November 24, 2013

Paul Collier: 10 building blocks for thinking about immigration

Economist Paul Collier, CBE, co-director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford, writes in the New Statesman:
As part of my research, I have come up with ten building blocks needed for reasoned analysis of migration. Some are straightforward; others are analytically tricky and you will need to chew on them. Indeed – with apologies for a self-serving remark – you will need to read the book.
Block 1 Around 40 per cent of the population of poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. There is evidence that suggests this figure is not a wild exaggeration of how people would behave. If migration happened on anything approaching this scale, the host societies would suffer substantial reductions in living standards. Hence, in attractive countries, immigration controls are essential. 
Block 2 Diasporas accelerate migration. ... These links cut the costs of migration and so fuel it. As a result, while diasporas are growing, migration is accelerating. 
Block 3 Most immigrants prefer to retain their own culture and hence to cluster together. This reduces the speed at which diasporas are absorbed into the general population. The slower the rate at which they are absorbed, the lower the rate of immigration that is compatible with stable diasporas and migration. By design, absorption is slower with multicultural policies than with assimilative policies. 
Block 4 Migration from poor countries to rich ones is driven by the wide gap in income between them. ... Migrants are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their culture with them. 
Block 5 In economic terms, migrants are the principal beneficiaries of migration but many suffer a wrenching psychological shock. ... 
Block 6 Because migration is costly, migrants are not among the poorest people in their home countries. The effect on those left behind depends ultimately on whether emigrants speed political and social change back home or slow it down. A modest rate of emigration, as experienced by China and India, helps, especially if many migrants return home. However, an exodus of the young and skilled – as suffered by Haiti, for example – causes a haemorrhage that traps the society in poverty. 
Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.

But, what about the costs of the indigenous population? What everybody is interested in is not incomes or costs, but their net: standard of living.
Block 8 The social effects of immigration outweigh the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy. These effects come from diversity. Diversity increases variety and this widening of choices and horizons is a social gain.
Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and generosity. Co-operation rests on co-ordination games that support both the provision of public goods and myriad socially enforced conventions. Generosity rests on a widespread sense of mutual regard that supports welfare systems. Both public goods and welfare systems benefit the indigenous poor, which means they are the group most at risk of loss. As diversity increases, the additional benefits of variety get smaller, whereas the risks to co-operation and generosity get greater. ... 
Block 9 The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. ... It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis. Thousands of French people want to live in Britain, while thousands of Britons want to live in France.  
Block 10 Migration is not an inevitable consequence of globalisation. The vast expansion in trade and capital flows among developed countries has coincided with a decline in migration between them. 
These ten building blocks are not incontrovertible truths but the weight of evidence favours them to varying degrees. If your views on migration are incompatible with them, they rest on a base too fragile for passionate conviction.

Read the whole thing there. So far, after three days up, this long, important article has a grand total of 15 comments.

52 comments:

Anonymous said...

I could never imagine this getting published in a major news outlet in Canada.

Perhaps after the Brits get it, the Americans will start having this conversation. Then after a few years we will allow ourselves to talk openly about immigration. Because the worst thing that could ever happen to us is for foreigners to think that we are backward, unenlightened and racist.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

AKAHorace

Anonymous said...

Block 9 The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. ... It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis.

So if we decide to legalize 11 million illegal Mexicans maybe we should negotiate 11 million blue-haired retirees for Mexico. Their presence might encourage Mexico to fix traffic lights, enforce pedestrian right-of-way, enhance property rights, fire crooked cops, etc.

A Working Class American said...

Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.
===============


the average remains the same, but the working class loses income while the investors who own the corporations get richer.


Also the main social cost of diversity is the loss of unity that is the effect of diversity. Heterogeneity decreases unity, which means the populace is less able to elect and hold accountable elected representatives. This causes a decrease in control of the govt by the majority, which is in essence a decrease in democracy.
Again, this dynamic is called the 'divide et impera' tactic, and has been used by those at the top for centuries.

Ed said...

The idea of reciprocity is interesting and is something I've never considered before.

If country A is experiencing net immigration from country B, country A could announce that it will let in as many migrants from B as B accepted from A the previous year (for example the US maintaining that it will take in as many Mexicans as Americans retired to Mexico the previous year). That will actually wind up helping migrants by encouraging harmonization of immigration controls; right now migrants tend to flock to the country with the most liberal or weakest controls (the US) regardless of whether it otherwise makes sense as a destination economically or culturally. It would encouraging countries that are experiencing net emigration, and in which the elites are frankly happy that their economic losers are going elsewhere, to get their act together and attract more immigrants. Everyone would essentially try to import high-status and high-skill immigrants and export unwanted population, which would be an improvement over a world where everyone just sends their surplus population to the US, Canada, and western Europe.

