It would be good to expand on this at some point with data on 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
As thing stand, I'm sure certain people will accept the data as it is now but claim that in say 30 years, all the low IQ, rapey migrants will have developed into model citizens. They'll make a spurious comparisons to Irish or Italian migrants to the USA to show how brilliant they can be long term.
I guess you'd need to show that firstly, the Irish/Italians had much less of a welfare state to leech off relative to MENA types today. The Irish/Italians also may have committed a disproportionate amount of crime at the time, but to nowhere near the same extent as MENAs now.
How do open-border advocates like Caplan respond when confronted with evidence like this? IMHO their strongest argument is that someone who could be making good money at say a tech company in the US is stuck in say Honduras earning next to nothing, if he could move both countries would be better off (remittances). But clearly a lot of immigrants don't fit that profile. The argument would be plausible if the West didn't promote low-IQ immigration with welfare, and actually deported criminals. I have never seen open-border advocates address those issues, but maybe they have?
They will something like "they make ten times as much money", without noting that everything they would buy with that money costs ten times as much and ends up being subsidized by the state. Proximity to the productive itself costs money.
They will say something like "imagine a political system totally different than our own that poofs into existence out of nowhere, it could easily support having a Jim Crow slave caste of worker bots no problem". Sometimes they will point to the Gulf State Petro Dictatorships without acknowledging the obvious flaws with those systems of government, the differing context, or offering any transition path.
The most obvious real world examples of California (which went from Reagan to Newsome and already tried Keyhole Solutions and failed), Detroit (the great migration of blacks from the south which took it from most prosperous city in the world to decay porn), South Africa (where apartheid failed and we got "Kill the Boer"), and ME immigration in Europe.
If this article by Emil reflects the best and most politically incorrect argument for mostly closed borders or some sort of IQ nationalism, then it seems to me that open borders is ultimately the best or morally right view. Emil does not talk about trade-offs and he does not address the deontological and utilitarian arguments for open borders in the literature. Note that utilitarianism and deontology requires Emil to not ignore the wellbeing of low IQ immigrants or low IQ people. See Mike Huemer's paper on immigration too.
Those links do not in fact answer Emil's arguments at all.
"wellbeing of low IQ immigrants"
The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty. Any short term gains that could flow to specific low IQ immigrants via their using government to loot the first world pales in comparison to what the first world does for the world in the long run.
Though I think it's important that we not afford too much emotional significance to the wellbeing of these people either. They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
Bryan Caplan in his book 'Open Borders' directly addresses welfare, crime, IQ from chapter 3 - "The Native's Burden?" to chapter 5 "The Golden Goose on Trial". That is total around 80 pages of information and data that directly and charitably interacts with Anti-immigration or anti-open borders arguments [or mostly closed border view arguments] that are directly related to what Emil just said.
The other books indirectly address what Emil says -
The book 'Streets of Gold' by Leah Boustan and Ran Abramitzky also counters anti-immigration arguments -
"Forbes, Best Business Books of 2022
Behavioral Scientist, Notable Books of 2022
The facts, not the fiction, of America’s immigration experience
Immigration is one of the most fraught, and possibly most misunderstood, topics in American social discourse—yet, in most cases, the things we believe about immigration are based largely on myth, not facts. Using the tools of modern data analysis and ten years of pioneering research, new evidence is provided about the past and present of the American Dream, debunking myths fostered by political opportunism and sentimentalized in family histories, and draw counterintuitive conclusions, including:
Upward Mobility: Children of immigrants from nearly every country, especially those of poor immigrants, do better economically than children of U.S.-born residents – a pattern that has held for more than a century.
Rapid Assimilation: Immigrants accused of lack of assimilation (such as Mexicans today and the Irish in the past) actually assimilate fastest.
Improved Economy: Immigration changes the economy in unexpected positive ways and staves off the economic decline that is the consequence of an aging population.
Helps U.S. Born: Closing the door to immigrants harms the economic prospects of the U.S.-born—the people politicians are trying to protect.
Using powerful story-telling and unprecedented research employing big data and algorithms, Abramitzky and Boustan are like dedicated family genealogists but millions of times over. They provide a new take on American history with surprising results, especially how comparable the “golden era” of immigration is to today, and why many current policy proposals are so misguided."
The above book is recommended by multiple Nobel prize winning economists -
“Streets of Gold is the conversation you always wanted to have about where Americans come from. Abramitzky and Boustan have discovered new ways of answering that question in this fascinating and hard to put down history of American immigration, based on new sources of data, and conveyed by powerful storytelling.”
