The majority of Americans didn’t turn against “an invasion of black and brown folks”. You are defining millions of people by the outlying negative characteristics of the very worst. Bad form!
I would be willing to make a large bet that most Americans (including the vast majority of black and brown ones) are against illegal immigration and fully open borders. The rationale for this perspective is well known and doesn’t need to be elaborated here.
This article is the worst I have ever read from you — who I have respected and followed since your trilogy started.
This is almost a caricature of a libertarian open borders gloss. We can do a better job engaging this issue than just invoking the racist/nativist explanations. While there are racists and nativists out there, we should consider more serious challenges to a wide open immigration posture. E.g, should we start to emphasize skilled immigration? Should we place annual limits on unskilled workers, and/or increase guest worker visa programs? Should we place limits or increased scrutiny on an asylum system clearly run amok? Should we increase penalties for immigrants and employers (e-Verify) for flouting our laws? And, should we have any policies that prioritize cultural integration into the American creedal system, and limit immigration from countries with deeply ingrained anti-western cultures and traditions?
Personally I’d like to see a competent and well-managed system with mid- to high levels of annual immigration of all races, a good mix of low- and high-skilled workers, much higher levels of naturalization, and serious restrictions placed on countries like Somalia.
This may well place me in the Cato racist camp, but that’s something I’ll have to live with. There’s a reason Libertarians can’t get elected dog catcher.
I'll rewrite here what I said on a Bryan Caplan post.
This makes no distinction between what someone else called "open borders" and "open boarders".
I'd love to have more immigrants and tourists, but only of the voluntary category. When they are enticed by welfare, free room and board and spending cash, and absolution of their past, present, and future crimes, and brag how their allegiance is to their home country and not their new country and protest by waving those foreign flags -- they are boarders -- bums, thugs, and foreigners in their loyalty.
The worst are the refugees who are flown in and "settled" without being given a lot of choice, don't like where they end up, and their end-result communities don't get any say either. They seem to make no effort to adjust to their new community, in fact just the opposite.and act like entitled spoiled brats.
I don't want them, and they don't actually want to be here either, they are just in it for other people's money -- my money. I am especially disgusted with them getting elected and bragging that they are in office with the express goal of helping their home country, not their new country, the one they swore allegiance to, the one whose constitution they swore to uphold.
I am no big fan of "my country above all others" but I sure as heck am a fan of not giving my taxes to disruptive bums and criminals and foreigners whose only interest is my tax dollars and their home country.
This is not legal vs illegal immigrants. This is bums, criminals, and foreign loyalty against the natives.
I usually love your work, but this piece does a massive disservice by not even mentioning , and literally blurring the distinction between, ILLEGAL immigration - which almost all on the political right are opposed to, in addition to many to most in the center, and some even of the left - versus LEGAL immigration, which while admittedly there is indeed a fair sized minority on the right who oppose, most on the right do not, and a fair sized minority on the right actively favor.
…but only after illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle.
Which not only had not happened until this year, but in fact the floodgates were opened the previous four years as never before.
Once the government succeeds in one of its clear responsibilities and ends the wonton violation of the law that both major parties had undisguisedly been ok with through 2016, we can finally have the proper debate about how legal immigration can best be done.
With your choice of words, you have taken the left position and imo quite unfairly smeared the political right.
IMO not only not a way to make progress on the subject, but almost guaranteed to impede it.
FWIW I consider myself a classical liberal, a conservative-leaning libertarian (or occasionally a libertarian-leaning conservative).
I am for a lot more legal immigration, and essentially unlimited high-skill immigration. But I share Milton Friedman’s belief that fully open borders are incompatible with a generous welfare state.
And there is no chance we are getting rid of the welfare state, and little to no chance we will do the distasteful second class society members with extremely limited rights pseudo-caste system of some of the Arab oil states.
Smearing those who disagree with fully open borders with the claim that we are all or mostly all against “black and brown people voting” should be beneath you, and only partly because it is untrue.
Perhaps you will learn something from the reader comments here, as I have learned from many of your articles and posts.
