Monday, March 27, 2017

One Billion Muslims

Shortly after Trump was elected, I remember reading an article describing the Muslim ban he had suggested during his campaign as a proposed policy to ban over 1 billion Muslims from immigrating to the U.S.  Now, literally a ban on Muslims would potentially apply to over 1 billion Muslims, but practically there are fewer than a billion Muslims seeking entry to the U.S.

In that regard, the claim seemed purposefully inflammatory, intentionally trying to put Trump’s reticence on allowing all comers from the Middle East into the country as a policy that practically shuts the door on 1 billion would-be immigrants.  No doubt the author regarded any proposed Muslim ban as motivated by some combination of racism (even though Whities like Beau Bergdahl can join with Allah!) and discrimination against a marginalized religious minority (which is also mistaken, as most Muslims live in Muslim dominated countries). 

The description of the proposed ban in that extreme way suggests a useful thought experiment that I believe gives the lie to the knee-jerk accusation that setting limits on immigration from certain demographics is somehow morally reprehensible.  The experiment is simple – suppose that all 1 billion plus Muslims outside our shores sought to immigrate to the United States tomorrow.  Are you for it or against it?

If you are for it, let’s take the example one step further.  Let’s suppose that every single person of those billion immigrants has a preference for settling in your home state.   Still for it?  What if they all want to be in the same county as you?  And if you have in mind slyly moving to another state while professing your love of immigrants, suppose still that wherever you seek to move within the country, they will similarly see as a greener pasture and be on your heals.

Now, clearly putting 1 billion people of one religious faith in your 50 square mile county makes you an exceedingly small religious (or non-religious) minority within that county.  Maybe your county had as many as 1 million professed Christians (which is probably higher than any one county in the US).  Your religious group just went from a dominant and tolerant majority in the county to 0.1 percent of the population, with 99.9 percent Muslim presence.

Are you still OK with this?  Let’s say that you are.  Can you name for me any country in this world where an exceedingly small religious minority of Christians is able to freely practice their religion without persecution in a Muslim dominated country?  Can you name for a dominant Muslim country that Christians currently seek to immigrate to?  Or is it the opposite – are Christians generally fleeing such countries if possible?  Does the fact that no Christians are immigrating to Muslim dominated countries suggest something about the nature of living in Muslim dominated countries? 

If you think it is OK for one billion Muslims to move next door, but have no desire yourself to move to a Muslim country, what makes you think the end-result politically and culturally would not be the same? 

Anyone uncomfortable with these questions has been so indoctrinated by the concept that America’s diversity is its strength that they are blind to the obvious limitations of that propaganada.  And it is propaganda.  The Borjas book was largely about the economic effects of immigration, but he did touch on issues such as assimilation.  Discussing the research of a Harvard sociologist who was loathe to draw these conclusions from his research:

Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to “hunker down.” Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. Putnam goes on to provide a long list of the seemingly harmful effects of increased ethnic diversity: lower confidence in government, lower voter registration rates, a lower probability of giving to charity or volunteering, and a lower chance of participating in community projects.

I’ve read about Putnam’s conclusions before in a funny little book called We Are Doomed.  The author described Putnam’s article as having a curious structure with three main sections:

The Prospects and Benefits of Immigration and Ethnic Diversity (three pages)
Immigration and Diversity Foster Social Isolation (nineteen pages)
Becoming Comfortable with Diversity (seven pages)

He then suggested a similar structure for a publication in a health journal with comparably self-contradicting section titles:

Health benefits of drinking green tea
Green tea causes intestinal cancer
Making the switch to green tea


Putnam, after all, understands the implications of bucking the diversity mob in academia, and so had to go through the hand wringing of drawing normative conclusions or recommendations that were clearly at odds with the positive findings of his research.

