In the Wall Street Journal today, Greg Ip cites a poll suggesting that President Biden has a bigger problem than inflation:
Twice as many respondents named immigration as the biggest issue in next year’s election as inflation. His disapproval on the border exceeded approval by 37 percentage points, compared with 36 points for inflation.
Not that it is much comfort, but Biden has company: Surging immigration is a global phenomenon, as tight labor markets attract migrants, often helped by sophisticated smugglers. It is also a political albatross for incumbents in countries that, like the U.S., have long been major recipients of immigrants.
Regular readers know that I agree about this on both pragmatic grounds and ethical ones. Pragmatically, it's just a fact that high levels of immigration provoke opposition that leads to right-wing backlash. Ethically, it's perfectly natural for modern nation states to control their borders and limit illegal immigration.
That said, Ip includes a chart that largely throws cold water on this whole conversation:
This shows two things. First, immigration in the US has long been considerably smaller than in other countries. Second, the absolute level of immigration is not a lot higher now than it has been for the past decade, a period of little net growth in the total immigrant population.
Now, it's worth saying immediately that I have my doubts about this chart. I'm not sure where the information for the US comes from, and it's not clear if it really accounts for all illegal immigration. That said, if it was honestly done it does suggest that net immigration has not been nearly as bad as our border hysteria suggests.
But that probably doesn't matter. In 2016 the population of illegal immigrants in the US was on a long downward trend, but Donald Trump nonetheless used it as a powerful weapon in his campaign. In the face of that, as well as obviously high numbers of asylum seekers crowding the southern border, it's not likely that dry facts will have much effect. If Biden is smart, he'll accept Republican restrictions on illegal immigration in the Ukraine aid bill and then pray that they have a noticeable effect before next year's election.
I'd comment about you using the whole population vs new immigrants, which would of course be a tiny number, except... that's really the framing to make it.
This isn't like housing starts vs home ownership.
I was just paid $7,268 this month while working from my laptop. And if you find that admirable, With twin toddlers, my divorced acquaintance earned almost $1,892 in her first month of marriage. Making so much money feels great, especially when other bs11 people have to work for far less.
What I do is this...............> > > https://careersrevenue123.blogspot.com/
and it's not clear if it really accounts for all illegal immigration.
It's not clear, no, but it probably does account for the bulk of it. The chart implies net immigration into the US in recent years is running something like 1.5 million annually. Green card issuance tops out at around 1 million.
So, the chart would appear to include undocumented immigration, although this latter number is always, of course, an estimate.
Does that chart include refugees? Folks claiming refugee status seem to be a much bigger part of the current surge.
It's an issue that's virtually all electoral liability for Democrats, where doing the right thing won't help them win and might actually hurt them.
Does that chart include refugees?
Pretty sure it does, as the implied total runs about 500K higher than traditional, legal immigration in recent years (ie, green cards).
"We sure do have a lot of racist scum in this country, so we'd better accommodate them" is a kind of pragmatism.
No, it isn't. Not unless legal immigration is easily accessed. Otherwise this is monstrously unethical.
"I hope Biden sends a lot more goons to the border to brutalize people, builds us a wall, screws over asylum seekers, and that this suffering drives enough people away and pacifies enough others to appease the scum" is certainly a take.
The US has been accepting about 1 million new legal immigrants per year. This is near record highs. But you imply this is not enough and so it's "monstrously unethical" to limit illegal immigration. Seems quite a stretch.
And border guards along the US southern border are not "goons". And people who think we need better security on the southern border, or that we should reduce immigration levels in general, are not all "racist scum".
No, it isn't.
Yes, they are. This is well-documented. Brutalizing the shit out of people, destroying their water supplies, and throwing them into camps until they can be tossed out of the country makes you a goon.
Yes, they are. "Fuck off we're full" is super racist. So is "we only want you if you're wealth and well-educated."
and Caucasian
I guess you think that a lot of Caucasians makes any group bad.
For the record, about 50 percent of Border Patrol agents in the U.S. are Latino.