Alvin E. Roth, Nobel laureate, economics, and author of Who Gets What and Why
“With Streets of Gold, Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan have written a highly engaging book on the enduring but underappreciated success story of American immigration. Interweaving anecdotes drawn from many sources, including their own personal stories, with conclusions drawn from systematic big data analyses using tools from modern economic research, they paint a vivid and wide-ranging picture of the changes in immigration over time and the effects on American society. They take us to meet not only spectacular success stories like Tino Cuellar, who quickly moved from being born in Mexico to graduating from Harvard and becoming a justice on the California supreme court, but also the more common story of Louis Bilchick, whose family moved slowly but steadily up the economic ladder. Along the way, they separate fact and fiction and bust many of the myths that pervade and confuse the current discussion on immigration policy. As an immigrant and American citizen, I highly recommend this inspiring book for anyone interested in the debates on immigration.”
Guido Imbens, The Applied Econometrics Professor, Stanford University, and Nobel laureate, economics
“While Americans are intensely polarized about immigration, facts and history can help change minds. And Streets of Gold has the facts, millions and millions of them, about the amazing and often-surprising history of American immigration. It is a splendid testament to the power of big data to illuminate our past and what it means for the future.”
Angus Deaton, Nobel laureate, economics, and coauthor of Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism
“Complex in its coverage, uplifting in its message, engaging in its composition, and powerful in its significance, Streets of Gold is a ‘New World Symphony’ in words and numbers. Immigrants today, as in the past, make a better life for themselves. But upward mobility comes through generations, and the success of the immigrant child does not come at the expense of the one with US-born parents. There is greater continuity and harmony in this version of the American Dream than discontinuity and dissonance.”
Claudia Goldin, Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Nobel Laureate, economics, Harvard University, and author of Career & Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey toward Equity
The book by Benjamin Powell and Alex Nowrasteh goes deep into details on impacts of mass migration - "Economic arguments favoring increased immigration restrictions suggest that immigrants undermine the culture, institutions, and productivity of destination countries. But is this actually true? Nowrasteh and Powell systematically analyze cross-country evidence of potential negative effects caused by immigration relating to economic freedom, corruption, culture, and terrorism. They analyze case studies of mass immigration to the United States, Israel, and Jordan. Their evidence does not support the idea that immigration destroys the institutions responsible for prosperity in the modern world. This nonideological volume makes a qualified case for free immigration and the accompanying prosperity. "
You say-
>>They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
This is a flat assertion. If I interpret what you wrote as saying - 'most or even slight majority low IQ immigrants are at base violent criminals', then this is false. (read those books and read this - https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/sanctuary-jurisdictions-in-florida)
If I interpret what you wrote as saying - 'all low IQ immigrants are at base violent criminals", then that is false too and in fact, this also seems evolutionarily impossible for social specie like human beings.
You say -
>>The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty.
This has not quickly reached in certain parts of sub-saharan Africa like DRC, Somalia, Sudan, CAR, etc. Allowing open borders would give these people quicker access to the technology and also let them contribute to productivity by doing low skilled or low IQ jobs in the rich countries. The point you say is directly countered in the books I cited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
I really recommend people to read those books fully and carefully.
Globalists are in control of the western world and within those societies the populations are effectively dictated by" anti racist" zealots both legislatively and culturally. With white women's pro black and brown male immigrant sentiment being particularly insidious. In both its economic and societal effects the action of Merkel in 2015 should be examined closely. After 6.5 years of the ECBs economic "austerity "she hailed 2 million Muslim males to enter her country trampling through multiple countries some of whom weren't even in the EU. Billions previously witheld were suddenly released for these foreigners. It should have been seen as treachery but in fact it was accepted and even welcomed. It's effectively theft or welfare, and theft of savings from the native population through inflation being permanently higher than interest rates. Biden has effectively copied this times 3.
I have followed your writing with interest. I have a question on intra-national variation. You did the study on Italy that was over a longer time scale, but I suspect European countries are seeing some of the same dynamic geographic variation changes that we are seeing in the US - people in outlying rural areas tend to migrate into denser more developed areas. In the US, the military draft exposed rural populations to the larger world starting about a century ago, and it seems that the brightest and most competent were the most likely to leave for generations. I suspect that the inverse selection that the rural areas have been subject to has significantly affected the local average intelligence. Does fine grained data show this now?