Ad hominem to declare that people against open borders are concerned about the color of the skin?
While it may not be your tactic, it is a common tactic employed for political
Purposes in smearing individuals.
For academics with common sense in economics, I tend to think making such comments is the result of living in the academic bubble with little to no contact with the average blue collar person.
This becomes even more true as naturalized citizens tend to have a higher polling on want for vetting of immigration and border control. Do ‘black and brown people’ have a dislike of black and brown people?
We are not living in the world, yet, where regional borders without even a turnstile is feasible.
For better, or worse, the US has created animosity and hatred in varying parts of the world. And, that does lead to want for infiltration of society to do harm. We seen it with terrorism. Two of the tallest buildings, in NY, and 2,977 people became victims.
For better, or worse, there are still parts of the world where beliefs are perpetuated to do great harm to those who disagree. Some of those ideological beliefs have either been birthed, in the US, or already have permeated Western Society, born from envy and want to be alleviated of self accountability.
None of this is going to change anytime, soon.
Over time, as the world becomes more prosperous, the dangers will shrink.
Open Borders won’t change any of this.
Where I do agree, assuming this is the case, as the conversations tend to refocus on, is to find a means to show compassion for those without Mal-intent, horrible background history, and just seeking the enormous opportunities which many American citizens take for granted.
Conversations on border control, immigration, and US foreign affairs often become subject of discussions in the non-academic world and it is rare to have someone mention the color of skin be a factor.
Ms. McCloskey, I generally admire a lot of your work, so this is not coming from a place of hostility, but I think you completely undermined your own cause in this one.
You definitely shouldn't make an argument that immigrant composition, statistically, isn't going to affect voting patterns against the favor of republicans, or some other characteristic that anyone could care about like education. You are making a huge disservice to your own cause by any argument of this sort, because this is what your reader can, and would be justified to take from your article: "Look, if it was true that immigrant composition will negatively affect votes with respect to our gang, then immigration atrocities like those committed by ICE, every arbitrary difficulty in the process of immigration, and every measure against those groups would be justified. But alas, McCloskey says they statistically don't have that effect, so I guess we're good for now on this issue."
Do you see how you sold out the premise and gave the moral high ground for people to find a reason (and you can always find a statistical reason - you know this better than anyone, because I learned a lot about statistics and 1000 issues with how people use them from you) to justify any and every racist and tribal groupthink?? If even McCloskey implicitly says that it would be legitimate to go after immigrant groups based, divided by race, if only they had consistent voting patterns that we do not approve of, which is what this article implies, what hope is there for liberalism?
And here you go. Even some of your readers don't get the point(s).
q.e.d.? unintentionally
From a European perspective the perceived emotions in some comments are interesting.
Countries in Europe have to deal with a different kind of migration. And hardly any country has a government with at least a few (classical) liberal representatives. As the security situation in cities erodes, e.g. in France, Germany, Sweden, people are looking for a way out and see none.
Emotions run high as well.
As regards liberalism: With the exception of Cobden and Bright, who had a rather limited aim, this "intelligent stuff" is hard to teach and comprehend. You may experience a (cultural) long term liberation, but political decision makers and their bureaucracy follow different incentives.
Our job can be compared with the one of the Jedi, lacking the force though.
Many - likely the majority - of citizens don’t like European immigration policies.
But those policies at least are *legal*.
Those of us who object to the policies of Democrats object to the fact that what they are doing is brazenly *illegal*.
That you and McCloskey want fully open borders is fine. I can respect that view, even as I disagree with it.
But McCloskey does not merely advocate for open borders in this piece. No, what she does is smear those with whom she disagrees by asserting that the reason that most/all who oppose illegal immigration do so is because they don’t want “black and brown people voting.”
I don’t resemble that remark, but I do resent it.
And separately, I’m saddened that McCloskey has stooped to such a mostly false argument.
The majority of Americans didn’t turn against “an invasion of black and brown folks”. You are defining millions of people by the outlying negative characteristics of the very worst. Bad form!