So you want immigrants to the US to be in the multi millions each year and breaking all prior records? The US population is currently 27% foreign born. I take it you think 27% foreign born is way too low.
You say the border guards are goons. There are 17,000 Border Patrol agents working along the southern border. That is a very large group of people. To stereotype them all as goons is bizarre. Do you also say that all whites are white supremacists and all blacks are criminals and all Jews are greedy?
You conclude by saying that people who think we need better security on the southern border, or that we should reduce immigration levels in general, are "racist scum". That is such an extremist view and one with Trumpian level nastiness.
I really think you need to re-evaluate your extreme views.
"The US population is currently 27% foreign born. I take it you think 27% foreign born is way too low."
At 27%, that is a lower proportion than most of western Europe, Australia, and Canada.
"You say the border guards are goons. There are 17,000 Border Patrol agents working along the southern border."
As a whole, there is no law enforcement agency in the US with more documented cases of excessive use of force, sexual abuse, theft, and general mistreatment of people than the Border Patrol.
The US population is currently 27% foreign born.
If by 27% you mean 15%, sure!
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/foreign-born/cps-2022.html
A little thing like actual facts. I like it.
27% foreign born? More like half that much.
But let's compare the 21st century to the 19th century. In 1850, the US had a population of about 23 million. It was 38 million by 1870, with a substantial part of that increase coming from immigration. Then between 1870 and 1900, another. 12 million people immigrated to the US -- at which point something like 35% of Americans had been born outside the country. What a disaster the late 19th century was for the US, as it became the world's largest economy and one of the dominant cultural forces on the planet.
Don't mind Murc, @ProgressOne. He is reliably wayyyyy out there and given to rhetorical overkill.
It's not just the US though. France and UK have immigration discontent as well.
People living in war zones, dictatorships, crazy fundamentalist ruled areas, and other places that are failing their citizens hit the road, sometimes in desperation.
Migration from failed states has happened throughout history, and provokes backlash from destination states that don't want the added population.
The only real answer is to fix the failed states before their citizens leave en masse seeking a better place to live. Which is a tough lift.
The UK and France also have a lot of racist scum in them.
The people engaging in that backlash are bad people, and should be treated as such.
Yes, but in large numbers they sway elections. France has been close, the US is close, Brexit....
That backlash is potentially going to topple everything that's good about a bunch of countries. What do you think Trump 2.0 looks like?
I see no ethical problem with a country controlling its population.
For Biden's purposes it is important to know why people are dissatisfied with immigration. Are there really a lot of people who would consider voting for Trump or not voting at all if Biden doesn't loosen border policy? I doubt this and I suspect that most swing voters, who are the critical group, want Biden to tighten immigration policy and enforcement. The magnitude of the actual problem is probably irrelevant - as Kevin says Biden is certainly not going to win votes by arguing that there is no problem. The voters in question are probably not strongly swayed by facts. Kevin does not seem to be sure of how bad the problem really is, nor am I.
Hard-core Republicans will not change their votes no matter what Biden does, nor will Trump cease to claim that we are doomed if the Wall is not built. But hard-core Republicans are a minority of voters.
My guess would be that a much tougher immigration policy and effort would go a long way to making Trump irrelevant for the more middle of the road voters who just don't want any more poor brown people in their communities.
The real Trumpers wouldn't budge, they're all in and have an axe to grind against all things "liberal".
What Biden could do is throw a couple of meatpacking company executives in prison.
They work for the Chinese, and they’re getting rich by exploiting teenagers working in dangerous graveyard shift jobs. (Not to mention, their business practices are horrific.)
This would be a huge win-win.
Charge some construction contractors and farmers with illegally paying workers without authorization to be here. Lock ‘em up!
I don't think you should be posting a chart with the proviso "...if it was honestly done..." Or is it just me?
By the way the WSJ poll in question, like almost all of this type, is sadly deficient in not splitting the response according to why people are concerned about the issues. Abortion is the number one issue, but do the respondents want more or less restrictions? Likewise with immigration and guns. How can that not be important?
Of course the uncertainty would be great on things like this with the usual number of pollees - about a thousand - but the numbers really need to be increased (by an order of magnitude).
And of course most people are more concerned about issue X than about inflation because inflation is down to 3.1%. That doesn't tell you how important issue X is, or what they think should be done.
There is always a top issue and always a media narrative that the top issue is a problem for the administration. That's a long way from saying that solving issue X is critical to the objective of getting reelected.
I realize that the administration needs to pay a ransom to get Ukraine aid and some action on immigration seems to be in the cards. That still does not mean the Democrats ought to do whatever the Republicans want. Dems need to be smart and draw lines where appropriate.
Democrats always do best when drawing contrasts to the other party, not by acquiescing to their awful demands.
I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but
1. It is almost certain that the GOP would not take yes for an answer on the proposals Kevin posted about yesterday, and will, instead, move the goalposts, and
2. Even if they did take "yes" for an answer they'd be back on Fox News the next minute screaming that Biden and the Democrats want wide open borders.
It's not clear why Kevin feels the need to remind people that there should be border control, because that is the position of a minuscule number of people in the Democratic party.
The main question is how it affects the elections next year. You didn't say what you believe will be the effect of Biden accepting the Republicans' offer on the elections.
Republicans will scream bulshit on Fox news in all situations, so it is a "constant" that can be ignored when comparing situations.
The Fox news crowd is already lost. This game is all about a small number of middle of the road voters in a handful of states. If they don't believe SOMETHING is going to be done about their immigration fears, they will vote for the person who promises something will be done.
You can't win with hard-core Republicans, you can win with the middle voters - especially the ones who are getting more and more squeamish about Republicans and women's health. The only two things that matter in 2024 are immigration and abortion.
I don't Democrats doing something on immigration is about the elections. It will be irrelevant by November. It's about Ukraine aid. That's the compelling need.
Seems like the underlying thrust of this post is that it _doesn't really matter_ what the actual immigration numbers are, the right-wingers will use it to freak people out regardless of what the actual policy is at any given moment.
"Twice as many respondents named immigration as the biggest issue in next year’s election as inflation."
Does anyone know why? Inflation has had a visible impact on virtually everyone. It's been offset by higher wages (yay!) but most people don't seem to accept this. Prices are higher, so they are cranky.
But how many people are personally affected by rising immigration? I'm sure there are some immigrant destinations where it's noticeable. But for much of the country, I can't see that much has changed. Surely if immigration is causing enough problems to upset voters, there should be visible signs. Higher crime? Nope. Unemployment? Nope. So apart from right wing media, what's the problem? Nobody will care unless something is pushing them to care. What is it?
I'd be open to tightening up illegal immigration if it came with increasing legal immigration. Illegal immigrants are already part of our current rate of immigration, so from my perspective, the most important fix is to get more of those illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants. We don't need less immigration, we need less illegal immigration.
Housing prices. Overcrowded schools. Overcrowded emergency rooms. Overwhelmed homeless shelters and low-income housing waitlists.
To suggest that immigration has no impact is silly and contradicts the lived experience of most people. Even if the current level is perfect, arguing that we have to right to determine the proper level is ridiculous. Why are people from Central America more deserving of migration to America simply because it’s easier for them to get here than people from Africa?
"Housing prices. Overcrowded schools. Overcrowded emergency rooms. Overwhelmed homeless shelters and low-income housing waitlists."
Any evidence these are significant problems? More importantly, is there any evidence that these problems, nationwide, are being driven by immigration as opposed to a host of other factors? If you have any, I'm happy to look.
I've had some pretty annoying wait times in the ER, but I have yet to be surrounded by immigrants in the waiting room. Probably has more to do with the unending series of consortiums that keep buying up my local hospital.
Education, health care, and housing affordability all came pretty low on that poll (3, 2, and 1%) So people are really frustrated by these issues but universally agree immigration is the root cause? That's a remarkable leap.
Normally when people complain about immigration they point to it's effect on wages and unemployment. But wages are up and unemployment is low, so I guess it's overcrowding and stressed social services? Right....
