Comments 23

Los admiradores extranjeros de Trump

Aug 25, 2016 Ricardo Hausmann

CAMBRIDGE – A Donald Trump no le gustan los latinoamericanos y promueve la construcción de un muro para separarlos de Estados Unidos. Como suele suceder con tales desaires, los latinoamericanos tienden a corresponder el sentimiento, al igual que los musulmanes y otros que se sienten ofendidos por el candidato a presidente nominado por el Partido Republicano. Sin embargo, muchos de quienes no gustan de Trump comparten su pasión por las políticas restrictivas con respecto a la inmigración.

Probablemente son pocos los ámbitos de la política pública en los que algo que es tan bueno para la sociedad, se pinta como tan malo. Desde luego, proyectar los problemas de una sociedad sobre chivos expiatorios extranjeros es una táctica política muy antigua. Sin embargo, resulta sorprendente el grado en que la hostilidad hacia la inmigración va en contra de la evidencia de lo beneficiosas que son sus consecuencias.

Investigaciones recientes sobre la inmigración muestran sus enormes efectos positivos sobre el bienestar de la población nativa. Bill y Sari Kerr demuestran que, si bien los inmigrantes representan alrededor del 13% de la población estadounidense, dan cuenta del 26% del total de emprendedores, y en el equipo de liderazgo de cerca del 36% de las empresas nuevas se encuentra por lo menos un inmigrante. Esto sugiere que la inmigración constituye parte importante de la vitalidad económica y de la creación de empleo en Estados Unidos.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 22 in all 22 Comments on this article

Gregorio Bustos Sep 3, 2016

In southern Europe, they better start thinking about how to get immigration into the countries again. For example, Spain and Italy have some of the lowest birth rates in the world and life expectancy is quite high. Then, how to solve the problems to come? Either incentivizing citizens to have more children, may be following the examples of countries like Sweden or Germany, or through innovative immigration policies that not only will bring new entrepreneurial spirit and skills, but also secure the current social and economic system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Sep 2, 2016

Come now, professor, immigrants often become "entrepreneurs" because of linguistic and cultural barriers to many occupations. Legal immigration, like legal importation of capital and commodities for consumption, if not beneficial, would be attenuated.

The problem is illegal and/or unwanted immigration, especially of those who reduce wages by increasing the supply of labour, who cannot work because of lack of skill or cultural barriers to labour force participation, or who have their eyes on welfare and related benefits, e.g., First world health and education.

You seem to believe that a free lunch can be had, an odd determination for an economist. Scapegoating is one thing, but controlling immigration - the inward flow of people - is quite another. Where do you draw the line, moreover, between illegal immigration - an escape from an unwanted life - and refugee status.

The new federal government in Canada made a campaign promise to accept q large number of "refugees." However, outside of photo ops of politicians greeting them at airports, little has been done to accommodate them (unless warehousing in cheap hotels is considered to suffice as "accommodation"). Now the government is requesting that private sponsors drop the people with whom they have developed personal relationships that would improve the chances of these unfortunate people to integrate into the Canadian economy and society, and instead to accept government sponsored refugees instead.

Uncontrolled and Unwanted imports, whether of human beings or other goods and services produced by human beings, should be an issue for a democratic government to address openly and honestly with the citizens of the country.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

Here are some facts that should be helpful...

From "Overstating Immigrant Entrepreneurship "

"Even to the extent that brilliant, tech-savvy immigrants are boosting our economy, that is a case for the limited entry of "Einsteins," not for mass immigration. Nonetheless, the NFAP supports amnesty, guest workers, birthright citizenship, and extended-family reunification – all policies that bring substantial numbers of low-skill immigrants, but not many captains of industry. Tellingly, just one out of the 60 immigrant co-founders (1.7 percent) identified by the NFAP is from Latin America, even though 52.5 percent of immigrants age 25 and over in the U.S. are from that region. So although immigration certainly brings benefits as well as costs, Americans need to be careful about designing a policy that works as intended."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

Guess what? All illegals aren’t PhD students or bloodthirsty killers. What are they on average? A burden.

