Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders

by Reihan Salam

"A clarion call to everyone who cares about the American nation and
every person who calls it home." --J.D. VANCE, author of Hillbilly Elegy

Why would a son of immigrants call for tighter restrictions on immigration?

For too long, liberals have suggested that only cruel, racist, or nativist bigots would want to restrict immigration. Anyone motivated by compassion and egalitarianism would choose open, or nearly-open, borders--or so the argument goes. Now, Reihan Salam, the son of Bangladeshi immigrants, turns this argument on its head.
In this deeply researched but also deeply personal book, Salam shows why uncontrolled immigration is bad for everyone, including people like his family. Our current system has intensified the isolation of our native poor, and risks ghettoizing the children of poor immigrants. It ignores the challenges posed by the declining demand for less-skilled labor, even as it exacerbates ethnic inequality and deepens our political divides.
If we continue on our current course, in which immigration policy serves wealthy insiders who profit from cheap labor, and cosmopolitan extremists attack the legitimacy of borders, the rise of a new ethnic underclass is inevitable. Even more so than now, class politics will be ethnic politics, and national unity will be impossible.
Salam offers a solution, if we have the courage to break with the past and craft an immigration policy that serves our long-term national interests. Rejecting both militant multiculturalism and white identity politics, he argues that limiting total immigration and favoring skilled immigrants will combat rising inequality, balance diversity with assimilation, and foster a new nationalism that puts the interests of all Americans--native-born and foreign-born--first.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, History, American

224 pages, Hardcover

First published September 25, 2018

About the author

Reihan Morshed Salam (pronounced /ˈraɪhɑːn səˈlɑːm/) is an American conservative political writer and journalist. He writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast, is a policy advisor at e21: Economic Policies for the 21st Century, and is a fellow at the New America Foundation. He has written for numerous publications, including the National Review, Foreign Policy, Slate, The Spectator, The Weekly Standard, and The New York Sun. He previously worked as a producer for NBC News, a junior editor at The New York Times, and a reporter for The New Republic. He co-authored Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream with Ross Douthat and blogs regularly at The American Scene. In June 2009 he began writing a personal blog at National Review Online, titled The Agenda.

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some relatively well supported arguments for reforming immigration policy — specifically, amnesty combined with effective future enforcement, a points based system instead of primarily family unification, and some other reasonable modifications. Unfortunately none of this is at all likely to happen, and thus the negative consequences he identifies (that a long term underclass of relatively-excluded immigrants and their descendants will seize power and be resisted to the detriment of all) is more likely to come to pass.

[Murtaza]

Alarmist title aside this is a level-headed proposal for a merit-based immigration system in the United States. Salam makes the point that people who are poor often remain poor intergenerationally, so it would be better for both new immigrants and established Americans to more heavily weight immigration towards high-earning professionals rather than cheap labor. This is already sort of the case in the U.S. where Asian immigrants disproportionately skew professional while Latino immigrants are working class. Salam does not take a racist approach to immigration reform, but he does make a bit of a strawman out of the liberal case. I have never heard anyone outside of radical left circles who literally wants "open borders," which is the position he argues against here. He does have some interesting ideas about how to deal with aging populations while also uplifting the developing world, including shifting elderly care facilities to developing countries. That way older Americans (who are going to predominate in years to come) can get the affordable care that they need and Asians, Africans, and Latinos can get economic opportunity without having to go through the pain of uprooting from their homes. An interesting if provocative proposal.

[Alex O'Connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent and compassionate view at a hybrid immigration policy that would please both ends of our divided political landscape.

[Mehrsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

He makes a lot of good points here, but it seems like he keeps tearing down straw man arguments. I've never heard "the left" propose complete open borders. The only group pushing that are liberal libertarians. Also, the two choices don't seem to be only melting pot or civil war? Seems like there are some in-between scenarios? His argument rests on the fact that poor kids grow up to be poor adults. This is a problem to be sure, but seems like maybe we can fix that problem instead of just saying no more poor people? Still, I do like the idea of preventing immigration by helping people stay in their home country. I think most people prefer that--but they need to be safe. I think instead of sending troops to the border to fight the caravan, we could send the troops to fight the gangs in El Salvador and other central American countries that are raping and killing people. Put out the fires they are running from and they won't have to run.