Border controls work like dams. Either we have a relative fluid back and forth or we tighten controls and bottle up the exchange. Xenophobic Brexiteers currently have this dazzle look in how their campaign created a larger immigration population in Britain. That said, almost half the current growth in immigration is coming from Cuba and Venezuela, in part, due to U.S. actions. I wonder what Senators Cruz and Rubio (both Cubans) have to say on the matter. The amount of immigrants coming from each country is at record highs and in the case of Cuba, four to five times greater than the Marielito boat lift.
Poor Kevin. Always relying on data.
“Pragmatically, it's just a fact that high levels of immigration provoke opposition that leads to right-wing backlash.”
Which is insane. The largest employers of illegal immigrants are all Republicans: farmers, construction contractors, meatpackers, golf course owners.
They all illegally pay illegal immigrants to be here so they can exploit slave labor.
Trump was fined a million dollars for illegally hiring illegal immigrants—decades ago.
Right-wingers care nothing for truth. Only truthiness.
Ip's chart only spans one decade, during which high unemployment deterred immigration. That's a narrow snapshot that avoids significant inflows at other times. Let's see what Pew Research has to say:
"The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.8 million in 2018. Since 1965, when U.S. immigration laws replaced a national quota system, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has more than quadrupled. Immigrants today account for 13.7% of the U.S. population"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
[Right now foreign born + second generation (12%) for a total of 25%. 85 million.)
"Among the projected 441 million Americans in 2065, 78 million will be immigrants and 81 million will be people born in the U.S. to immigrant parents"
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/10/05/future-immigration-will-change-the-face-of-america-by-2065/
[That's 18% + 18%, for a total of 36%. 158 million. How will all these people impact recourse use, commuting, quality of life (high density).
Kevin asserts: "high levels of immigration provoke opposition that leads to right-wing backlash". What does he expect the situation to be in 2065 when over one third of residents are immigrants or second generation?
Liberal Harvard professor Steve Levitsky (2021)
The Republican party represents the demographic group, the social and cultural group, that founded and dominated this nation for two centuries. White Christian men, in effect. And the loss not only of the electoral majority, the electoral dominance of white Christians in this country, but also the social status, the dominant social status of white Christians ...
In over 50 years that's changed dramatically. That is deeply threatening. And that is fundamentally what I think is polarizing our country. There are very few societies - I can't name a single democracy in the world - that has undergone a transition in which a dominant ethnic group loses its majority and loses its dominant status. That's a major, major transformation and I think that ultimately that's what's fueling [it], exacerbated by social media, but if you want to get at the root causes, it's that transition."
A great deal depends on how one defines the ‘dominant’ ethnicity. In Connecticut, a New ‘England’ state, more people have Italian* or Irish ancestry, English ancestry is in a virtual tie with German for third place. The Congregational Church was established in Connecticut until 1818; today, Catholics are one-third of the population, just about equal to the proportion of all Protestant denominations; Jews outnumber Congregationalists. Immigrants and children of immigrants are 15% and 16% of residents. I found this issues poll from last year, and immigration didn’t make the top five: https://wne.edu/news/2022/10/poll-issues.cfm
The rest of southern New England is similar. On local and regional levels, I suspect transitions like this are not uncommon.
*Thanks to whom New Haven has the best pizza in the country.
Not sure what your point is ...
But I object to lumping second generation in with the immigrants themselves. There's quite a difference!
My parents are second generation, and as American as you are. Their parents spoke another language best, never fully lost their accent, but after that we've been American all the way. I think that's typical, and most typical is the immigrant generation lamenting that their grandchildren are not being brought up - by the second generation - in the old ways, not taught to like traditional old-country food, etc.
It's hard to keep children from becoming American kids. They may have a different skin color but the culture change comes quickly. Not equivalent except to true racists.
That *has* been typical, and it's even typical of, say, third-generation Cuban refugees in Florida and other supposedly "unassimilable" Spanish-speaking immigrants. There were stories about a year or two ago about this very issue based probably on Pew studies, which are generally very good.