Western immigrants closely follow the Danish curve, but not entirely. If they settle in Denmark, then, their long-term net effect is to slightly harm the Danish economy (at least, compared with the Danes).
Could you expand on this point? If the have a smaller net contribution to taxes than danes. They are still positive for the economy. Do you want to hint at the fact that these westerners will interbreed with Danes and therefore lower IQ/productivity slightly
I meant that in the hypothetical situation where the other immigrants left, they pull the average down slightly as their performance is below the Danes. However, in the context of large numbers of low IQ immigrants, their net effect is positive.
In the USA people often talk about how much GDP is in the urban areas, but it's all obviously company addresses. In theory Baltimore, MD is a GDP powerhouse because of PO Boxes that get tax breaks, but in reality its a decaying black run city where anyone who even works in the city lives in the suburbs/exurbs where governance is sane and commutes in.
We ought to credit GDP to where the people generating it live, not where they "work" (even more insane in the WFH era).
"Going back to immigration, then, you can see that if we look at immigrants who are all working age, they have a very large positive effect of age on their fiscal contributions."
But that only applies to immigrants with a salable talent and willing to work and not live off others.
"People who advocate for open borders in good countries are advocating for making their country worse off. The data are crystal clear on this matter."
Indeed, open borders are as illogical as possible from economic and crime aspects. A very well-controlled border and immigration policy is essential.
Yes, for some countries of origin, it doesn't matter which age distribution they have. They simply aren't productive enough in modern Denmark to be net positive, on average.
In Norway, the bad news came relatively early: the average Somali costs Norwegian taxpayers almost €1 million. The equivalent of a Nobel Prize...
https://www.ssb.no/en/offentlig-sektor/artikler-og-publikasjoner/the-effects-of-more-immigrants-on-public-finances
https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2013/09/07/181537/hver-somalier-koster-staten-9-millioner-kroner?nr=1
It would be good to expand on this at some point with data on 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
As thing stand, I'm sure certain people will accept the data as it is now but claim that in say 30 years, all the low IQ, rapey migrants will have developed into model citizens. They'll make a spurious comparisons to Irish or Italian migrants to the USA to show how brilliant they can be long term.
I guess you'd need to show that firstly, the Irish/Italians had much less of a welfare state to leech off relative to MENA types today. The Irish/Italians also may have committed a disproportionate amount of crime at the time, but to nowhere near the same extent as MENAs now.
How do open-border advocates like Caplan respond when confronted with evidence like this? IMHO their strongest argument is that someone who could be making good money at say a tech company in the US is stuck in say Honduras earning next to nothing, if he could move both countries would be better off (remittances). But clearly a lot of immigrants don't fit that profile. The argument would be plausible if the West didn't promote low-IQ immigration with welfare, and actually deported criminals. I have never seen open-border advocates address those issues, but maybe they have?
They don't really.
They will something like "they make ten times as much money", without noting that everything they would buy with that money costs ten times as much and ends up being subsidized by the state. Proximity to the productive itself costs money.
They will say something like "imagine a political system totally different than our own that poofs into existence out of nowhere, it could easily support having a Jim Crow slave caste of worker bots no problem". Sometimes they will point to the Gulf State Petro Dictatorships without acknowledging the obvious flaws with those systems of government, the differing context, or offering any transition path.
The most obvious real world examples of California (which went from Reagan to Newsome and already tried Keyhole Solutions and failed), Detroit (the great migration of blacks from the south which took it from most prosperous city in the world to decay porn), South Africa (where apartheid failed and we got "Kill the Boer"), and ME immigration in Europe.
See this - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible
and this - https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/ran-abramitzky/streets-of-gold/9781541797826/?lens=publicaffairs
also, see this - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/wretched-refuse/47A037EB552CDB16DC77906072A590AB
finally, watch this discussion -
https://youtu.be/Vm9LJFRRw74
The open borders advocates have answered the things you are worried about - https://openborders.info/kill-goose-golden-eggs/
If this article by Emil reflects the best and most politically incorrect argument for mostly closed borders or some sort of IQ nationalism, then it seems to me that open borders is ultimately the best or morally right view. Emil does not talk about trade-offs and he does not address the deontological and utilitarian arguments for open borders in the literature. Note that utilitarianism and deontology requires Emil to not ignore the wellbeing of low IQ immigrants or low IQ people. See Mike Huemer's paper on immigration too.