International Jew said...

"It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis."

I've always thought something like that would be a good idea. Let as many Indian software engineers in to the US as the number of Americans who wish to emigrate to India. Likewise Chinese, Somalis... It's an idea that might get some traction if people could be convinced that immigrants from any given country tend to make the US more like that country, and an "exchange" model captures, more or less, Americans' sense of how nice it is in various countries.

Dr. Bramwell said...

Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.

Income is not as important as assets, i.e., RESOURCES or WEALTH. These drive standard of living and income itself in the long run.

It is axiomatic that immigration has a deleterious effect on the basic resources of the indigenous people. This is a mathematical fact: the more people, the less of each persons share of resources. Resources/population takes the measure of the share. Immigration pushes up the denominator.

Immigration also dilutes our voting rights. Again, this is a mathematical fact. This is measured by 1/population. Our voting power has been halved in just the last 50 years.

Arguably, voting rights are even more important than resources and income because they ultimately determine how resources and income are allocated - who gets what.

Anonymous said...

" However, an exodus of the young and skilled – as suffered by Haiti, for example – causes a haemorrhage that traps the society in poverty." - we need a reverse denmark rule for Haiti: if something is happening to Haiti, its absence would leave Haiti in terrible shape regardless.

Anonymous said...

"Arguably, voting rights are even more important than resources and income because they ultimately determine how resources and income are allocated - who gets what." - And worse, the inevitable loss of legitimacy that any such system will suffer.

Anonymous said...

"I've always thought something like that would be a good idea. Let as many Indian software engineers in to the US as the number of Americans who wish to emigrate to India. Likewise Chinese, Somalis... It's an idea that might get some traction if people could be convinced that immigrants from any given country tend to make the US more like that country, and an "exchange" model captures, more or less, Americans' sense of how nice it is in various countries. " - that is basically the way immigration was pre 1964. Of course no one wanted to go to China,India, or Somalia.

eah said...

Around 40 per cent of the population of poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. ... If migration happened on anything approaching this scale, the host societies would suffer substantial reductions in living standards.

But:

In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.

How can it be that the host society would experience "substantial reductions in living standards" if the effect on average income is "trivial"?

TGGP said...

As much as I agree with his conclusion, I would not rely on Collier. If he weren't a real person you'd think Bill Easterly made him up to vindicate his critique of development economics. His book "The Bottom Billion" is full of conclusions derived from running lots of regressions and jumping on ones reaching statistical significance, which would normally be called data-mining, which is why they weren't published in an academic journal beforehand. And even though he's not an "Invite the World" type, he is an "Invade the World" type. That's how he plans to raise the incomes of poor countries so there's less of a wage differential motivating migration.

Anonymous said...

So if we decide to legalize 11 million illegal Mexicans maybe we should negotiate 11 million blue-haired retirees for Mexico. Their presence might encourage Mexico to fix traffic lights, enforce pedestrian right-of-way, enhance property rights, fire crooked cops, etc.

Actually Mexico is a fairly popular retirement destination for Americans - with some luck and the right place to live. Low cost of living, good service mentality, respectful attitude...

Of course no one wanted to go to China, India, or Somalia.

Wanted, in the past tense. That is starting to change. Many of the entry-level jobs are moving to China and India. While actual emigration of white Americans to these places is unlikely in the near future, Japan-style western expatriate communities are likely.

Dave Pinsen said...

The migration equivalent of balanced trade.

One advantage of balanced migration is it would put political pressure on poor countries' governments to make their countries more attractive to 1st world expats (which would ultimately make them more livable for their own people).

5371 said...

Indeed a much better piece than usual. 1 and 8 contain questionable statements, though.
Around 40% would immigrate - possibly if someone else paid for it as well as allowing it.
Diversity increases choice and widens horizons - it could have the opposite effect. Insecure people are less adventurous, less open to novelty, and diversity can make people insecure.

Anonymous said...

Actually what stuns this particular British Expat is that The New Statesman -- Mother Jones or the Nation would be the American equivalent -- would publish something like this.

