This argument doesn't make sense. Why do only American in-state migrations matter in determining whether red vs blue state models are better for governance? If immigrants are choosing to live in blue states, doesn't that imply that something about the blue state governance is better than red state governance?
"If immigrants are choosing to live in blue states, doesn't that imply that something about the blue state governance is better than red state governance?"
Better for whom? Sure as hell not for those who are responsible job holders, who will be paying taxes to benefit the immigrants and pay for the increase in crime.
If you're too lazy to read it though, the brief summary is that immigration does not increase crime, nor does it cost taxpayers, nor does it depress wages.
Per crime:
"We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as “undocumented” at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime."
Per cost to government:
"Colas and Sachs (2020) theorize that the indirect fiscal effects of low-skilled immigration, through the business expansion that their labor allows, compensates for any fiscal drain. And Evans and Fitzgerald (2017) estimate that refugees, specifically, end up contributing about $21,000 more to the government than they take out, over their first 20 years in the country."
Per effect on wages:
"Basically, immigrants A) compete with native-born workers for jobs, but also B) buy a lot of stuff. The stuff they buy requires labor to produce, so immigrants increase labor demand. The empirical evidence — some of which is from an actual U.S. mass deportation campaign in the 50s — shows that when it comes to wages, the increases in labor demand and labor supply roughly counteract each other — immigrants push wages down by competing with locals, but they push wages up by buying stuff, and in the end the total effect on wages is…not much."
Just look at Canada or Australia. Both countries currently have record high numbers of foreign immigration, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a typical middle class Canadian who would honestly vouch that they've been better off in the past few years than before.
"If you're too lazy to read it though, the brief summary is that immigration does not increase crime, nor does it cost taxpayers, nor does it depress wages."
That is bullshit. Noah Smith is full of it. Numerous stories and studies from most Western countries contradict that.
I read this awhile ago that goes into some of this. Specifically the effect on gov. spending. It's been awhile so I can't remember if it addresses crime at all.
As for how much the contribute, last year NYC had to cut all departments by 5% to make up for the amount they spent on the migrants. The amount they take in is enormous since the city needs to provide housing for all of them. There is no housing so the city needs to pay hotels to house them. This is because of the city's "right to shelter" law. It's insane. Plus they can't work which is something obviously pro-immigration people want to solve but even if they could work I'm curious to know how many migrants the city can accept. A million? 100 million? I thought we had a housing shortage but I guess that's not really an issue?
In any case, I'm sure you and I both agree, it's clear that red states should ship as many migrants as they can to the blue states since they're obviously such a benefit!
And obviously immigration is different legal vs illegal also where people come from etc. etc. I'm an immigrant so obviously I'm in favor of it as long as it's done correctly.
I appreciate the link! I'll have to see if I can find some free pdf version of it online.
I'm strongly skeptical about any claims linking immigration with increased crime. For your other points, I mostly agree. I disagree with the abuse of the asylum system (though Biden has since signed an executive order fixing this, even though he should've done it a couple years ago).
More generally, immigration is a complicated issue, and it sounds like in your comment you're against illegal immigration, whereas this post addresses legal immigration. Where immigrants come from, where they choose to settle, their education level, their occupations, should all matter when evaluating whether immigration is a net benefit.
Most importantly, I think conservatives miss the labor demand effects of immigration (immigrants need and use services so new businesses can open) and focus mainly on labor supply effects (wage competition).
Immigrants, especially the mass kind from Latin Am and the Middle East, are genetically low iq. Low iq natives in America/Europe are net drains on society, so it only makes sense the same would be true of immigrants. You have to twist yourself in knots to get a different answer.
Noah denies IQ, so he starts from an empirically false premise.
On the issue of crime specially, it makes sense to look only at the white crime rate. We all know blacks commit a lot of crime and that drives the “native” numbers up. But adding a Hispanic no go zone to your cities black no go zone just reduces the area of the city white people feel safe. And Hispanic crime tends to get worse in the second generation.
Many crimes go unsolved, or are never reported in the first place, so arrest statistics will not reveal the whole of crime. This is the problem of the so-called "dark figure" of crime. In addition, people may self-adapt to high crime areas, for example, by toughening their security systems, altering their behavior, moving away, and so on. If these adaptations are successful, the crime rate will not go up, yet having to do these things obviously has a cost.
2) the government gives them more benefits paid for by other peoples taxes
Both of these are more true in blue states, to their detriment. Immigration is a big reason why the quality of life in these states has declined and people are leaving
Of course blue states have more foreign immigrants. Most immigration to the United States is illegal immigration, and blue states are less likely to deport illegal immigrants. There's no surprises there.