Those links do not in fact answer Emil's arguments at all.
"wellbeing of low IQ immigrants"
The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty. Any short term gains that could flow to specific low IQ immigrants via their using government to loot the first world pales in comparison to what the first world does for the world in the long run.
Though I think it's important that we not afford too much emotional significance to the wellbeing of these people either. They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
Bryan Caplan in his book 'Open Borders' directly addresses welfare, crime, IQ from chapter 3 - "The Native's Burden?" to chapter 5 "The Golden Goose on Trial". That is total around 80 pages of information and data that directly and charitably interacts with Anti-immigration or anti-open borders arguments [or mostly closed border view arguments] that are directly related to what Emil just said.
The other books indirectly address what Emil says -
The book 'Streets of Gold' by Leah Boustan and Ran Abramitzky also counters anti-immigration arguments -
"Forbes, Best Business Books of 2022
Behavioral Scientist, Notable Books of 2022
The facts, not the fiction, of America’s immigration experience
Immigration is one of the most fraught, and possibly most misunderstood, topics in American social discourse—yet, in most cases, the things we believe about immigration are based largely on myth, not facts. Using the tools of modern data analysis and ten years of pioneering research, new evidence is provided about the past and present of the American Dream, debunking myths fostered by political opportunism and sentimentalized in family histories, and draw counterintuitive conclusions, including:
Upward Mobility: Children of immigrants from nearly every country, especially those of poor immigrants, do better economically than children of U.S.-born residents – a pattern that has held for more than a century.
Rapid Assimilation: Immigrants accused of lack of assimilation (such as Mexicans today and the Irish in the past) actually assimilate fastest.
Improved Economy: Immigration changes the economy in unexpected positive ways and staves off the economic decline that is the consequence of an aging population.
Helps U.S. Born: Closing the door to immigrants harms the economic prospects of the U.S.-born—the people politicians are trying to protect.
Using powerful story-telling and unprecedented research employing big data and algorithms, Abramitzky and Boustan are like dedicated family genealogists but millions of times over. They provide a new take on American history with surprising results, especially how comparable the “golden era” of immigration is to today, and why many current policy proposals are so misguided."
The above book is recommended by multiple Nobel prize winning economists -
“Streets of Gold is the conversation you always wanted to have about where Americans come from. Abramitzky and Boustan have discovered new ways of answering that question in this fascinating and hard to put down history of American immigration, based on new sources of data, and conveyed by powerful storytelling.”
Alvin E. Roth, Nobel laureate, economics, and author of Who Gets What and Why
“With Streets of Gold, Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan have written a highly engaging book on the enduring but underappreciated success story of American immigration. Interweaving anecdotes drawn from many sources, including their own personal stories, with conclusions drawn from systematic big data analyses using tools from modern economic research, they paint a vivid and wide-ranging picture of the changes in immigration over time and the effects on American society. They take us to meet not only spectacular success stories like Tino Cuellar, who quickly moved from being born in Mexico to graduating from Harvard and becoming a justice on the California supreme court, but also the more common story of Louis Bilchick, whose family moved slowly but steadily up the economic ladder. Along the way, they separate fact and fiction and bust many of the myths that pervade and confuse the current discussion on immigration policy. As an immigrant and American citizen, I highly recommend this inspiring book for anyone interested in the debates on immigration.”
Guido Imbens, The Applied Econometrics Professor, Stanford University, and Nobel laureate, economics
“While Americans are intensely polarized about immigration, facts and history can help change minds. And Streets of Gold has the facts, millions and millions of them, about the amazing and often-surprising history of American immigration. It is a splendid testament to the power of big data to illuminate our past and what it means for the future.”
Angus Deaton, Nobel laureate, economics, and coauthor of Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism
“Complex in its coverage, uplifting in its message, engaging in its composition, and powerful in its significance, Streets of Gold is a ‘New World Symphony’ in words and numbers. Immigrants today, as in the past, make a better life for themselves. But upward mobility comes through generations, and the success of the immigrant child does not come at the expense of the one with US-born parents. There is greater continuity and harmony in this version of the American Dream than discontinuity and dissonance.”