I certainly can't imagine any left-wing or "liberal" American publication coming out with something like this at present.

Which provides some hope. Because it is simply inconceivable that the New Statesman would have run this even five years ago...

Luke Lea said...

"The control of immigration is a human right. "

There is your ad campaign right there.

Orthodox said...

Very few Americans actually emigrate. The numbers are in the thousands annually. I guess Swiss looking to emigrate to America could rejoice when Tina Turner became a citizen.

Anonymous said...

Well it seems that the anti-immigrationists are actually making some progress - could you have imagined such an article written by a heavyweight academic 10 years ago, say, when the debate was utterly but utterly dominated by the 'globalist' immigrationist, lefty, neocon, New Labour, George Bush, WSJ, 'The Economist, NYT, Newsweek, Time, etc etc pro-immigration open borders axis, an axis which, unfortunately had the entire political class of the western world in its pocket - hence the madness of western immigration policy in the past decade.
Now, it appears the tide is turning -granted, a lot of that is due to the economic meltdown that has knocked the wind out of the sails of the globalists/immigrationists, but it's also due to a backlash spearheaded by sites like iSteve. I wonder if Prof. Collier is a reader of iSteve?, certainly the points he raises are very similar to arguments expressed here over the years, Steve, maybe the impact you are having is bigger than you might think.
Anyhow, to repeat myself, such viewss as Prof. Collier's were distinctly 'below the salt' only 10 years ago, and weren't even uttered in public by 'respectable' people.
Prof Collier is partly of German ancestry. I wonder if that has contributed to his clear thinking and honesty, in much the same way as Martin Luther and various German intellectuals are famed for clear thought and honesty.

Anonymous said...

"Diversity increases variety and this widening of choices and horizons is a social gain", people say this as if its gospel truth, but other than the "all those interesting restaurants" example what specifically are they talking about ? Cities like London will increasingly turn into a third world style city, I never hear any of these diversity mongers praising third world cities, yet formerly white ones turning into them will somehow be different and wonderful ?

Even if this highly dubious idea were true, its still not f@#$ing acceptable. Money is important, but it has never crossed my mind that I should reject my ancestors, their history and legacy just so that I can a have a bit extra money in my pocket.

Anonymous said...

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com/2013/11/sarrazins-house-attacked-by-far-left.html

Farang said...

I never hear any of these diversity mongers praising third world cities, yet formerly white ones turning into them will somehow be different and wonderful ?

My 2 euro-cents here: wealthy French left-wingers often have luxurious villas (called "riad" in Arabic) in largely French-speaking Morocco: Bernard-Henri Lévy, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Jack Lang (a socialist politician and former Minister of Culture and Education), and many others. Marrakech is their favorite Moroccan city.

They enjoy being rich in a poor country: they have obsequious servants which are paid very low wages, and they socialize with the local leaders and royalty (who have an interest in being chummy with wealthy, politically influential First Worlders). There's also something else: where servants are available for peanuts, sex is also available for peanuts. All kinds of sex. According to persistent rumors, Jack Lang is a pedophile. A few years ago another former government minister suggested on TV that Jack Lang had been arrested (and quickly released) in Morocco during a sex party with young boys. The rumor hasn't been disproved.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, as is well-known now, enjoys having sex with maidservants. It is certainly less dangerous to have sex with a gullible Moroccan chambermaid you hired in Marrakech to work in your house, than with her New-York Sofitel equivalent, who is infinitely more vicious.

The atmosphere seems to be quite bunga-bunga for the affluent French living in Morocco: Carla Bruni seduced her then-lover Jean-Paul Enthoven's son, Raphaël Enthoven, in Bernard-Henri Lévy's swimming-pool, in 2000, 7 years before she met Sarkozy. Raphaël Enthoven was then married to Justine Lévy, Bernard-Henri's daughter. Carla had her first child with Raphaël. The Lévys and the Enthovens are wealthy, media-savvy French-Jewish families.
http://www.gala.fr/l_actu/news_de_stars/quand_carla_bruni_brisait_les_coeurs_91867

Morocco has recently become more democratic, but it basically remains an authoritarian islamic monarchy. If the king protects you, you can do anything there.

I'm afraid that what all those so-called enlightened lefties want is Marrakech-on-the-Thames and Marrakech-on-the-Hudson. Preferably with Joe Sixpack's fair-haired daughter playing the role of the Moroccan chambermaid in DSK's lurid fantasies.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps after the Brits get it, the Americans will start having this conversation. Then after a few years we will allow ourselves to talk openly about immigration.

For sure. Change is in the air in both the UK and Australia on the issue of immigration. The US will follow.

Sword said...

Block 7 - the statement that the effect by immigration on middle-class wages (or something along those lines, I amquoting from memory) was quite possibly thrown in asa mollifier to get the article published. The author can not go full bore citizenist right away, even if he wanted to.

Cail Corishev said...

"I'm afraid that what all those so-called enlightened lefties want is Marrakech-on-the-Thames and Marrakech-on-the-Hudson."

Funny, I was just thinking that they want Rick's Cafe, but without the war: a bunch of interesting people of various nationalities hanging out and drinking wine and singing songs in various languages, with new and interesting people coming and going regularly.

I don't know if they really believe that open borders will turn the world into Rick's, or if they figure enough mass immigration will allow them to turn their own neighborhoods into Rick's and they don't care what it does to the rest. But I think you're right; that sort of foreign-but-not-too-foreign environment where anything goes if you know the right person is their ideal.

Anonymous said...

"According to persistent rumors, Jack Lang is a pedophile"

Does he holiday with Frederic Mitterrand?

dearieme said...

The point about reciprocity was made with an example that was a mild dig. The French who want to go to Britain are seeking work, or a better environment for their businesses; the Brits who want to go to France mainly want to retire somewhere with warmer weather, cheaper property and a better health service. Or so I guess.

Anonymous said...

If country A is experiencing net immigration from country B, country A could announce that it will let in as many migrants from B as B accepted from A the previous year (for example the US maintaining that it will take in as many Mexicans as Americans retired to Mexico the previous year). That will actually wind up helping migrants by encouraging harmonization of immigration controls; right now migrants tend to flock to the country with the most liberal or weakest controls (the US) regardless of whether it otherwise makes sense as a destination economically or culturally. It would encouraging countries that are experiencing net emigration, and in which the elites are frankly happy that their economic losers are going elsewhere, to get their act together and attract more immigrants. Everyone would essentially try to import high-status and high-skill immigrants and export unwanted population, which would be an improvement over a world where everyone just sends their surplus population to the US, Canada, and western Europe

Instead of sending American retirees why not encouraged about the 3 million legalized under Reagan to go home instead. They can qualify for Social Security and Social Security goes further in Mexico than the US. Maybe, paid them extra to return home. Many are now between the ages of 45 to 67 years old.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

a bunch of interesting people of various nationalities hanging out and drinking wine and singing songs in various languages, with new and interesting people coming and going regularly.

I sometimes wonder if there is some sexual titillation at work with immigration advocates. Desire for more, and more exotic, sexual partners.

Am I the only one who suspects Dr. Vibrant has a personal motive for wanting to be surrounded by thousands of homosexuals?

Anonymous said...

The decline in remittances to Mexico—nearly all of which come from the U.S.—is linked to economic changes in the U.S., where one-in-ten Mexican-born people live (Passel, Cohn and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012). The U.S. housing market crash hurt Mexican immigrants for whom the construction industry is a major job source, although a World Bank analysis concludes that the housing market’s link to remittance totals has weakened since 2011 (World Bank, 2013).

Another factor in the fall of remittances to Mexico could be the decline in the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. since the onset of the recession, due to decreased arrivals and increased departures, including deportations. A Pew Research Center analysis of government data found that recent migration from the U.S. to Mexico equals and possibly exceeds migration from Mexico to the U.S. through at least 2012 (Passel, Cohn and Gonzalez-Barrera, 2012).
Pew is saying recent group more from Central America than Mexico, less population but still have to keep our guard. This explains the rise of illegal immigrants through El Paso and less through San Diego or Tucson.

Anonymous said...

In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.


Yes and no. In the short run and in terms of the average income for the indigenous population, the effect is trivial. But in the long term the effect is not trivial. Over time the new immigrants alter the entire culture of the host country, and can do so in very damaging ways. This takes decades to happen of course and economists don't even try to think in such time scales.

Even in the short term, where the net effect on the indigenous population can be called "trivial", there are winners and losers from immigration among the "natives". Generally speaking the effect of open borders is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which is why the rich are such big fans of open borders.

Anonymous said...

The first thing to remember, when you are dealing with immigrationists is that they are little more than a damnable bunch of dirty, cheating, shameless, fanatical bare-faced liars. You're not dealing with normal, honest people, you are dealing with the deranged, the mentally-ill, the pathological. Maybe there are a few exceptions, but in my experience the above holds for at least 99% of the time.

Case in point, consider the uncontrolled mass immigration Britain's disgusting New Labour foisted on the nation. Firstly, they did it all secretly - therewas absolutely no public consultation or manifesto mentionings. Secondly the lies used to justify it vary with time. Before the financial f*ck-up, the excuse was 'we need them to fill gaps in the labor market' - then unemployment sky-rocketed. Then you heard 'we need them to maintain economic growth' then the economy crashed. Now all you hear all of the time is 'we need them to pay for our pensions' - that, admittedly, is a new one on me, never herad it 10 or 20 years ago, a new readymade excuse for a new era. Never mind the fact that immigrants age like all of us.

Anonymous said...

I would not say the tide is turning but there is some non-right arguments against immigration which is a good sign since everyone ignores the right. The Left is a key if its split on the issue like the right has been then it weakens the argument. As I mention a machine to reduce dry wall workers does more than thousands of politicians. The illegals didn't leave the US until the economy tank by 2009.

cinc210 said...

Actually Mexico is a fairly popular retirement destination for Americans - with some luck and the right place to live. Low cost of living, good service mentality, respectful attitude..
It isn't only 1 million Americans went there. Most Americans don't like Mexico even if its cheaper, sorry. I would as mention before encourage Mexicans to return to their own stopping grounds not as hard as you think. Reagan legalized 3 million and most at that time were Mexicans. They are collecting society security or are going to collect society security in 20 years. Pay them more to return to the rural areas they came from, they will take up the deal and 2 million of them will go home.

Anonymous said...

China has lost manufacturing jobs to Mexico or Vietnam. India has lost call center worked to Mexico or the Philippines, where are you at. Tech worked India probably gain but lots of call center worked moved to the Philippines.

Matthew said...

So if we decide to legalize 11 million illegal Mexicans maybe we should negotiate 11 million blue-haired retirees for Mexico.

Not the same. The young Mexicans moving here will breed. The American retirees settling in Mexico won't, for the most part (excluding perhaps a few men who attract Mexican women with their money ).

Further, the Mexicans coming to the US will be coming for jobs. They drive down wages for competing, unskilled Americans and send much of their money back home. They will be bringing labor supply.

American retirees headed to Mexico won't be working. They will be taking their retirement incomes with them. They will be taking labor demand.

The net effect on working age Americans will actually be worse than if the retirees had stayed. The net political effect will be worse than if the retirees had stayed (since many of them would opt not to vote).

The kind of immigration and emigration can matter every bit as much as the amount.

Matthew said...

I've always thought something like that would be a good idea. Let as many Indian software engineers in to the US as the number of Americans who wish to emigrate to India.

A variation on this, to discouraged American citizenship being used as a form of currency for arranged marriages: let one newlywed come to America from India for every newlywed American who moves to India.

Anonymous said...

There's also something else: where servants are available for peanuts, sex is also available for peanuts. All kinds of sex. According to persistent rumors, Jack Lang is a pedophile. A few years ago another former government minister suggested on TV that Jack Lang had been arrested (and quickly released) in Morocco during a sex party with young boys. The rumor hasn't been disproved.

Similar deal with Frédéric Mitterrand, former culture minister of France and nephew of the former president of France François Mitterrand. The elites seem to have a thing for slavery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6270217/Frederic-Mitterrand-admitted-to-paying-for-sex-with-young-boys-in-Thailand.html

"Frédéric Mitterrand admitted to paying for sex with 'young boys’ in Thailand

Frédéric Mitterrand, France’s culture minister, was under pressure to resign after it emerged that he had admitted to paying “young boys” for sexual acts while on holiday in Thailand."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6270217/Frederic-Mitterrand-admitted-to-paying-for-sex-with-young-boys-in-Thailand.html

"The revelations in his 2005 autobiography “The Bad Life” have come back to haunt Mr Mitterrand after he emerged as one of the most vociferous defenders of Roman Polanski, the film director currently detained in Switzerland in connection with an outstanding conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in the US in 1977.

In his book, Mr Mitterrand, the nephew of the late Socialist president François Mitterrand, wrote: “I got into the habit of paying for boys...All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excite me enormously.

“One could judge this abominable spectacle from a moral standpoint but it pleases me beyond the reasonable.”

