What do you think?
Rate this book


320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 4, 2024
Immigrants don't just increase the amount of investment. They increase its variety. And-this is key-they do that because they have networks different from yours. They know different people, in different places, with different ideas, skills, and resources. Immigrants' differences can cause fear (more to come on that). But when it comes to investment, those differences are essential.
The triangle of immigration, investment, and jobs is one of the great untold stories of immigration. But while we all understand that jobs won't arise without investment, somehow the role of immigrants in fostering investment is easy to miss. That link is easy to miss because immigration brings investment slowly and without fanfare....A better model requires a relational and long-term view, rooted in the understanding that investment is a deeply human activity.
In this more realistic model, any effort to attract investment begins with human infrastructure: making a community attractive to people-of all backgrounds-so that they'll want to live and work there. That allows newcomers to do what they do, which includes relying on their cross-border networks to set up the conveyor belt.
The lesson is clear. You can't bring in investments that create jobs while keeping out the humans who make those investments possible.
The trillion-dollar question, literally, is who's going to pay for the end-of-life benefits of boomers and those who follow?...Every once in a while, when someone insists that we need to keep immigrants out to save our public budgets, I propose a choice between two options:
A. Immediately cut all immigration. The size of your Social Security check will be determined by the payroll taxes contributed by the resulting future population. Your retirement benefits won't be "contaminated" by immigrants' taxes.
B. Continue to allow immigration. The size of your Social Security check will be determined by the payroll taxes contributed by the resulting future population. Your retirement benefits will be "contaminated" by immigrants' taxes.
Nobody has chosen option A so far.
Political pundits often oversimplify the role of immigrants as voters by using terms like "the Latino vote" or "the Asian American vote." The impression is that ethnic groups support certain parties and issues as blocs. Which leads to dismaying results in the eyes of those who like simple stories.
Latinos aren't a monolithic group. Cubans differ from Mexicans, who differ from Brazilians. Asians from China differ from Asians of Vietnamese or Korean origin. As do natives from different US states. Nor can the political opinions of immigrants be attributed purely to the cultures and values of their countries of origin. An immigrant isn't representative of the average person in their home country. They often emigrate because they're different, which makes them more amenable to new political views than those who stay behind.
Those who favor immigration today don't converge on a clear set of issues. It may be human rights, family protection, or labor rights. As I noted in the opening, they also tend to focus on the immigrants themselves by framing them as victims to whom America should open its arms.
That immigrant-centered agenda is full of compassion. But it lacks a positively articulated vision of what newcomers will do for hard-pressed natives who are too worried about their own problems to feel compassion for outsiders. That's why it's an ineffective majority.
The minority, in contrast, is really well organized around a consistent message focused on protecting Americans.
Accusing a business of being greedy or unpatriotic for hiring a foreign-born worker is off the mark. It's a choice born of the reality of native labor shortages. And it's also born of the realization that immigrants can help businesses do more things than before because foreign-born workers are different from native workers. Those choices help native workers in the long run, by keeping businesses and the jobs they create alive and by allowing natives to sort into occupations that play to their strengths.
That turns the patriotism accusation on its head. It's the restrictionists who are hurting native workers, native businesses, and the national economy. That's a harsh statement. But it matches the evidence.