Both theory and empirical data make this all too clear. This should be obvious to anyone with even one ear or eye open. Everyone agrees that America’s own poor people are a burden. Why would anyone expect that imported poor people would be any better? Let me quote from George Borjas (America’s leading immigration economist).

“There’s also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It’s time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury.”

The literature is full of references to the negative tax impact of low-skilled immigrants. In the pre-welfare state era, this wasn’t true. The poor got little or nothing from government (even education was very cheap), and they worked long hours for low wages. The were clearly complementary to higher income groups. That era is over. Health care and education are extremely expensive and the poor are major consumers, to say the least. It would be essentially impossible for a poor person today (other than a single working age male / female with no children) not to be a burden on society. A few specific data points.

1. “Guest Contribution: The ageing, crisis-prone, welfare state is bad news for welfare migration”

“Edmonston and Smith (1997) look comprehensibly at all layers of government (federal, state, and local), all programs (benefits), and all types of taxes. For each cohort, defined by age of arrival to the U.S., the benefits (cash or in kind) received by migrants over their own lifetimes and the lifetimes of their first-generation descendents were projected. These benefits include Medicare, Medicaid, Supplementary Security Income (SSI), Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), etc. Similarly, taxes paid directly by migrants and the incidence on migrants of other taxes (such as corporate taxes) were also projected for the lifetimes of the migrants and their first-generation descendents. Accordingly, the net fiscal burden was projected and discounted to the present. In this way, the net fiscal burden for each age cohort of migrants was calculated in present value terms. Within each age cohort, these calculations were disaggregated according to three educational levels: Less than high school education, high school education, and more than high school education. Indeed the findings suggest that migrants with less than high school education are typically a net fiscal burden that can reach as high as approximately US$100,000 in present value, when the migrants’ age on arrival is between 20-30 years.”

2. “Los Angeles and Welfare”

“I am sure that I’m not the only one who’s noticed how almost all of the discussion over California’s budget problems managed to avoid using such words as “immigrant” or “illegal”. So I decided to do a few calculations using the 2008 Current Population Survey to follow up on Instapundit’s remark. Well, here are some interesting results for your perusal–no remarks are needed:

All statistics give the fraction of households in the LA metro area that receive some type of assistance–either cash, food stamps, or Medicaid:

All households: 20.9% Native households: 12.7% Immigrant households: 33.2% Immigrant households with a citizen head: 26.4% Immigrant households with a non-citizen head: 40.1%

Just to put things in context, 40% of households in the LA metro area are immigrant households.”

3. “Impact of Mexican Immigration on Public Coffers”

“The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are examined they are found to have a modest negative impact on public coffers. These figures are only for the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants.”

That last sentence is important. Low-skilled immigrants produce low skilled children who will cost even more.

4. “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers”

“In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion.”
“In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).”

5. “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget”

“This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.”

Note that this is just the Federal impact. Illegals and other low-skill immigrants have a greater impact on state and local governments (education, health care, crime, etc.).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

