Saturday, December 29, 2007
Positive Externalities and Immigration
I am of the opinion that the positive externalities outweigh the negative ones, particularly when we consider, as I believe we should, the benefits to the migrants.
First this is a really good post for a libertarian-leaning blogger. Good being defined as 'I can agree with much of it' . Or perhaps, it really attempts to think through many aspects of the issue.
However, I have to object to the second clause of that sentence on semi-technical as well as normative grounds.
On technical issues, I suspect by positive externalities to the migrants, many will read or think , yes they can make much higher incomes. But this isn't an externality, it is part of the internals of employing immigrant labor. Positive externalities might be things like being exposed to American democracy etc. but I suspect that we as a people -- no take that back -- the sort of people who are big immigration fans are much to cowed to assert any such claim. Nor is it clear that many migrants, esp. illegal migrants, think all that much of US American culture, witness the plethora of Mexican flags at the first 'marchas' for amnesty. They might be right, from their point of view. I've seen studies that show that Mexicans in America have worse health overall, due to adopting the high-fat high sugar diet typical of poorer Americans. Latino kids are more prone to crime than the white population, but their migrant parents are less so. So clearly being a migrant in America has some corrosive effect on both the family and individuals.
Keeping all the above in mind, I disagree on the normative issue whether 'we must consider positive externalities to the migrants themselves' . Let's say I live in a gate-guarded community with a swimming pool and gym. As in all such communities there are regulations about number of families that can live in a dwelling. Now, lets suppose my neighbor converts his den into living space and rents it out. The person that moves in benefits primarily by having a roof over his head, but may experience the external benefit of greater health if he takes up swimming. Now, must all the homeowners in the gate-guarded community take into consideration the tenants increased health when they ask his landlord to stop renting out part of his house? Must they weigh it, for example, against the additional car parked on the street? McCardle's logic implies that we must.
First this is a really good post for a libertarian-leaning blogger. Good being defined as 'I can agree with much of it' . Or perhaps, it really attempts to think through many aspects of the issue.
However, I have to object to the second clause of that sentence on semi-technical as well as normative grounds.
On technical issues, I suspect by positive externalities to the migrants, many will read or think , yes they can make much higher incomes. But this isn't an externality, it is part of the internals of employing immigrant labor. Positive externalities might be things like being exposed to American democracy etc. but I suspect that we as a people -- no take that back -- the sort of people who are big immigration fans are much to cowed to assert any such claim. Nor is it clear that many migrants, esp. illegal migrants, think all that much of US American culture, witness the plethora of Mexican flags at the first 'marchas' for amnesty. They might be right, from their point of view. I've seen studies that show that Mexicans in America have worse health overall, due to adopting the high-fat high sugar diet typical of poorer Americans. Latino kids are more prone to crime than the white population, but their migrant parents are less so. So clearly being a migrant in America has some corrosive effect on both the family and individuals.
Keeping all the above in mind, I disagree on the normative issue whether 'we must consider positive externalities to the migrants themselves' . Let's say I live in a gate-guarded community with a swimming pool and gym. As in all such communities there are regulations about number of families that can live in a dwelling. Now, lets suppose my neighbor converts his den into living space and rents it out. The person that moves in benefits primarily by having a roof over his head, but may experience the external benefit of greater health if he takes up swimming. Now, must all the homeowners in the gate-guarded community take into consideration the tenants increased health when they ask his landlord to stop renting out part of his house? Must they weigh it, for example, against the additional car parked on the street? McCardle's logic implies that we must.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Cartoonish Immigration Ideas
One of the mysteries of modern life is how some many people in the first world can be so oblivious about immigration. Mass migration from 'the south' to the relatively wealthy north is causing knock on effects, so much so that the longstanding populations of heavily immigration impacted countries and regions are themselves moving towards greener pastures. The strange thing is that this is all happening despite the vanishingly small benefit of mass migration to the inhabitants of receiving societies.
So given the mystery, it is not surprising that an English octegenarian cartoonist should join the fray on the side of migrants. After fifty years of assimilating into British life, Paddington Bear is now to represent the refugee. He is, in fact, arrested by a police constable after admitting he is from Peru. This episode is supposed to represent Britain 'Here and Now', but anyone who has lived in Blighty recently knows how unlikely it is that a PC would question anyone's immigration status, let alone arrest a foreigner merely for being a foreigner in Britain.
So given the mystery, it is not surprising that an English octegenarian cartoonist should join the fray on the side of migrants. After fifty years of assimilating into British life, Paddington Bear is now to represent the refugee. He is, in fact, arrested by a police constable after admitting he is from Peru. This episode is supposed to represent Britain 'Here and Now', but anyone who has lived in Blighty recently knows how unlikely it is that a PC would question anyone's immigration status, let alone arrest a foreigner merely for being a foreigner in Britain.