[Maya]

Very interesting, nuanced discussion with the author about the complex and difficult topic of immigration, assimilation, ethnic identity, individual immigrant experience in the US context: https://youtu.be/mM2xyQ8ejIw

[Hina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Full disclosure - I went into this expecting it to be some conservative, right-wing defence of strict immigration reform and US protectionism. What I came to find, instead, was an extremely passionate and centrist (as centrist as can be) look at immigration in America today, who it benefits, who is left out, and most importantly, how we can modify it to better serve Americans of today and the future.

There is a lot of information in this book that we don't get from the mainstream media, who present the case mostly for open borders and don't provide any of the nuance on immigration that Salam presents in his book.

To sum it up in a few words, it's basically that low-skilled, mass immigration into the US from poor Central American/Latin countries is going to lead to a populist backlash if we don't enact immigration reform. Nowhere in the book does Salam advocate for mass deportations (he's actually in favour of amnesty), and looks to other Western democracies who have successfully (and unsuccessfully) navigated the immigration issue, proposing amendments to America's current immigration policies.

I thought this was a fantastic (and quick) read. For anyone who thinks they know what the "correct" stance is to take on the polarizing issue of immigration, they should definitely read this book.

[John Lamb · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you get past the ridiculous, hyperbolic title and the straw man arguments, Salam has some interesting ideas. Too bad we won't actually implement them because when we debate issues, we end up using hyperbole and straw mans.

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reihan Salam makes a good case for pro-immigrant, restricted compromise on immigration. While his solution leans towards more restrictive entry than now, it likely ruffles feathers on left and right. He calls for a one-time amnesty, support for building up opportunities in home countries, and government efforts to lessen immigrant poverty with tougher enforcement of the laws and a points-based system that prioritizes skill. Salam accounts for counter-arguments and doesn't engage in the typical fear-mongering that surrounds this issue. His own experience as the son of immigrants resonated with me, and those on the left would do well to accept that questioning our immigration system can go along with being pro-immigrant. Restriction vs open borders is not a debate over xenophobia or not.

Following this complexity, most of Salam's argument revolves not around American jobs, but more around how our system opens the doors to low-skilled workers whose absence would lead to innovation. These immigrants and their children, according to Salam, are more likely to remain mired in poverty, necessitate government benefits, and fail to integrate into the American fabric. This argument is pretty compelling, although I don't know that a dearth of immigrant workers would necessarily lead to innovation. In recent years, we've seen shortages of immigrant workers lead to unpacked fruits, not to more mechanization. Maybe that's a matter of time, but it calls into question the idea that we should accept restrictions because markets will adjust. He also is too cavalier towards offshoring, which he sees as a potential flipside of restricting low-skill immigration. Offshoring has destroyed many communities, and we haven't seen the proper recovery in wages that its proponents expected. Scaling up human capital among the domestic working class is far more challenging than Salam's argument assumes. Therefore, I agree that immigration should serve America's national interests but disagree with strictly limiting low-skilled migration and brushing off the after-effects.

However, Salam's warnings about isolation and poverty are important to read. I thought about France, where suburbs are filled with struggling, isolated immigrants, creating a powder keg of anger. To avoid such a situation here, we must embrace welcomeness for those who are here and ensure that we have control over incoming migration. The United States can support immigration while acknowledging that it must be managed.

Salam made me think more about a points system. Unlike people like Tom Cotton's, I'm confident that his proposal takes into mind our country's immigrant heritage. Incorporating family structures into points would maintain some of the advantages of our current system --prioritizing keeping family units together. I find this important, even if not for economic reasons. The one-time amnesty + stricter enforcement combo is likely the best way forward for our country on immigration, and Salam convinced me to give more thought to a points system, albeit not an overly restrictive one.

I do have some questions about the chapter regarding aiding other countries in stemming emigration. It's probably my development studies background, but allowing Americans to retire in Mexico would open up a whole host of issues and not likely make a huge difference in the Mexican economy. Additionally, charter cities can be a good model in a few places, but it's interesting to see a conservative usually skeptical of government planning upholding them as part of the solution. I doubt that we can just plop down cities elsewhere to disincentivize emigration, and doing so may enable authoritarianism to make them work. Missing from this section is a real analysis of building up governance, food sovereignty, etc to make countries more self-sufficient and improve lives abroad. This would be the better idea.

If you read one book from the right on immigration, make it this one. Despite some of my disagreements, Salam presents a strong and readable case for a new paradigm on the issue. His suggestions break through the broken back-and-forth of the 24-hour news cycle and that's worth a lot.

