcome. I like Steve Sailer’s ideas.

      1. I mean, it should be obvious that there are significant benefits that accrue when communities aren’t sinking resources into fighting or excluding one another. It is especially true if we’re talking about the way race and nationality operates in a capitalist society, insofar as racial and national divisions prevent workers from uniting and challenging class society.

Read the Comment Policy Before Commenting.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: