Good point. The different scenarios have different implications as to the erosion scorecard, and allowing potentially big contributors in adds up as such a clear win-win that few can argue against it. But the other group is a another matter entirely. I was brought up in a conservative Republican family but my political convictions changed years ago thanks to the callous attitude of the GOP re undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. They projected an unseemly and reactionary alarmism at the laughable notion that genuine democracy in El Salvador might produce a government that posed a threat to the USA. When the Cold War ended they conveniently forgot about that absurdity; the Iran-Contra scandal had recently exposed their duplicity and bad judgement. (One of the painful ironies attendant to it all was the conflict within American Catholicism re ‘Liberation Theology,’ which had posited the radical notion that JC might’ve found unfettered exploitation of Salvadorans, Hondurans, et al inconsistent with his ethos.) Years later staunch liberals in the Obama admin. proved apathetic when an illegal (albeit bloodless)coup deposed the democratically elected president of Honduras. So American leadership in both parties has proven unreliable in attending to principled policy toward our southern neighbors. Meanwhile they both joined in a long term effort to de-regulate high finance, and we were rewarded with an ugly housing bubble and disappointment in efforts to bring the people responsible for it to account. So the poor buggers from the banana republics flock north hoping to score a gig pushing a lawn mower for $3 bucks an hour and the folks here who might’ve worked on a production line that was long ago off-shored by corporate HQ resent them for it. One of the few ‘legit’ industrial openings for the economic refugees from Mexico/Cen Am is the lovely occupation of slaughterhouse worker. It’s a testament to some of our better angels that they have managed to begin carving a niche for themselves in that line (no pun intended), and I have it on reliable authority that, in my former Midwestern home state of Nebraska, anyway, they are getting along fine with the locals and are happy to be there. But meat packing has, like so many other businesses, been transformed by contemporary capitalism for the worse. The results are well documented in an excellent book: “Methland”. The title just about says it all. So maybe the upshot of it on this side of the pond is that we should take better care of our own, but if we’re going to keep the 3rd world safe from democracy we’ll owe its residents whatever decency we’ve got left to offer. Unfortunately I can’t find any conventional American pols who I can trust to work along those lines.
I think a great way to settle the discussion is to look at unemployment rates for immigrants. In my home country of Sweden, roughly 20% of those that are born overseas are unemployed vs just 5% for the native population. Regardless of whether those unemployed are engaged in black market jobs or rely on social security, they still pose a burden to society in my view.
I've research elsewhere that immigrants to the United States have a neutral effect on the job market. That makes intuitive sense. The problem with Nordic welfare systems seems to be massive hurdles to enter the local job market as well as segregation making it difficult to learn the local language and adjust to society and the job market. The incentives to work in welfare states are sometimes distorted as well.
I'm pro-immigration, but the combination of a welfare state with poor integration of newcomers can cause significant problems, and at the end of the day, the new immigrants are getting the short end of the stick. The Nordic welfare state model needs to be adjusted.
Interesting! Not aware of studies of the Nordic states, but these countries are very distinct, as you observe. I did spend three months in Denmark in 2007 and remember this debate back then!
Denmark has used heavy-handed measures to deal with segregation, with some success. Norway and Finland have not had much immigration, nor many problems from it. Sweden, on the other hand... a complex situation that's been swept under the rug
As a dedicated amateur I appreciate your attempt to elucidate the conflicting conclusions. But why should we let the matter rest on indices of social utility or variable ways of evaluating it? ‘Immigration’ itself is an overly broad concept. There is an obvious qualitative difference between, for example, the international movement and relocation of elite scientists - am thinking Einstein, though I’m not sure, as a bit of a refugee, he’s the best example- and the desperately poor economic refugees who risk everything to cross deserts on foot to enter the US from Mexico. I sympathize with the latter group and, on the most basic level, cheer on the efforts of anyone with that kind of courage. Having spent most of my career teaching their kids - many of whom made the trek themselves- I know most are decent people driven by social and economic stagnation to do whatever they can to have a legitimate prospect of a better future. But the obvious difference between them and the upper echelon scientists is motivational and related to their prior circumstances. The ‘undocumented’ are fleeing a society and economy more profoundly inequitable and hierarchical than our own. Their presence as a group exerts an undeniable drag on wages and employment conditions in the lower end of the wage pool, thus hindering the economic prospects of the poor who already live here. That is a reality that academics seem to prefer to ignore but that is understood by pretty much everyone else. It furnishes the explanation for the fact that many of the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration on this (Southern California) side of the border are legally naturalized citizens of the same ethnic and cultural background.
Agree - it's a very complicated subject. And of course, the question of whether immigration erodes the welfare state is (mainly) independent of the question of whether we have a moral obligation to receive and help immigrants, which we do (to a reasonable extent!).
Good point. The different scenarios have different implications as to the erosion scorecard, and allowing potentially big contributors in adds up as such a clear win-win that few can argue against it. But the other group is a another matter entirely. I was brought up in a conservative Republican family but my political convictions changed years ago thanks to the callous attitude of the GOP re undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America. They projected an unseemly and reactionary alarmism at the laughable notion that genuine democracy in El Salvador might produce a government that posed a threat to the USA. When the Cold War ended they conveniently forgot about that absurdity; the Iran-Contra scandal had recently exposed their duplicity and bad judgement. (One of the painful ironies attendant to it all was the conflict within American Catholicism re ‘Liberation Theology,’ which had posited the radical notion that JC might’ve found unfettered exploitation of Salvadorans, Hondurans, et al inconsistent with his ethos.) Years later staunch liberals in the Obama admin. proved apathetic when an illegal (albeit bloodless)coup deposed the democratically elected president of Honduras. So American leadership in both parties has proven unreliable in attending to principled policy toward our southern neighbors. Meanwhile they both joined in a long term effort to de-regulate high finance, and we were rewarded with an ugly housing bubble and disappointment in efforts to bring the people responsible for it to account. So the poor buggers from the banana republics flock north hoping to score a gig pushing a lawn mower for $3 bucks an hour and the folks here who might’ve worked on a production line that was long ago off-shored by corporate HQ resent them for it. One of the few ‘legit’ industrial openings for the economic refugees from Mexico/Cen Am is the lovely occupation of slaughterhouse worker. It’s a testament to some of our better angels that they have managed to begin carving a niche for themselves in that line (no pun intended), and I have it on reliable authority that, in my former Midwestern home state of Nebraska, anyway, they are getting along fine with the locals and are happy to be there. But meat packing has, like so many other businesses, been transformed by contemporary capitalism for the worse. The results are well documented in an excellent book: “Methland”. The title just about says it all. So maybe the upshot of it on this side of the pond is that we should take better care of our own, but if we’re going to keep the 3rd world safe from democracy we’ll owe its residents whatever decency we’ve got left to offer. Unfortunately I can’t find any conventional American pols who I can trust to work along those lines.
Thanks Tim - very interesting!
I think a great way to settle the discussion is to look at unemployment rates for immigrants. In my home country of Sweden, roughly 20% of those that are born overseas are unemployed vs just 5% for the native population. Regardless of whether those unemployed are engaged in black market jobs or rely on social security, they still pose a burden to society in my view.
I've research elsewhere that immigrants to the United States have a neutral effect on the job market. That makes intuitive sense. The problem with Nordic welfare systems seems to be massive hurdles to enter the local job market as well as segregation making it difficult to learn the local language and adjust to society and the job market. The incentives to work in welfare states are sometimes distorted as well.
I'm pro-immigration, but the combination of a welfare state with poor integration of newcomers can cause significant problems, and at the end of the day, the new immigrants are getting the short end of the stick. The Nordic welfare state model needs to be adjusted.
Interesting! Not aware of studies of the Nordic states, but these countries are very distinct, as you observe. I did spend three months in Denmark in 2007 and remember this debate back then!
Denmark has used heavy-handed measures to deal with segregation, with some success. Norway and Finland have not had much immigration, nor many problems from it. Sweden, on the other hand... a complex situation that's been swept under the rug
As a dedicated amateur I appreciate your attempt to elucidate the conflicting conclusions. But why should we let the matter rest on indices of social utility or variable ways of evaluating it? ‘Immigration’ itself is an overly broad concept. There is an obvious qualitative difference between, for example, the international movement and relocation of elite scientists - am thinking Einstein, though I’m not sure, as a bit of a refugee, he’s the best example- and the desperately poor economic refugees who risk everything to cross deserts on foot to enter the US from Mexico. I sympathize with the latter group and, on the most basic level, cheer on the efforts of anyone with that kind of courage. Having spent most of my career teaching their kids - many of whom made the trek themselves- I know most are decent people driven by social and economic stagnation to do whatever they can to have a legitimate prospect of a better future. But the obvious difference between them and the upper echelon scientists is motivational and related to their prior circumstances. The ‘undocumented’ are fleeing a society and economy more profoundly inequitable and hierarchical than our own. Their presence as a group exerts an undeniable drag on wages and employment conditions in the lower end of the wage pool, thus hindering the economic prospects of the poor who already live here. That is a reality that academics seem to prefer to ignore but that is understood by pretty much everyone else. It furnishes the explanation for the fact that many of the staunchest opponents of illegal immigration on this (Southern California) side of the border are legally naturalized citizens of the same ethnic and cultural background.
Agree - it's a very complicated subject. And of course, the question of whether immigration erodes the welfare state is (mainly) independent of the question of whether we have a moral obligation to receive and help immigrants, which we do (to a reasonable extent!).