The article also showed multiple statistics that explain why red states are more likely to be destinations for in-state immigration.
I think there are a number of different possible factors to consider.
1. Illegal immigrants might choose to go where the authorities are laxer on illegal immigration.
2. Ethnic concentration effects. Migrants from a given ethnic or cultural group might congregate where their co-group members are found, regardless of governance or economic factors, as has happened so often before in the past.
3. Economically productive vs. unproductive, or minimally productive, migrants. Unproductive migrants might prefer states which offer them more generous benefits, regardless of whether this is better governance overall or not. I don't think this should be equated with the distinction between legal and illegal migrants though. Because of the nature of the U. S. immigration system, I expect both types of migrants to be found in both channels.
This isn't an argument against immigration, which is obviously a net benefit at the global level (the only legitimate level of moral analysis). It is an argument against the EC but that's obvious to most reasonable people anyway.
It is an argument against foreign immigration. Whether there is electoral college or not, most foreign immigration into the West brings in people who favor destructive government policies. That's the point.
How is this "benefit at the global level" if it essentially leads the white countries that make the main contribution to scientific development to giant southern Africa and Brazil, where the creation of science is much worse and all sorts of technical singularities that you want will become much less likely?
"This isn't an argument against immigration, which is obviously a net benefit at the global level (the only legitimate level of moral analysis)."
Unselective legal immigration and illegal immigration are a detriment to first-world countries. No advanced country benefits from low-IQ immigrants. Always quality over quantity.
Edit needed: “Incumbent parties implement election procedures that help themselves and tend they to have strong local turnout machines.”
Very in depth analysis. Thanks.
This argument doesn't make sense. Why do only American in-state migrations matter in determining whether red vs blue state models are better for governance? If immigrants are choosing to live in blue states, doesn't that imply that something about the blue state governance is better than red state governance?
"If immigrants are choosing to live in blue states, doesn't that imply that something about the blue state governance is better than red state governance?"
Better for whom? Sure as hell not for those who are responsible job holders, who will be paying taxes to benefit the immigrants and pay for the increase in crime.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/mass-deportation-would-accomplish
If you're too lazy to read it though, the brief summary is that immigration does not increase crime, nor does it cost taxpayers, nor does it depress wages.
Per crime:
"We make use of uniquely comprehensive arrest data from the Texas Department of Public Safety to compare the criminality of undocumented immigrants to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens between 2012 and 2018. We find that undocumented immigrants have substantially lower crime rates than native-born citizens and legal immigrants across a range of felony offenses. Relative to undocumented immigrants, US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes. In addition, the proportion of arrests involving undocumented immigrants in Texas was relatively stable or decreasing over this period. The differences between US-born citizens and undocumented immigrants are robust to using alternative estimates of the broader undocumented population, alternate classifications of those counted as “undocumented” at arrest and substituting misdemeanors or convictions as measures of crime."
Per cost to government:
"Colas and Sachs (2020) theorize that the indirect fiscal effects of low-skilled immigration, through the business expansion that their labor allows, compensates for any fiscal drain. And Evans and Fitzgerald (2017) estimate that refugees, specifically, end up contributing about $21,000 more to the government than they take out, over their first 20 years in the country."
Per effect on wages:
"Basically, immigrants A) compete with native-born workers for jobs, but also B) buy a lot of stuff. The stuff they buy requires labor to produce, so immigrants increase labor demand. The empirical evidence — some of which is from an actual U.S. mass deportation campaign in the 50s — shows that when it comes to wages, the increases in labor demand and labor supply roughly counteract each other — immigrants push wages down by competing with locals, but they push wages up by buying stuff, and in the end the total effect on wages is…not much."
The statistics in that article are fabricated, cherry-picked garbage.
Immigration does not benefit the population: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6nG7RloYf0.
Foreign immigration may benefit businesses and people with power, but it certainly doesn't benefit the average person: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-thermodynamics-of-globalization.html.
Just look at Canada or Australia. Both countries currently have record high numbers of foreign immigration, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a typical middle class Canadian who would honestly vouch that they've been better off in the past few years than before.
"If you're too lazy to read it though, the brief summary is that immigration does not increase crime, nor does it cost taxpayers, nor does it depress wages."
That is bullshit. Noah Smith is full of it. Numerous stories and studies from most Western countries contradict that.
Care to cite any of those numerous stories and studies?