Second generations of immigrant groups that didn't speak English as a first language have historically been go-betweens who interpreted in both directions. The label has mostly been meaningful for understanding that generation's experience, whatever the group, rather than perceptions of them.
In terms of how they're perceived, I'd guess offhand the two most important elements might be dress and names. For ages where parents pick out clothing styles, and depending where the family originated, clothes could make kids stand out from various North American patterns and/or sub-cultures. And names could likewise stand out from prevalent American patterns and sub-cultures (though that seems less likely now than it was 40 or 60 years ago). First names can often be adapted, but family names can stand out. Again, though, the world now is different than it was before 1965. Just go over some college football teams' rosters and see how those "prevalent American patterns" have changed.
There are other ways second-generation status could matter. For instance, some second-generation memoirs talk about standing out as immigrants' kids because of what was packed in their school lunchboxes, stuff like that. But that seems more about how the people themselves experienced that status, I think.
To be honest, I'd say the statistic is used so often because it's available, since it's been a census category for a very long time.
And just to note, we've historically seen political repercussions when the foreign-born population has gotten significantly over 10%.
This was a good post. Even if there is uncertainty about the data, I think that only better and more accurate data can help us have a sound view of the immigration situation. That's true for any country. What should be the average number of legal immigrants admitted per year in the US? What should be the average number of refugees admitted per year? What should be the average number of J1, H1B visa, green card, temporary seasonal workers, etc? What are reasonable target numbers that are not disruptive of society? Personally, I think that too many people keep commenting about this as if they had knowledge, which they don't. It is just used as a political football.
I have no idea how any sort of immigration reform right now would be noticed on ground by your average voter. I live in the middle of nowhere Wisconsin. When I moved here 14 years ago, it was a common refrain: "there are no minorities here." That always bugged me because it wasn't true then and it ignored the admittedly small number of minorities present. Since then, there are significantly more non-whites around, though my impression is these are mostly African-Americans moving from cities like Milwaukee. There are some refugees from Afghanistan and Ukraine too, and of course there are some Latinos too.
But this changed over a period of several years. Even if no new non-white migrants show up in the next year, it's not going to change anyone's short-term impression. I don't think it's a huge deal, anyway. There are a couple of Afghanis and a few more black guys at the gym... who cares?
I agree with you, Kevin. There's little downside to accepting the Republicans' draconian measures. If they work, Biden will share in the credit. If they fail, everyone will share the blame. I would say, though, that he should insist that an E-Verify query must accompany every hiring decision with a minor but unavoidable criminal penalty for the hiring manager and the HR personnel who approve it when the call is not made.
As I've observed here a number of times here, E-Verify may occasionally help deter the hiring of undocumented persons, but it has a major flaw: it's only verifies that the SSN the person has submitted is an actual number attached to a name of someone authorized to work in the US, i.e. not completely made up. What it doesn't verify is that the person with the card and SSN bearing the name Homer J. Fong is actually Homer J. Fong. The trade in stolen SSN's and forged IDs is a brisk one around the country; if you don't have too uncommon a name, it's not terribly hard to get one with a name the same as yours and use it to get work. Or you can buy a random one and hope the employer (or, rather, employment contractor) doesn't ask for additional paperwork, which they usually don't.
What a *real* E-verify system would require is that SSNs be attached to some kind of unfalsifiable biometric data for the individual, so that if you run the number, you also run fingerprints or facial recognition scan or something to make sure they are who they say they are. But that's apparently the Mark of the Beast or something so it will never happen.
Ahem, saying that immigration is lower than in other country is a bit disingeneous from this graph. All that the graph is saying is that immigration in the US is lower than in Canada or Australia - two countries that are built on immigration and have extremely low population densities. Not sure these are very relevant benchmark. You could argue that Canada is similar to the US in many ways, and make a case for it. The UK also may be a peculiar example - is the spike at the end due to classifying/converting existing EU residents into immigrants after Brexit, for instance?
There are many developped countries (Japan, France, Germany would all be relevant benchmarks...) so why pick these three?