[Brandon Isaacson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this to be a very thought-provoking and worthwhile read, despite having some fundamental political differences of opinion. The book is strongest in assessing the overall social impact that different immigration policies may lead to and considering potential alternatives. Where I tend to disagree severely is on some characterizations of “mainstream” culture (which is seems assumed to be fully good and fully worth assimilating into).

[Rāhul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reihan Salam, American son of Bangladeshi immigrants, introduces much needed civility and nuance into the heated debate on immigration, a debate where the two sides today barely listen to each other. Salam's central argument is that continuously high levels of immigration from particular source countries condemn low-skill immigrants into ethnic enclaves that are repeatedly replenished with fresh arrivals, and that such an environment with little incentive for integration is not conducive to the prevention of intergenerational poverty and permanent marginalization of immigrant groups.

While a pause in high immigration levels between 1920s and 1960 coincided with the integration of groups like Italian and Irish Americans into the mainstream, continued high levels of immigration today correlates with a strong latino identity in the USA. Salam proposes amnesty for illegal immigrants in the country today, but only with a long-term pause in low-skilled immigration, adoption of a points based skilled immigration system, and funding for integrating the children of today's immigrant poor. On the worldwide imbalance between literally billions of poor who would like to move to western democracies if given the chance, and the inability or unwillingness of the latter to accomodate these would-be migrants, Salam's solution is to fund new charter cities in their native countries that are integrated with global capital and supply chains. Global inequality may be addressed only slowly, but inequality within rich countries is not exacerbated in the process. While overall, this book is commendable for the reasoned and moral arguments Salam advances, a major omission is the role that racial & cultural differences between immigrants and resident elites plays in prospects of integrating immigrants, the solution for which has to lie deeper than policy tools like amnesty and a change of the economic mix of new immigrants.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a prime example of top-notch public policy/think-tankery. Salam has spent a long time thinking about these issues. The book covers a lot more than the current immigration crisis (dare I say "emergency"? Hear hear!). It discusses assimilation, offshoring, robotics, poverty, reverse-immigration, retirement, welfare, and more. Salam offers the sort of smart solutions that will keep immigration from getting out of hand while still meeting the economic needs that low-skill immigrants currently meet.

Some of it is obvious; some of it is inspired. Those illegals who have been here a decade will almost certainly have to be amnestied. Border security should be beefed up, but on Mexico's southern border just as much as our own. Retirees should be allowed to move out of the country but keep their Medicare benefits. Innovative planned megacities should be seeded today in Africa and Asia (learning from China's successes and mistakes). Chain migration should be heavily modified by moving to a "point" system where relation earns some points, but then so does educational achievement, earnings potential, etc.

What impressed me most in this book was Salam's thoughts on the dangers of a permanent underclass versus the other scenarios--broad-based prosperity, geographic bifurcation, lowered standard of living for all, or any number of other possibilities. Salam points to how immigration cannot be separated from economic growth, but perhaps not in the ways we commonly assume. Everyone should read this book. Especially congressmen. and Senators. And presidential candidates. Maybe even presidents, if they're into that sort of thing.

[Clara Roberts · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very dry book but had a lot of good ideas. "We should admit immigrants only if we are fully committed to their integration and assimilation." The median age of non-Hispanic white is 43 while the Hispanic is 28."The median age for backs is33 and Asians 36. "A more selective, skills-based immigration system.... would make the challenges we face more tractable." "We could reduce migration pressures by raising income from source counties."

[Umar Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inflammatory title. Good book. Salam, the son of Benagli immigrants who grew-up in Brooklyn, makes reasonable and rationale arguments as to why we need a more structured, orderly, and organized immigration system.

A couple of key takeaways. Salam presents the fact that most Indian immigrants come from the upper-class and educated segments of that society. When they are touted as a success story and glowing profiles emerge of tech CEO's there isn't the recognition most came to the US and landed on third-base. Children of wealthy parents tend to do well. Immigrants from poor backgrounds, coming from the lower economic classes of their societies, often struggle. Both can have negative or positive impacts on the societies they fled. However, Americans are far too narcissist to think about the consequences immigration has on other countries.

Salam argues America simply needed more immigration when the place was less crowded and there was a huge demand for unskilled labor. American immigration policy should mirror Canada and Australia and be "needs based".

The border situation is unsustainable and likely to negatively impact poor and working-class Americans. It's unlikely the situation will have a negative impact on someone with a PHD in poetry living in San Francisco or Williamsburg or to a corporate executive at the country club.