I read this awhile ago that goes into some of this. Specifically the effect on gov. spending. It's been awhile so I can't remember if it addresses crime at all.
https://www.amazon.com/Wanted-Workers-Unraveling-Immigration-Narrative/dp/0393249018
As for how much the contribute, last year NYC had to cut all departments by 5% to make up for the amount they spent on the migrants. The amount they take in is enormous since the city needs to provide housing for all of them. There is no housing so the city needs to pay hotels to house them. This is because of the city's "right to shelter" law. It's insane. Plus they can't work which is something obviously pro-immigration people want to solve but even if they could work I'm curious to know how many migrants the city can accept. A million? 100 million? I thought we had a housing shortage but I guess that's not really an issue?
In any case, I'm sure you and I both agree, it's clear that red states should ship as many migrants as they can to the blue states since they're obviously such a benefit!
And obviously immigration is different legal vs illegal also where people come from etc. etc. I'm an immigrant so obviously I'm in favor of it as long as it's done correctly.
I appreciate the link! I'll have to see if I can find some free pdf version of it online.
I'm strongly skeptical about any claims linking immigration with increased crime. For your other points, I mostly agree. I disagree with the abuse of the asylum system (though Biden has since signed an executive order fixing this, even though he should've done it a couple years ago).
More generally, immigration is a complicated issue, and it sounds like in your comment you're against illegal immigration, whereas this post addresses legal immigration. Where immigrants come from, where they choose to settle, their education level, their occupations, should all matter when evaluating whether immigration is a net benefit.
Most importantly, I think conservatives miss the labor demand effects of immigration (immigrants need and use services so new businesses can open) and focus mainly on labor supply effects (wage competition).
Immigrants, especially the mass kind from Latin Am and the Middle East, are genetically low iq. Low iq natives in America/Europe are net drains on society, so it only makes sense the same would be true of immigrants. You have to twist yourself in knots to get a different answer.
Noah denies IQ, so he starts from an empirically false premise.
On the issue of crime specially, it makes sense to look only at the white crime rate. We all know blacks commit a lot of crime and that drives the “native” numbers up. But adding a Hispanic no go zone to your cities black no go zone just reduces the area of the city white people feel safe. And Hispanic crime tends to get worse in the second generation.
Do it yourself; it's ubiquitous.
Many crimes go unsolved, or are never reported in the first place, so arrest statistics will not reveal the whole of crime. This is the problem of the so-called "dark figure" of crime. In addition, people may self-adapt to high crime areas, for example, by toughening their security systems, altering their behavior, moving away, and so on. If these adaptations are successful, the crime rate will not go up, yet having to do these things obviously has a cost.
Immigrants go where:
1) it’s easier to immigrate
2) the government gives them more benefits paid for by other peoples taxes
Both of these are more true in blue states, to their detriment. Immigration is a big reason why the quality of life in these states has declined and people are leaving
Of course blue states have more foreign immigrants. Most immigration to the United States is illegal immigration, and blue states are less likely to deport illegal immigrants. There's no surprises there.
The article also showed multiple statistics that explain why red states are more likely to be destinations for in-state immigration.
I think there are a number of different possible factors to consider.
1. Illegal immigrants might choose to go where the authorities are laxer on illegal immigration.
2. Ethnic concentration effects. Migrants from a given ethnic or cultural group might congregate where their co-group members are found, regardless of governance or economic factors, as has happened so often before in the past.
3. Economically productive vs. unproductive, or minimally productive, migrants. Unproductive migrants might prefer states which offer them more generous benefits, regardless of whether this is better governance overall or not. I don't think this should be equated with the distinction between legal and illegal migrants though. Because of the nature of the U. S. immigration system, I expect both types of migrants to be found in both channels.
This isn't an argument against immigration, which is obviously a net benefit at the global level (the only legitimate level of moral analysis). It is an argument against the EC but that's obvious to most reasonable people anyway.
It is an argument against foreign immigration. Whether there is electoral college or not, most foreign immigration into the West brings in people who favor destructive government policies. That's the point.
As for "moral analysis", morality is a delusion: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-case-against-moral-realism.html.
Current immigration policies are destroying the West: The Case Against Mass Immigration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6nG7RloYf0).
How is this "benefit at the global level" if it essentially leads the white countries that make the main contribution to scientific development to giant southern Africa and Brazil, where the creation of science is much worse and all sorts of technical singularities that you want will become much less likely?
"This isn't an argument against immigration, which is obviously a net benefit at the global level (the only legitimate level of moral analysis)."
Unselective legal immigration and illegal immigration are a detriment to first-world countries. No advanced country benefits from low-IQ immigrants. Always quality over quantity.
This is a great essay. I'm going to link it to my homepage: https://zerocontradictions.net/#immigration
Immigration is a weapon of the state. https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-thermodynamics-of-globalization.html