Curiously, there was little outcry when the book was published in 2005. However, Mr Mitterrand’s tastes were brought to the fore on Monday by Marine Le Pen, daughter of the far-right National Front leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, on a political chat show.

Miss Le Pen read out a passage in which Mr Mitterrand wrote: “The profusion of very attractive and immediately available young boys puts me in a state of desire that I no longer need to hinder nor hide...as I know that I will not be refused.”"

Anonymous said...

Yeah, what "social gain" is he talking about.

And why is it that the eventual costs of breeding aren't dealt with. Does he think the host country's collective IQ will go up?

Ah, wait, of course I know why he didn't include that.

Anonymous said...

How can it be that the host society would experience "substantial reductions in living standards" if the effect on average income is "trivial"?

You're not reading carefully. The average income of the INDIGENOUS population doesn't change but the average income of the LARGER population is reduced, and "living standards" are being calculated on the latter basis. Furthermore, your living standards can still go down even if your income stays the same, if your society has gotten worse (more costs associated with crime and welfare to be borne by the taxpayer, etc.).

Anonymous said...

Funny, I was just thinking that they want Rick's Cafe, but without the war: a bunch of interesting people of various nationalities hanging out and drinking wine and singing songs in various languages, with new and interesting people coming and going regularly.

They want an earthly version of the Mos Eisley Cantina.

Farang said...

"According to persistent rumors, Jack Lang is a pedophile"
Does he holiday with Frederic Mitterrand?


I guess that most of us French people think that culture and the arts are a gay thing, or at least gay-friendly. We imagine the Minister of Culture as an effeminate socialite, eager to kiss Sylvester Stallone on the cheeks during official cocktail parties. No joke: Stallone got a Ministère de la Culture medal from Jack Lang, he is Chevalier des Arts et Lettres.
http://stallone-sylvester.skyrock.com/1115035074-Chevalier-des-arts-et-des-lettres.html

And who else but gay men could convincingly fake enthusiasm and admiration for modern abstract paintings and street graffiti, anyway?

your living standards can still go down even if your income stays the same, if your society has gotten worse

Exactly. When cheap housing is no longer available because cheap areas have become dangerous because of immigrant criminals, and when you have to send your children to private schools because the local public schools have become both dangerous and inefficient, your living standards have gone down even if your income has risen a little.

Farang said...

Funny, I was just thinking that they want Rick's Cafe, but without the war: a bunch of interesting people of various nationalities hanging out and drinking wine and singing songs in various languages, with new and interesting people coming and going regularly.

They want to be wealthy customers and bosses in Rick's Cafe, with a wonderfully diverse and vibrant crowd of employees to serve them while they talk about lofty things (or not so lofty things) with other people who are like them: rich, educated, and free.

That's the kind of life that they enjoy in their Moroccan residences. Their left-wing consciences are not bothered by the fact that Morocco is an authoritarian islamic state with very high levels of corruption. I guess that when you're rich and connected to the right people, the corruption of the natives is actually a bonus.

Anonymous said...

So if we decide to legalize 11 million illegal Mexicans maybe we should negotiate 11 million blue-haired retirees for Mexico.

Hmmm, not a bad idea. Since overseas health care supplies and services are NOT paid by Medicare, we would be exporting a massive Medicare liability.

Anonymous said...

A-G said:
Am I the only one who suspects Dr. Vibrant has a personal motive for wanting to be surrounded by thousands of homosexuals?

If so, then the "vibrant" nations are a poor choice, as they tend to be homophobic (and sexist and patriarchical too). Could it be not so much thousands of homosexuals, but thousands of innocent youths to be exploited?

Philip Neal said...

There is a surprising amount of sense in what Collier writes, and the wonder is that he got it published in the New Statesman. There have been other indications that the Labour party has had second thoughts about immigration, probably because it senses an electoral threat from UKIP.

What I liked most was the bit about 'yet more policy based evidence'. Here is a man who grasps how Labour, and for that matter the Conservative 'modernisers', conduct their business.

Svigor said...

The idea of reciprocity is interesting and is something I've never considered before.

If country A is experiencing net immigration from country B, country A could announce that it will let in as many migrants from B as B accepted from A the previous year


Reciprocity is the key word in politics. The problem with 1 for 1 as you have suggested is that Mexican citizenship is worth a small fraction of US citizenship. Same goes for most of the world outside western Europe and the Anglosphere. So 1 to 1 is not even close to a reciprocal agreement for the vast majority of the world vis-a-vis the Anglosphere and western Europe.

