Migration: good for America, good for me

Note: this will be my last contribution for several months, see the end if you want more details.

Good for America:

An earlier post discussed Immigration as Economic Development. This matches nicely with a recent essay in The Economist making the case for why America is so appealing to immigrants and why this is one of America's main strengths. Building a new framework for mythology, this essay was called "A Ponzi scheme that works".

One of the most interesting points from this essay was this:

The stakes are high. Immigration keeps America young, strong and growing. “The populations of Europe, Russia and Japan are declining, and those of China and India are leveling off. The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time,” predicts Michael Lind of the New America Foundation, a think-tank. By 2050, there could be 500m Americans; by 2100, a billion. That means America could remain the pre-eminent nation for longer than many people expect. “Relying on the import of money, workers, and brains,” writes Mr Lind, America is “a Ponzi scheme that works.”

This sums up some of my own disgust with the nativism that often arises in our society. Our flexible sense of national identity is one of our main strengths. I see the rigid nationalism (e.g. xenophobia, religious nationalism) of people like Pat Buchanan as alien to America. Our flexible nationalism is one of the main features that distinguishes us from Europe. If we adopt a rigid nationalism, we'll be just another nation. We will acquire all the worst aspects that our nationalists see in "Old Europe": self-obsession, stagnation, and the loss of influence.

The Economist has several articles in their section on immigration and asylum, one of which discusses how refugees are increasingly likely to live in slums rather than in refugee camps. This reminds me of how regular people can make a difference, by participating in projects to resettle refugees who arrive in America, such as how many Pittsburgh churches came together to help a group of Somali Bantu refugees.

Along these lines, I want to bring up two essays that may be of interest here: How America can Rise Again, and Against Nationalism. The first essay I actually haven't finished reading yet, but it starts with an examination of the role of jeremiads in American political history. The second essay is particularly good for arguing that nationalism cannot provide a coherent basis for human social organization. The author moves on to identify the positive evil caused by nationalist ideology (which, by the way, is so ingrained that its adherents generally consider themselves "non-ideological"). As a communist, he focuses on how nationalism interferes with the development of a brotherhood of man. As an individualist, I'm more concerned with how it blocks consensual associations between individuals of different nations. A web search for "against nationalism" picks up several other essays that are probably good resources for making this critical argument.

Good for me:

I hate to say it, but that's all I have to write just now. I'll have to take a break from blogging (including commenting...though I may respond to a few ongoing discussions) for several months because I've reached a stage in my career where continued advancement requires that I find a new job. I probably won't find this job in Pittsburgh, so I'll have to move to a new city. This is going to require my full attention, so I can't risk getting distracted by the invigorating discussion here.

I've greatly enjoyed the discussions here and have learned a lot. Best wishes to all of you, and I hope that I will be able to return before long.

Best of luck in your job search. I know how difficult it can be right now.

i read the linked article(how america can rise again), the gist of being more or less that as long as people want to come here(i.e/, as long as there is vibrant immigration) and if America can "fix" or at least ameliorate the public/political institutional problem(at the very least, control the damage), America will not go into decline. Frankly, there is nothing to really disagree about concerning the author's conclusions, if you assume the premises. Now, I accept the premise that immigration is good for America. I've written many times before that people come here to get jobs(or an education), not to extract join political tribes to extract unproductive rents. The other premise, that the institutional problem can be "fixed" is not readily given. And if it's not, it will certainly negatively impact immigration.

Let's look at immigration. Conservatives and many progressives, to a large extent, implicitly assume that immigrants are here to join political tribes to extract unproductive rents. Conservatives argue that immigrants not only threaten american cultural identity, national security, but are here as well to suck off the teat of the welfare state. Progressives(many, but not all) often cite demographic trends(i.e.,America becoming less white), often assuming Ceteris paribus immigration tends, to make the case for permanent Dem Party dominance and an even larger role of the State, consuming more "private" resources. Arnold Kling's "Stagnant One Party Thesis" is based largely on this assumption. However, as I countered Kling, if you have a stagnant public choice institutional framework, then this will actually work against the immigration trends that everyone keeps assuming. We've already seen it happen. The bad economy has already revised and pushed back the date when America is supposed to lose it's "white majority." One characteristic of a stagnant public choice institutional framework is persistent high unemployment. This works against immigration trends.

Whereas Kling sees immigration and demographic trends reinforcing the "public choice state," i see the public choice state blunting those trends. In such a case, James assumptions about immigration are quite contingent upon "institutional reform." I'm not sanguine about such institutional reform, One of the primary reasons is the National Security State. It's just going to keep getting worse. As a result of the latest "terror attack, the "lap bomber," the US government is trying to impose stricter security standards on the rest of the world, that is being balked at, greatly increasing the no-fly lists, etc. The US lost the Olympics because the rest of the world doesn't want to put up with the US security hassles. It's hard to see how a country that views everyone in the world as a security threat, a country that no longer abides by the magna carta writ, particularly with respect to non-white, 'suspicious' internationals, is going to be an immigration mecca. This is not a cautionary side point, it is a fundamental point. It is going to get worse, much worse. The conventional wisdom is that the "lap bomber" being able to get on a plane was some sort of "government failure." On the contrary, the whole "War on Terror" itself is a massive government failure.

The other institutional problem concerns the collapse of the "Chicago school framework," that is, the global economic governance framework that was the heart of the US Empire. When the Keynesian Bretton Woods framework failed in the 1970s, which threatened the financial basis of the US Empire, it was replaced by the Chicago School framework(which became known as the Washington Consensus). Say what you will be either framework, but at least each had some sort of intellectual foundation with respect to judging such institutional frameworks. However, with the collapse of the Chicago School framework, there is nothing to replace it with. The rules of the 'New World Order' are being re-written by the self-interested and the powerful who sit at the table of the "public-private partnership." The only "intellectual foundation" of this obscene corporatism is "stability;" it's the old argument that the 'trains will run on time.' It's become utterly arbitrary. The transformation of Ben Bernanke, who was seen as a good "Chicago School boy" back in the day, to now being a monster, from a libertarian perspective, is startling.

My answer to James Fallows regarding the problem of US political institutions is that they exercise arbitrary power. It's been that way from the beginning, and it's still the same problem today; the hegemony of US Empire has only exasperated this problem. I see no self-correction when it comes to the National Security State or corporatism. I don't see any trend towards "restoring" a common public faith faith in public institutions; on the contrary, I see an increase in cynicism and counter-culture.

btw, Adam, good luck with the job search...

The current economic crisis has certainly reduced the flow of immigration. And a stagnant economy would reduce the draw of immigrants to the United States. But I question the relationship between, say, a stagnant political system and a totally stagnant economy. A growing social welfare state will certainly be a burden on the economy, but it may not necessarily stifle long term economic growth. The problem is that conservatives have dominated the public debates about causes of economic growth. Tax cuts in the short term may generate short term economic growth but so would an increase in public expenditures.

Conservatives argue that taxes cuts for capital means more money for investment and that investment will fuel greater technological growth. Liberals argue that public expenditures on science and education will fuel greater technological growth. I think there are holes in each argument. Conservatives overlook the argument that firms may under invest in research and development because they are not always assured the ability to totally capture the returns of that investment. But patent laws also can become too restrictive and limit the free flow of ideas that encourage innovation. Liberals may overlook the dangers of public investment in science politicizing research.

I would argue, partially stealing from Richard Florida's work, that maintaining an open and tolerant culture, particularly one open to immigrants, will help encourage long term economic growth through innovation. As long as America is open to immigrants, especially relative to the rest of the world, we could very well avoid a decline.