I would be willing to make a large bet that most Americans (including the vast majority of black and brown ones) are against illegal immigration and fully open borders. The rationale for this perspective is well known and doesn’t need to be elaborated here.
This article is the worst I have ever read from you — who I have respected and followed since your trilogy started.
This is almost a caricature of a libertarian open borders gloss. We can do a better job engaging this issue than just invoking the racist/nativist explanations. While there are racists and nativists out there, we should consider more serious challenges to a wide open immigration posture. E.g, should we start to emphasize skilled immigration? Should we place annual limits on unskilled workers, and/or increase guest worker visa programs? Should we place limits or increased scrutiny on an asylum system clearly run amok? Should we increase penalties for immigrants and employers (e-Verify) for flouting our laws? And, should we have any policies that prioritize cultural integration into the American creedal system, and limit immigration from countries with deeply ingrained anti-western cultures and traditions?
Personally I’d like to see a competent and well-managed system with mid- to high levels of annual immigration of all races, a good mix of low- and high-skilled workers, much higher levels of naturalization, and serious restrictions placed on countries like Somalia.
This may well place me in the Cato racist camp, but that’s something I’ll have to live with. There’s a reason Libertarians can’t get elected dog catcher.
I'll rewrite here what I said on a Bryan Caplan post.
This makes no distinction between what someone else called "open borders" and "open boarders".
I'd love to have more immigrants and tourists, but only of the voluntary category. When they are enticed by welfare, free room and board and spending cash, and absolution of their past, present, and future crimes, and brag how their allegiance is to their home country and not their new country and protest by waving those foreign flags -- they are boarders -- bums, thugs, and foreigners in their loyalty.
The worst are the refugees who are flown in and "settled" without being given a lot of choice, don't like where they end up, and their end-result communities don't get any say either. They seem to make no effort to adjust to their new community, in fact just the opposite.and act like entitled spoiled brats.
I don't want them, and they don't actually want to be here either, they are just in it for other people's money -- my money. I am especially disgusted with them getting elected and bragging that they are in office with the express goal of helping their home country, not their new country, the one they swore allegiance to, the one whose constitution they swore to uphold.
I am no big fan of "my country above all others" but I sure as heck am a fan of not giving my taxes to disruptive bums and criminals and foreigners whose only interest is my tax dollars and their home country.
This is not legal vs illegal immigrants. This is bums, criminals, and foreign loyalty against the natives.
I usually love your work, but this piece does a massive disservice by not even mentioning , and literally blurring the distinction between, ILLEGAL immigration - which almost all on the political right are opposed to, in addition to many to most in the center, and some even of the left - versus LEGAL immigration, which while admittedly there is indeed a fair sized minority on the right who oppose, most on the right do not, and a fair sized minority on the right actively favor.
…but only after illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle.
Which not only had not happened until this year, but in fact the floodgates were opened the previous four years as never before.
Once the government succeeds in one of its clear responsibilities and ends the wonton violation of the law that both major parties had undisguisedly been ok with through 2016, we can finally have the proper debate about how legal immigration can best be done.
With your choice of words, you have taken the left position and imo quite unfairly smeared the political right.
IMO not only not a way to make progress on the subject, but almost guaranteed to impede it.
FWIW I consider myself a classical liberal, a conservative-leaning libertarian (or occasionally a libertarian-leaning conservative).
I am for a lot more legal immigration, and essentially unlimited high-skill immigration. But I share Milton Friedman’s belief that fully open borders are incompatible with a generous welfare state.
And there is no chance we are getting rid of the welfare state, and little to no chance we will do the distasteful second class society members with extremely limited rights pseudo-caste system of some of the Arab oil states.
Smearing those who disagree with fully open borders with the claim that we are all or mostly all against “black and brown people voting” should be beneath you, and only partly because it is untrue.
Perhaps you will learn something from the reader comments here, as I have learned from many of your articles and posts.
Respectfully.
Ad hominem to declare that people against open borders are concerned about the color of the skin?