Claudia Goldin, Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Nobel Laureate, economics, Harvard University, and author of Career & Family: Women’s Century-Long Journey toward Equity
The book by Benjamin Powell and Alex Nowrasteh goes deep into details on impacts of mass migration - "Economic arguments favoring increased immigration restrictions suggest that immigrants undermine the culture, institutions, and productivity of destination countries. But is this actually true? Nowrasteh and Powell systematically analyze cross-country evidence of potential negative effects caused by immigration relating to economic freedom, corruption, culture, and terrorism. They analyze case studies of mass immigration to the United States, Israel, and Jordan. Their evidence does not support the idea that immigration destroys the institutions responsible for prosperity in the modern world. This nonideological volume makes a qualified case for free immigration and the accompanying prosperity. "
You say-
>>They are at base violent criminals who come here for the express purpose of using government violence to steal from the productive.
This is a flat assertion. If I interpret what you wrote as saying - 'most or even slight majority low IQ immigrants are at base violent criminals', then this is false. (read those books and read this - https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/sanctuary-jurisdictions-in-florida)
If I interpret what you wrote as saying - 'all low IQ immigrants are at base violent criminals", then that is false too and in fact, this also seems evolutionarily impossible for social specie like human beings.
You say -
>>The wellbeing of low IQ immigrants, in the broadest sense, is best served by preserving the productivity engine of the developed world which pulled us all out of grinding poverty.
This has not quickly reached in certain parts of sub-saharan Africa like DRC, Somalia, Sudan, CAR, etc. Allowing open borders would give these people quicker access to the technology and also let them contribute to productivity by doing low skilled or low IQ jobs in the rich countries. The point you say is directly countered in the books I cited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
I really recommend people to read those books fully and carefully.
Globalists are in control of the western world and within those societies the populations are effectively dictated by" anti racist" zealots both legislatively and culturally. With white women's pro black and brown male immigrant sentiment being particularly insidious. In both its economic and societal effects the action of Merkel in 2015 should be examined closely. After 6.5 years of the ECBs economic "austerity "she hailed 2 million Muslim males to enter her country trampling through multiple countries some of whom weren't even in the EU. Billions previously witheld were suddenly released for these foreigners. It should have been seen as treachery but in fact it was accepted and even welcomed. It's effectively theft or welfare, and theft of savings from the native population through inflation being permanently higher than interest rates. Biden has effectively copied this times 3.
I have followed your writing with interest. I have a question on intra-national variation. You did the study on Italy that was over a longer time scale, but I suspect European countries are seeing some of the same dynamic geographic variation changes that we are seeing in the US - people in outlying rural areas tend to migrate into denser more developed areas. In the US, the military draft exposed rural populations to the larger world starting about a century ago, and it seems that the brightest and most competent were the most likely to leave for generations. I suspect that the inverse selection that the rural areas have been subject to has significantly affected the local average intelligence. Does fine grained data show this now?
Reccomendation:put a link of the source material for USA
Western immigrants closely follow the Danish curve, but not entirely. If they settle in Denmark, then, their long-term net effect is to slightly harm the Danish economy (at least, compared with the Danes).
Could you expand on this point? If the have a smaller net contribution to taxes than danes. They are still positive for the economy. Do you want to hint at the fact that these westerners will interbreed with Danes and therefore lower IQ/productivity slightly
I meant that in the hypothetical situation where the other immigrants left, they pull the average down slightly as their performance is below the Danes. However, in the context of large numbers of low IQ immigrants, their net effect is positive.
I believe Disgenic's concern could be better expressed in terms of GDP per capita.
I don't like GDPpc, so I don't try to talk about that. Massively affected by random companies moving their headquarters and the like.
In the USA people often talk about how much GDP is in the urban areas, but it's all obviously company addresses. In theory Baltimore, MD is a GDP powerhouse because of PO Boxes that get tax breaks, but in reality its a decaying black run city where anyone who even works in the city lives in the suburbs/exurbs where governance is sane and commutes in.
We ought to credit GDP to where the people generating it live, not where they "work" (even more insane in the WFH era).
"Going back to immigration, then, you can see that if we look at immigrants who are all working age, they have a very large positive effect of age on their fiscal contributions."
But that only applies to immigrants with a salable talent and willing to work and not live off others.
"People who advocate for open borders in good countries are advocating for making their country worse off. The data are crystal clear on this matter."
Indeed, open borders are as illogical as possible from economic and crime aspects. A very well-controlled border and immigration policy is essential.
Thanks for a great article with supporting data.
Yes, for some countries of origin, it doesn't matter which age distribution they have. They simply aren't productive enough in modern Denmark to be net positive, on average.