The diversity concerns are not separate from the underlying economic aspects of immigration.  This decline in social capital is happening in the low-rent neighborhoods where poor immigrants are forced to settle by economic necessity.  And it is not merely a racist reaction from whities wishing it was 1950s Happy Days again, as all groups – even the immigrants - find themselves hunkering down.  All rich liberals want diversity in very small doses for themselves, if at all, but in large doses for others whether they like it or not.  The costs of diversity all fall to a specific group.   The group that incurs none of those costs meanwhile safely preens about its high-mindedness, when in reality the issue doesn’t touch them.   


I think it would be absurd for anyone to argue that the importation of a billion Muslims would not fundamentally change the country for the worse.  Our Constitution wouldn’t protect us in a democracy where one billion culturally distinct people have common political interests that are antithetical to most of our best political and cultural traditions.  It is not wrong to keep people who view such traditions as obstacles and major flaws out of the country in the first place.  It’s not racist, it’s not oppressive, it’s common sense.  Some cultural differences imply the best approach is to keep such cultures separate, or otherwise to prudently manage the degree to which you allow immigration from Muslim countries to occur.  We should all agree that 1 billion is not the right number.  I would say 100 million or 10 million is still too high.  Whatever your number is, having a number beneath 1 billion doesn’t make you a racist.

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Immigration - It's About the Money Not the Race

More than any other issue, illegal immigration is the reason Trump won the presidency. The anti-immigrant vibe in the country has a lot of people whipped up into a righteous outrage, as they see it exclusively in terms of race, and view opposition to a porous border as racist.  Racism may be a motive to oppose immigration, but it aint the only reason.  Immigration, like any other issue, implies economic tradeoffs for the citizenry – it creates winners and losers.  If enough people feel they are on the losing side of the tradeoff, they will justifiably and quite rationally vote to curb their losses. 

There is an economist by the name of George Borjas, himself a Cuban immigrant, that has a short and interesting book called We Wanted Workers that provides the data and the facts surrounding the redistributional effects of immigration.  Borjas put it bluntly: “Devoid of all the ideological trappings and all the deliberate obfuscations, immigration can be viewed for what it plainly is: another redistributive social policy.”  However, the redistribution in this case is from the working poor to the well off.

Whether you win or lose with immigration largely depends upon where you sit in comparison to the dominant immigrant group flowing into the labor market. When the immigrant influx is dominated by low-skill workers, as the wave of illegal immigration over the last twenty years had been, the losers from this are other low-skilled workers who see their wages and employment opportunities depressed.  The winners are the immigrants themselves, who come here for better employment prospects, and those in the workforce whose skill sets are such that they face no increased competition from said workers, but benefit from lower prices for services that they can and do outsource to low-skill labor. 

Every week I have teams of non-English speaking landscapers who manicure my lawn on the cheap, and clean the house.  Take those people out of the labor pool, the price of these services go up, and I let the lawn and the house go to hell, or I otherwise have to divert time away from making no money writing pointless blog posts for free.  Come to think of it, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing.  But still you get the point – it’s all at least potential upside for the Hatcher on the consumer side.  On the community side, the relative affluence of the hood keeps the public schools largely self-segregated by income, and therefore there is no downside of the schools being inundated with non-English speaking kids that create resource allocation issues for the schools.  Now, in private a guy like me could be a flaming racist, but the economics make a guy like me favor the immigration status quo.

If you are a high school dropout, you are in the opposite situation.  You compete directly against the incoming immigrants, and moreover you live in the same neighborhoods that feed into the same schools.  As a landscaper yourself, you don’t relish the fact that now you can have your lawn mowed on the cheap, as the same is true for all of your customers who are either beating you down on price or dropping your service.  From an economic standpoint, it’s all downside for you.  You could be the most racially tolerant guy on the planet, but the economics of the issue for you are such that you will fight against the immigration status quo tooth and nail. 