While it may not be your tactic, it is a common tactic employed for political
Purposes in smearing individuals.
For academics with common sense in economics, I tend to think making such comments is the result of living in the academic bubble with little to no contact with the average blue collar person.
This becomes even more true as naturalized citizens tend to have a higher polling on want for vetting of immigration and border control. Do ‘black and brown people’ have a dislike of black and brown people?
We are not living in the world, yet, where regional borders without even a turnstile is feasible.
For better, or worse, the US has created animosity and hatred in varying parts of the world. And, that does lead to want for infiltration of society to do harm. We seen it with terrorism. Two of the tallest buildings, in NY, and 2,977 people became victims.
For better, or worse, there are still parts of the world where beliefs are perpetuated to do great harm to those who disagree. Some of those ideological beliefs have either been birthed, in the US, or already have permeated Western Society, born from envy and want to be alleviated of self accountability.
None of this is going to change anytime, soon.
Over time, as the world becomes more prosperous, the dangers will shrink.
Open Borders won’t change any of this.
Where I do agree, assuming this is the case, as the conversations tend to refocus on, is to find a means to show compassion for those without Mal-intent, horrible background history, and just seeking the enormous opportunities which many American citizens take for granted.
Conversations on border control, immigration, and US foreign affairs often become subject of discussions in the non-academic world and it is rare to have someone mention the color of skin be a factor.
Ms. McCloskey, I generally admire a lot of your work, so this is not coming from a place of hostility, but I think you completely undermined your own cause in this one.
You definitely shouldn't make an argument that immigrant composition, statistically, isn't going to affect voting patterns against the favor of republicans, or some other characteristic that anyone could care about like education. You are making a huge disservice to your own cause by any argument of this sort, because this is what your reader can, and would be justified to take from your article: "Look, if it was true that immigrant composition will negatively affect votes with respect to our gang, then immigration atrocities like those committed by ICE, every arbitrary difficulty in the process of immigration, and every measure against those groups would be justified. But alas, McCloskey says they statistically don't have that effect, so I guess we're good for now on this issue."
Do you see how you sold out the premise and gave the moral high ground for people to find a reason (and you can always find a statistical reason - you know this better than anyone, because I learned a lot about statistics and 1000 issues with how people use them from you) to justify any and every racist and tribal groupthink?? If even McCloskey implicitly says that it would be legitimate to go after immigrant groups based, divided by race, if only they had consistent voting patterns that we do not approve of, which is what this article implies, what hope is there for liberalism?
And here you go. Even some of your readers don't get the point(s).
q.e.d.? unintentionally
From a European perspective the perceived emotions in some comments are interesting.
Countries in Europe have to deal with a different kind of migration. And hardly any country has a government with at least a few (classical) liberal representatives. As the security situation in cities erodes, e.g. in France, Germany, Sweden, people are looking for a way out and see none.
Emotions run high as well.
As regards liberalism: With the exception of Cobden and Bright, who had a rather limited aim, this "intelligent stuff" is hard to teach and comprehend. You may experience a (cultural) long term liberation, but political decision makers and their bureaucracy follow different incentives.
Our job can be compared with the one of the Jedi, lacking the force though.
Many - likely the majority - of citizens don’t like European immigration policies.
But those policies at least are *legal*.
Those of us who object to the policies of Democrats object to the fact that what they are doing is brazenly *illegal*.
That you and McCloskey want fully open borders is fine. I can respect that view, even as I disagree with it.
But McCloskey does not merely advocate for open borders in this piece. No, what she does is smear those with whom she disagrees by asserting that the reason that most/all who oppose illegal immigration do so is because they don’t want “black and brown people voting.”
I don’t resemble that remark, but I do resent it.
And separately, I’m saddened that McCloskey has stooped to such a mostly false argument.
Los Angeles …
You can also do both at once!
Unfortunately, the process by which the stupid government policy impoverishes people is too complex to be shown in a photograph.
"Maybe I should just print photos"
Indeed, I believe that is the purpose of memes.