Guess what? Immigrants aren’t PhD students or bloodthirsty killers. What are they on average? A burden.
Both theory and empirical data make this all too clear. This should be obvious to anyone with even one ear or eye open. Everyone agrees that America’s own poor people are a burden. Why would anyone expect that imported poor people would be any better? Let me quote from George Borjas (America’s leading immigration economist).
“There’s also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It’s time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury.”
The literature is full of references to the negative tax impact of low-skilled immigrants. In the pre-welfare state era, this wasn’t true. The poor got little or nothing from government (even education was very cheap), and they worked long hours for low wages. The were clearly complementary to higher income groups. That era is over. Health care and education are extremely expensive and the poor are major consumers, to say the least. It would be essentially impossible for a poor person today (other than a single working age male / female with no children) not to be a burden on society. A few specific data points.
1. “Guest Contribution: The ageing, crisis-prone, welfare state is bad news for welfare migration”
“Edmonston and Smith (1997) look comprehensibly at all layers of government (federal, state, and local), all programs (benefits), and all types of taxes. For each cohort, defined by age of arrival to the U.S., the benefits (cash or in kind) received by migrants over their own lifetimes and the lifetimes of their first-generation descendents were projected. These benefits include Medicare, Medicaid, Supplementary Security Income (SSI), Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), etc. Similarly, taxes paid directly by migrants and the incidence on migrants of other taxes (such as corporate taxes) were also projected for the lifetimes of the migrants and their first-generation descendents. Accordingly, the net fiscal burden was projected and discounted to the present. In this way, the net fiscal burden for each age cohort of migrants was calculated in present value terms. Within each age cohort, these calculations were disaggregated according to three educational levels: Less than high school education, high school education, and more than high school education. Indeed the findings suggest that migrants with less than high school education are typically a net fiscal burden that can reach as high as approximately US$100,000 in present value, when the migrants’ age on arrival is between 20-30 years.”
2. “Los Angeles and Welfare”
“I am sure that I’m not the only one who’s noticed how almost all of the discussion over California’s budget problems managed to avoid using such words as “immigrant” or “illegal”. So I decided to do a few calculations using the 2008 Current Population Survey to follow up on Instapundit’s remark. Well, here are some interesting results for your perusal–no remarks are needed:
All statistics give the fraction of households in the LA metro area that receive some type of assistance–either cash, food stamps, or Medicaid:
All households: 20.9% Native households: 12.7% Immigrant households: 33.2% Immigrant households with a citizen head: 26.4% Immigrant households with a non-citizen head: 40.1%
Just to put things in context, 40% of households in the LA metro area are immigrant households.”
3. “Impact of Mexican Immigration on Public Coffers”
“The most comprehensive research on this subject was done by the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The study, conducted in 1997, found that more-educated immigrants tend to have higher earnings, lower rates of public service use, and as a result pay more in taxes than they use in services. In contrast, the NRC found that because of their lower incomes and resulting lower tax payments coupled with their heavy use of public services, less-educated immigrants use significantly more in services than they pay in taxes. The NRC estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime. The NAS further estimated that the total combined fiscal impact of the average immigrant (all educational categories included) was a negative $3,000. Thus, when all immigrants are examined they are found to have a modest negative impact on public coffers. These figures are only for the original immigrant, they do not include public services used or taxes paid by their U.S.-born descendants.”
That last sentence is important. Low-skilled immigrants produce low skilled children who will cost even more.
4. “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers”
“In 2004, there were 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households. The average net fiscal deficit per household for federal, state and local spending combined was $19,588. This means that the total annual fiscal deficit (total benefits received minus total taxes paid) for all 4.54 million low-skill immigrant households together equaled $89.1 billion.”
“In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).”
5. “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget”
“This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.”
Note that this is just the Federal impact. Illegals and other low-skill immigrants have a greater impact on state and local governments (education, health care, crime, etc.).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

It should be obvious that low-skill immigration (importing poor people) is a net negative in any welfare state (they can never pay their own way). Do elites acknowledge this? Do they admit the (large) economic harm from low-skill immigration? Of course, not. Quote from Professor George Borjas (perhaps the leading immigration economist in the world).

"There's also been a lot of fake fog thrown into the question of whether immigrants pay their way in the welfare state. It's time for some sanity in this matter as well. The welfare state is specifically designed to transfer resources from higher-income to lower-income persons. Immigrants fall disproportionately into the bottom part of the income distribution. It is downright ridiculous to claim that low-skill immigrants somehow end up being net contributors into the public treasury."