It is flattering for me in my community to say keep the border open (even as you need a code to get into my neighborhood) because I am open-minded and not a racist hick.  And if I am prone to pointing out the flaws in others, I might also accuse anyone who is against the status quo as being a racist hick.  All of this appears to be consistent with other pieces of evidence. For example, I live in an urban region, while all of these hicks are living in rural areas where everyone talks real slow.  I went to college where the administration carefully cultivated a diverse campus environment so that we could all pat ourselves on the back for our high-mindedness, whereas the high school dropouts on the farm only see black people on TV.  All of the evidence points to me as open-minded, and them as racist.  But all of the economic evidence also points to me as a clear economic beneficiary of immigration, and to them as clear losers.  Racist or not, they have a beef.

What is startling about the immigration debate is the lengths people go to in order to deny this underlying economic dynamic.  The laissez faire immigration policy (or lack thereof) carries with it massive redistribution effects on the citizenry that simply are ignored or glossed over.  If the same redistribution were achieved via a combination of tax and subsidy, it would be considered an outrage by most on the left who are concerned with income inequality, as it amounts to a tax on poor citizens to the benefit of well-off citizens. 

What’s the bottom line on immigration?  According to Borjas, once you factor in the increased reliance on welfare among the immigrant population, there is no net economic benefit to the native population.  However, there is a $500 billion redistribution from the lower-skilled native workers who compete against the dominant immigrant labor group, to the native population that faces no such competition.  If you assume this cost accrues evenly to a quarter of the native population (approximately 75 million people), this comes to $6,667 per person; that is no small tax.  Borjas boils one’s stance on immigration down to one question:  “In the end, the choice of an immigration policy is driven by the answer to: Who are you rooting for?”

Borjas also chronicles the efforts to ignore, deny, or obscure this evidence by pro-immigration media outlets (which include the Wall Street Journal – i.e., it’s not all liberal media; any libertarian leaning or pro-business leaning media will also be in this camp), which of course is not surprising.  In general, the people who comprise the media are not intelligent enough to follow and discern the economic debate among professionals, and therefore if there are professional economists who give the media the pro-immigration answer that they seek, they run with this as settled science.

Unfortunately, there is no lack of well-credentialed economists from reputable institutions with publications in refereed journals that cloud the issue.  Borjas makes quick and easy work of exposing the obvious flaws in the methodologies of the studies that purport, for example, to show that immigrant labor has had no effect on the wages of domestic labor.  One famous study that purported to show no effect involved a look at the labor market in Miami in the aftermath of the Mariel boat lift, when 125,000 Cubans immigrated to the Miami area in the early 1980s, almost two-thirds of which were high school dropouts.  The study looked at the wages for a broad group of native workers, rather than at the wages of the labor group that one would predict would be most affected by the competition with the Cuban immigrants – that of native born high school dropouts.  When Borjas revisited the issue and narrowed the focus to the correct labor group, of course he found a profound and negative effect on its wages. 


The pro-immigration economists, rather than being agnostic scientists going wherever the evidence leads, are also not shy about the fact that they are hell-bent on reaching a certain conclusion.  Borjas quotes two economists who have argued against Borjas’ analysis of the Mariel boatlift:  “We think the final goal of the economic profession should be to agree that . . . we do not find any significant evidence of a negative wage and employment effect of the Miami boatlift.”  Another economist, who looked at the issue and was surprised to find everyone sweeping the redistributive aspects of immigration under the rug, noticed the same: “A rabid collection of xenophobes and racists who are hostile to immigrants lose no opportunity to argue that migration is bad for indigenous populations. Understandably, this has triggered a reaction: desperate not to give succor to these groups, social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.”


Tuesday, February 14, 2017

An Explanation of Why We Are All Flaming Hypocrites

Hey, want me to share a little secret?  No, not that kind of secret.  Get your mind out of the gutter.  With the new political situation such as it is, I get four years of not caring anymore about politics, or at least not that much.  I might jump in with the occasional defense of the Donald, or try to troll a few liberals with a smarmy Facebook post, but otherwise I get to kick my heels up on ye olde desk, light up a cigar, and enjoy life as much as possible (subject to the obvious constraint of living in a thoroughly screwed up society). 

