The Great Roland Fryer: The Economics of Immigration

The optimum policy is credible enforcement of entry rules and integration of those already here.

I'm a huge Fryer fan.

Though, unfortunately, I very much disagree with this piece.

To his credit, he considers a lot of important factors that most on the left (note: he's not on the left, so far as I can tell) refuse to consider.

He's careful to look mainly at metastudies about e.g. the effect of illegal immigration on crime--the left tends to rely on the fact that they control the research, so they can always collect studies that support any of their positions. However, of course, and among other things, there's a tendency among illegal aliens to not report crimes--which, since most crime is intramural, tends to be committed by other illegals. Now, I'll bet Fryer's studies try to control for that...it's not the kind of thing he would overlook. But that, combined with the fact that the left does control research, and so tends to pump out studies "supporting" their positions...makes me skeptical.

Just to name one thing.

But I'm sure he has a response tot hat.

Anyway.

You can't address every point in an op-ed, and this one is already dense/tightly-argued. But more attention needs to be given to the effect of illegal entry on demographics. Again, he does address this...but from an economic perspective that's not particularly relevant. Given the mass illegal entry into the country effected by the last Democrat administration--and the open borders policy promoted by the vanguard of the left--what we're talking about here is national, cultural, and demographic survival. The question "can we assimilate all these illegals?" is just not relevant. The question is: so we want the USA as we know it to survive...or do we want it to go away and be replaced by some generic, multicultural shithole...or some limp, craptastic, leftist European-style successor to a liberal democracy?

Er...

Well, that intemperate paragraph is out of place against the backdrop of Fryer's temperate, measured, empirical argument.

I'll have to let his argument sit for awhile.

But one last--and less-intemperate--point:

Part of what the administration is doing is making a point. Making a point to the left, that is. And that point is: you cannot just let in a flood of illegals and then shriek when we enforce the law against them. If you let them in--as you already have, and as you have made clear that you will again--we will throw them out. And then their psychological pain is on your hands.

Fryer says that this is an inefficient policy.

That is almost certainly wrong.

Among other things, that presupposes roughly that this is a one- or two-round game. As if we were asking: well, what's the most efficient response to their move, this one-off event?

That's not true at all.

Inter alia, we're sending a signal to the other player: you will regret your despicable move. We will undo it, whatever the cost. And we'll keep doing that until you stop.

There are also meta-rules in dispute now--one question being: can the blue team break the rules and then change the enforcement rules just by shrieking and chanting and showing up in force to blow whistles and insist. Insist, that is, that we do as they say and enforce only the laws they agree with.

Well, I guess it's clear where I stand on this LOL...