Poor people are a burden. No one questions that Europe’s or America's own poor people are a burden. Why would anyone with a neuron left, question whether imported poor people are any better?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

The idea that immigrants are somehow uniquely entrepreneurial has been studied to death and turns out to be... Just more BS. See "Overstating Immigrant Entrepreneurship" over at cis.org. if finding a link is a bit too much, try some math. A typical firm, has many founders (say 4-6). If immigrants are 13% of the U.S. population and only 36% of firms have an immigrant founder, then immigrants are (markedly) less entrepreneurial than natives.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
lirain urreiztieta Aug 29, 2016

Ricardo, por favor! Cualquier conversacion en EEUU relacionada con el tema de la immigracion illegal es por los 12 o 13 millones de Mexicanos que se encuentran aqui, y entre los cuales hay muchos que han cometido fechorias y crimenes mayores. Varios departamentos del gobierno federal nos han dicho que usando los mismas rutas de contrabando humano, se han filtrado individuos de paises musulmanes que vienen con intenciones distintas a buscar una mejor vida. Y sin embargo no mencionas ni UNA VEZ a Mexico, que por su parte tiene una politica migratoria ferrea, y un trato terrible para con migrantes ilegales, particularmente con centroamericanos. Lo unico que tendria que hacer Trump para solventar la crisis es adopter una ley migratoria parecida a la Mexicana.
Quedaste mal.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
eusebio manuel Aug 28, 2016

Not vote Trump contraption of Trumpism is an extremist army who do not value freedom and so little cultivate human rights
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Dohn Aug 27, 2016

Is the lack of immigration the reason South Korea and Japan are so poverty-stricken and technologically backward (just joking: they are the most industrialized and technologically advanced countries in the world; with the densest concentration of manufacturers of industrial robots in the world; the US has one company that makes industrial robots, worth only 18 million dollars in 2011 and my guess is it was probably bought out or went bankrupt). Why is immigration so important for Western countries; but China, Korea and Japan are monocultural with 0.1% of fewer of their populations non-Asian and yet somehow these countries seem to be relatively modern? Of course, New York with its teeming homeless population and ancient subway system is the envy of everyone in North East Asia
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Aug 26, 2016

This goes against everything America was founded on. All Americans are immigrants or decendants of immigrants not prehistoric movements of populations but modern day immigrants. The only true American are the Native American indians. So IF The Donald is elected the world needs to get ready to accept millions of displaced former Americans.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Aug 25, 2016

This is not about migration, but about crime. You really don't understand this or do you have a special agenda?
He doesn't dislike Hispanics but he dislikes Corruption of all nationalities. There's a huge difference between legal and illegal migration.
- Steve Hurst Aug 25, 2016
  
  I agree about the difference between legal and illegal migrants
  
  I have no idea what Trump is talking about because he keeps correcting his miss-speaks and then correcting them again
  
  Donald ReTrumplican,
  Born on someday, maybe a Monday,
  Christened on What Have You Got to Lose Tuesday,
  Married on Wednesday and another day and another day,
  Took ill on I love Hispanics Thursday,
  Grew worse on Bleeding from Whatever Friday,
  Expected to die politically on stage on Saturday,
  Buried on election Sunday,
  That was the end,
  Of Donald ReTrumplican
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
dan baur Aug 25, 2016

The wall is already built around Tijuana and Nogales and Matamoros - has been around for decades. The proposal is to extend it to the remote border where all the drugs and crime cross. Are you opposed to defending against crime? Do you disagree that US is importing crime from Mexico? Are you for tearing down all international borders or just this particular one? If so, I should ask what cartel pays you?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Aug 25, 2016

What if one gets a repeat of the 2000 US elections, meaning no real winner? Or one camp rigs the elections in the usual way? It will be a big party all round, like the spaniyards now whom at last are enjoying some freedom without the legislatures to legislate how to barricade them and to take them to the cleaners.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joseph Pace Aug 25, 2016

Yeah and Puerto Rico is another example of letting people leave your country and look at the problems they are having. It's not a bad thing to restrict immigration. People only look at one part of the bigger picture to further their agenda rather than actually seeing the negative consequences of people leaving their country. Technology is great reason to restrict immigration. With more and more automation coming online in the future an unskilled immigrant will not be able to compete with the machines for those repetitive tasks the machines will replace. People will be stuck and the amount of automation will dictate economy.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Aug 25, 2016