And for you Obama-ites out there, and other asunder liberals, it’s time to do the opposite and remain ever vigilant over the dimming flame of liberty and stuff like that there.  Time to brush off the “no justice no peace” and construct an argument that dissent, after an eight-year period of being racist bigotry or ideological partisanship, is now again the highest form of patriotism.

But you already knew that because you’ve been to like 16 protests already.  And the more committed among you have burned stuff, thrown batteries at people’s heads, and destroyed property to make it clear that you will not tolerate fascist violence (although anti-fascist violence is A-OK!).  Your eight-year vacation of tolerating or otherwise ignoring indefensible actions of the government is over, whereas mine is just beginning.  I’m even wearing a Tommy Bahama shirt as I type. 

Now, of course, not everyone on my side will be taking a vacation.  We have a small unit deployed to counter the silliness that will no doubt be argued by you guys for the foreseeable future.  Good luck to you in combating them - they are in a good position, because they have eight years of stupid precedents set by your main man in trying to jam his legislative agenda down the collective American throat to cite in defending the process by which Trump goes about doing the same.  

Don’t like the IRS targeting political enemies?  Well, you sure seemed fine with it before.  Find a president who criticizes elements of the press to be a troubling abuse of power casting a long shadow over the freedom of the press?  There are some unfortunate Obama quotes regarding Fox news that we might call to your attention, not to mention investigating and imprisoning journalists.  Find outright blatant and repeated lies from the President regarding key policies downright impeachable offenses?  I’ll mull that one over after a few more hours working to afford my now increased health care premiums (so that I can see the new doctor I had to switch to).  Object to the return of water-boarding to gain some useful intelligence from some terrorists?  Fair enough, we will skip straight to the drone “workplace violence removal strategy.”  Need I go on? 

Yes, I know, none of these things sound even remotely familiar to you.  It’s understandable – you’ve had eight years of sipping Mai Thais and posting cat pictures on Facebook – but trust me, all of it is well documented.  I’m sure it won’t deter you, but you cannot expect anyone on the other side to agree with you on principle if you fail to demonstrate any.

Which brings me to my point – in political arguments, anytime one party can point to inconsistencies regarding the positions of the other party, and cry hypocrisy, the equal and opposite cry of hypocrisy can fly in the other direction.  For example (and a boring one at that), Obama was an outspoken critic of raising the debt ceiling under GWB, but then sought to increase it under his own presidency.  So Obama can fairly and accurately be called a hypocrite, but the same argument could be lodged against a Republican who followed the party line under Bush, only to argue against it under Obama.  Now, there will in general be the rare exception of consistency for people on either side of the political spectrum or little nuances here and there that justifies an otherwise apparent inconsistency, but by and large as a party this flipping constantly occurs.  So it is inaccurate to make blanket statements such as all liberals are hypocrites on issue A, or all conservatives are hypocrites on issue B, but there are many instances where characterizations of the general approach of the group as hypocritical are accurate. 

I recently smarmily pointed out 2 such instances on Facebook.  One regarded the women’s march in Washington and other cities, which in part was motivated by crude comments (made hypothetically I might add) by Trump.  I think organizers would point to that comment, and perhaps allegations of actual sexual assault against Trump, as the raison d’etre for their march, rather than the true underlying reason, which was in large part the defense of abortion rights (and perhaps subsidized contraception).  They couldn’t say that, of course, because the possibility of a retrenchment of such “rights” was nothing new or unique to Trump, and the purpose of the rally was in part to suggest that he poses a unique threat to women.  And regardless of his personal conduct, real or imagined, there is absolutely zero evidence that Trump would seek to roll back legal protections for women who are victims of sexual assault (sorry, abortion is not a legal protection from such actions).  Furthermore, any attempt to do so would be political suicide, and so no one can seriously suggest he has such plans in the making.