Then there's the fact that 1 person in a country of 1,000,000 is a far greater percentage of the overall population of that country than 1 person from a country of 100,000,000; big countries could take over small countries this way. India and China could take over the USA without breaking a sweat.

I've always thought something like that would be a good idea. Let as many Indian software engineers in to the US as the number of Americans who wish to emigrate to India. Likewise Chinese, Somalis

Again, 1 for 1 is hell and gone from reciprocity vis-a-vis those countries. 1 to 1 is more like an upper bounds, a sanity check, than reciprocity.

There is your ad campaign right there.

I just skimmed the first half or so of the points and saw a number of gems that I was shocked would come from a liberal publisher.

Even if this highly dubious idea were true, its still not f@#$ing acceptable. Money is important, but it has never crossed my mind that I should reject my ancestors, their history and legacy just so that I can a have a bit extra money in my pocket.

You remind me, I was going to say something similar in my comments about reciprocity; that immigration reciprocity has as its premise the globalist, homo economicus theory of man as dollar machine. There's no putting a dollar value on certain fundamentals.

The true capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with.

Dave Pinsen said...

As a starting point, maybe there ought to be reciprocity of public healthcare costs? For example, if an American without international health insurance coverage (or sufficient personal funds) gets emergency treatment in Mexico, Mexico gets to invoice the US government for it; similarly, we get to invoice the Mexican government for unpaid treatment provided here.

Anonymous said...

"There's also something else: where servants are available for peanuts, sex is also available for peanuts. All kinds of sex"


In his day Paul Bowles was a popular man to visit for the elite artist/intellectual set.



"At the same time Paul became obsessed with a sixteen-year-old boy called Ahmed Yacoubi, the first of several handsome young Moroccans who sold themselves to him. But unlike Jane, who flaunted her destructive connection to Cherifa, Paul hid his feelings. He wanted to maintain his respectable married façade, didn’t want to be considered (even in free-wheeling Tangier) a homosexual, and, when the nationalists took control after independence, was afraid of being expelled from Morocco. Yacoubi was also rather savage, and Paul wrote, “his reactions were those of a primitive” rather than of a cultured and sophisticated man.

...Paul encouraged Yacoubi’s talent as a painter, took him to New York in 1953, and arranged his exhibition at the prestigious Betty Parsons gallery. With Paul’s considerable help, Yacoubi became the best-known contemporary Moroccan artist.

...Libby, who had also been the lover of the homosexual actor Montgomery Clift, slept with Yacoubi, who was half her age, and carried him off to her luxurious Connecticut mansion. When Holman took over Paul’s role as patron, Paul was suddenly de trop as far as Yacoubi was concerned since Holman offered much more lavish rewards. In Connecticut, Yacoubi, whom she called a “tough Sabu,” molested Libby’s seven-year-old son and tried to choke him in their swimming pool. After she sent Yacoubi back to Morocco, he was jailed for seducing a fourteen-year-old German boy. When released, he tortured Paul—who’d helped him get out of prison—by refusing to sleep with him. Paul stoically accepted Yacoubi’s behavior as the way of the world, or at least his world, and was amazingly, though precariously, free from both moral judgments and painful regrets."


our "betters"

Anonymous said...

"Wanted, in the past tense. That is starting to change. Many of the entry-level jobs are moving to China and India. While actual emigration of white Americans to these places is unlikely in the near future, Japan-style western expatriate communities are likely." - Those aren't Japanese citizens however, and would presumably not permit a like number of Somalis, Indians, or Chinese to apply for American citizenship.

Percy Gryce said...

Steve, you're still doing it: placing a rather dainty, but wholly unnecessary, comma after the conjunction "but," principally when you begin a sentence with it.

Fowler called this "over-stopping" and "separating inseparables" (in your case, the conjunction from the rest of the sentence).

Because you use it so often it really breaks the flow of your writing.

Anonymous said...

They want an earthly version of the Mos Eisley Cantina.

Complete with faceless, weak-minded Stormtroopers policing the streets.

Anthony said...

So if we decide to legalize 11 million illegal Mexicans maybe we should negotiate 11 million blue-haired retirees for Mexico. Their presence might encourage Mexico to fix traffic lights, enforce pedestrian right-of-way, enhance property rights, fire crooked cops, etc.

And if they don't, we'll save a bundle on Social Security and Medicare.