Nothing new here. Be it Trump or Hitler , you can find their admirers! In India , the party of Hindu Sena in Delhi celebrated the birth day of Trump recently. Their admiration comes from the notion that he will eliminate Islamic terrorism! This party hates Muslims in general but know very little about Trump. So goes the story of loonies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Natan Lederman Aug 25, 2016

Lo contrario también es cierto. Hay entornos productivos tan áridos que hasta el más talentoso de los emprendedores fracasa. De otra manera no se explica por que tanta gente valiosa emigra de sus países. Es una regla general, si la productividad total de los factores es baja los retornos de la inversión del capital físico y humano serán menores que en aquellos casos donde la PTF es mayor. Países con los mismos años de escolaridad promedio pueden tener productividades relativas muy diferentes.Gente correcta en el lugar correcto.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 25, 2016

@Jose

So did Sudetenland and Crimea
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Aug 25, 2016

By the way, the main problem with immigration is with the country of origin. Now you can present any correlation you want, but I can't see how massive immigration can ever be a good thing for the country that loses its best.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jose araujo Aug 25, 2016

Very nice to see Mr. Hausmann defend immigration, sign of a open mind, but please don't try to prove something with the correlations, we can find relation between anything we want.

People immigrate to a country because there are opportunities...

By the way Liberia had a profound infusion of immigrants and shows very litle development...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 25, 2016

You are as mad as a myopic March Hare

You quote the positive outcomes of US, Canada, NZ, Australia. Go ask the native populations of those places who had their lands sequestrated by immigrants. As for Israel, again how many were born there and how have the original inhabitants done. Oh they are in camps or having to go thru checkpoints, good huh

Endless migration is the answer it would appear. You need to read a bit of history. Try the early US occupation polices of Hawaii and New Mexico to gain control, the list is endless. The outcome was so good for the locals wasnt it. You presumably think the migration attempts going on in the EU are a good thing. Despite a 32billion pa cost off into the future for Germany alone there is a benefit. Please explain. Border controls are now being established by Germany which is an admission of failed policy is it not. Note that half of these migrants are not refugees but economic migrants and at present it looks like half have no skills to speak of and are of no use in an industrial society. One estimate is 140 years to deport those that shouldnt be there let alone more newcomers. But note - those entering wish to only reside in key locations, that is why they are all camped up against closed borders. Remarkably as a group they do not want to stay in Greece or Spain or Italy

You claim its good when they go home to, say Albania. I've known a few Albanians and the one thing they said was it was and is dire in Albania which is why as a group they attempt illegal entry to the EU. Its good when they go home - Give it a break, currently 70% of EU citizen migrants have no intention of going home. If these migrants are so wonderful how is it a good process for their home country for them to leave, it only diminishes the home countries capability at the very least demographically, which incidentally is happening in a number of Eastern and Southern EU countries as the youngest and fittest leave. So what is your policy, to be a modern Pied piper of Hamlyn. Or perhaps you should look at the integration issue - whichever side causes it - it is there, look at the 'sensitive urban zones' in France where police will not visit solo

Please park your cherry picker and use a bit o perspective. But no matter what with developing economies populations due to double in the next few decades there will be plenty of would-be migrants to encourage. And that is without climate change creating drought, including forcing migration from the almond groves of California. The cherries you pick to support your point of view are accompanied by a whole load of other indigestible harvests

There may be good migration and there may be bad migration but one thing is sure wholesale unfettered migration is a bad thing, just ask the Maori, the Aborigines, the First Nation Tribes, The Lakota and others, or those in Southern Italy, Poland to name a few looking at social, welfare and infrastructure problems
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/0KG0RBF/es;

Los admiradores extranjeros de Trump

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The Bleak Fate of the Amazon

Saving South Korea’s Economy

Why Central Bank Digital Currencies Will Destroy Cryptocurrencies

Food Security Rests on Trade

The Limits of China’s Charm Offensive

Give Italy’s Government a Chance

Europe’s New Political Battle Lines

The Dred Scott of Climate Change?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register