Of course, many of the women attending were of adult age through the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was credibly accused of rape and sexual assault, but who despite his best efforts to get hundreds of thousands of women within arm’s reach of the White House earned no such women’s march.  The good women soldiers of the left were told by Gloria Steinem, in the wake of the Kathleen Wiley’s accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton (while she mourned her husband’s death), that perhaps a “one grope” rule should be invoked - a man cannot be expected to know that a sexual assault is unwanted unless and until he attempts it. To wit, at the time there was no protest.  Why not?  Well, to paraphrase one woman journalist, she would gladly perform fellatio on the president herself in exchange for keeping abortion legal. She couldn’t have cared less about a rape or an assault here or there as long as good old Bill didn’t come after abortion rights.  Calling many (not all) of the women attending the women’s march hypocrites is fair and accurate.

But the converse may also be true, although there are always differences. So we hear from liberals saying, wait a minute, all you Republicans were saying that Clinton’s actions were serious, impeachable, and at the very least despicable acts, and y’all ran to the ballot box to cast your vote for Trump amidst similar behavior and accusations.  Now, I’d argue in Clinton’s case some of what he was credibly accused of occurred during his presidency, and otherwise accusations lodged against him were far worse, such as the rape charges from Juanita Broderick.  But still, I will concede that if all Republicans and Democrats were polled in 1970 and asked whether any of the behavior of either Trump or Clinton was desirable or defensible in a President, there’d be uniform agreement that it is not.  

So why are we all a bunch of flaming hypocrites?  Well, we flat out have to be.  Think about the federal government as an organization that, for better or for worse, we’ve delegated hundreds of responsibilities to, leaving ourselves unable to work out satisfactory policies at the state or local level (where we have much more influence, if only by voting with our feet), or better yet through the private sector.  The guy from our tribe can be screwing up most every one of those hundreds of responsibilities, but so long as he has a few key policy positions in line with our own, we stick by him under the tacit assumption that, as bad as he may be on so many of these issues, the other tribe’s guy would be no better and potentially far worse.  Put another way, we have to defend the indefensible to preserve a few issues that we care about and understand, even if we know in our heart of hearts that our guy is a disaster on all other fronts.

So what is the solution to a political system that has us all shamelessly shilling for the con men that comprise the respective tribes?  There is no solution, or rather the only good solution would be rejected entirely by the political left.  The solution would be a libertarian one, which would involve retrenching the federal government from having so much power and influence, in order to leave more responsibilities to lower levels of government or no levels of government.  It’s hard to vote with your feet from country to country, as we find out every four years when thousands of people on both sides of the aisle pledge to get out of Dodge if so and so is elected, with no one following through.  But moving from New Jersey to Delaware is a cinch.  

A move to libertarianism or more decentralized power would, however, seriously limit the welfare state, as well as the regulatory state.  If decentralized, net taxpayers would seek low tax jurisdictions that offer smaller welfare benefits, whereas those on the dole would seek jurisdictions offering large benefits.  This would create an unsustainable tax/welfare position for any state trying to offer very generous benefits.   (Incidentally, this is the exact reason Obamacare is imploding, as it's penalties are too small to induce healthy young people to subsidize less healthy poor people - they are effectively walking away from premiums that tax them to provide subsidies).  A similar race to what the left would consider the bottom would also ensue with the regulatory state, with states offering the least onerous regulations potentially attracting more business. However, this would be more intriguing, as the removal of regulations that might improve the quality of life might detract the workforce businesses seek.  Arguably such a decentralized regulatory structure could serve to just trim the fat of over-regulation, leaving in place those that are truly desired.


Bottom line – the solution is a total non-starter for liberals because it undermines their entire conception of government.  A Leviathan proportioned government requires a very large geography.  Which leaves us where we started.  Arguing that our man is competently riding the bull of big government even as its clear he’s been thrown off and is getting gored in the ass.  And we do it with a straight face.  Until our guys loses, when we all of a sudden are concerned with every single government screw up as if it is something new.

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

email:
powered by
NotifyList.com