Salam points to the example of his parents in Brooklyn. When they arrived their were few Bengalis so they were forced to develop a business and professional network with English speakers and non Bengalis. Once the Bengali community rapidly grew he noticed people were assimilating less.

Second and third generation non-Black immigrants who are educated and in the middle-class marry white Americans at a very high-rate and many then identify as white. In the case of the Latino community this creates a divide of Latino identifying people of a lower economic class and a white ex-Latino/ somewhat Latino class that is flourishing economically. Not mentioned by Salam, but this is exactly what happened throughout Latin America.

Salam also makes the great point that normative American culture influences immigrants heavily; but their kids in turn influences American culture (especially like places like NYC) and this is a positive thing. American has never been static. He also addresses the reasons immigrants would rather struggle in expensive major cities than live for much less in Rust Belt towns with few opportunities.


Salam argues we need a one-time amnesty, a guest worker program, and then transition to a structured needs-based policy. Very reasonable. Far too reasonable for the right-wing angry MAGA populists to embrace and not performative and nonsensical enough for the progressive left to embrace. Very little will change.

[Dennis · Rating 3 out of 5]

From the executive editor of National Review comes this important treatment of U.S. immigration. The author himself is the son of Bangladeshi immigrants to the United States who grew up in a liberal enclave of New York City, in Brooklyn. Thus he has seen and experienced firsthand the challenges and benefits of immigration and brings a keen and insightful perspective to the issues facing this country at a time of heightened sensitivities surrounding the dilemma. The U.S. has let in far too many low-skilled immigrants in recent decades and now faces years of growing unrest and potential havoc as those newcomers and their offspring face uncertainty about their economic and legal prospects in this country.

Reihan Salam ultimately advocates a hybrid approach to immigration, some level of amnesty for those already living here unauthorized, together with a points system to reward applicants for citizenship who possess skills that would facilitate a smoother transition to U.S. life, such as English language skills, levels of education, and job prospects in this country. Salam rests his arguments on sound research from both left and right and argues that most Americans are not divided about preferring higher functioning immigrants to low-skilled.

For me this debate turns on the need to assimilate those who come, and we have plenty examples both here and abroad where failure to integrate new citizens breeds resentment and creates a dangerous environment that produces unintended results. I am hopeful that voices like Salam's can encourage policymakers to consider the implications of open border approaches and instead seek ways to compromise while respecting the benefits of immigration moderated by the need for national security and to temper the tides of newcomers to prevent disaster.

[Leanne Ellis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book could have been an article. It was too repetitive.

Salam never articulates what open borders are: anyone can come with family connections? No quota numbers per year? I think we should up the number of refugees allowed in and H-1 visa recipients. We should take in more skilled immigrants and prioritize those applicants over non-immediate family. We should also legalize everyone living here today through a 1-2 year process.

No one can say if low-skilled jobs will be drastically reduced by automation, so that claim undermines his argument that low-skilled immigrants will become a government burden. He is against the welfare state (or most of it) as the majority of conservatives are.

I don't think he offers much evidence for a high portion of low-skilled workers stifling innovation. Also, a lot of research that I have read shows immigrants make more in taxes than they take in benefits.

But some of his ideas should be considered like ending certain family-preference categories, taking in more employment-based applicants like Canada, expanding the child tax credit, and giving more funds to bolster countries in Central America to reduce police and political corruption, gang violence, and poverty. Politicians need to start coming up with policies instead of empty slogans and reductive tweets.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thoughtful analysis of the current immigration situation with recommendations for immigration policies. The author favors the melting pot ideal for America, and he wants policies that favor immigrants that are likely to be employed and assimilated into American society, rather than remaining as a separate underclass. There is a heavy emphasis on economic aspects of the issue, with lots of relevant statistics. As a compromise the author suggests an amnesty for most current illegal residents combined with programs to reduce illegal immigration (including enforcement of laws against hiring illegals) and a shift to a skills-based selection process for legal immigrants. Conspicuously absent is a discussion of what to do about refugees from war and crime-torn countries, many of whom do not have skills useful for employment in America.

[David s Goodman · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not the argument I was hoping for but what I should have expected from the son of immigrants. The title should have been "... the Case Against Semi Closed Borders". Most of the ideas and "arguments" are seem outdated and deal mostly with labor, the cost of and the threat of it being obsolete, and or natives not desiring to do the labor that an immigrant is willing to do. Still, he never gets to the heart of why open borders truly cripple any nation. No nation none can stand with so many differing ideals and beliefs. When a nation can not find common ground it has no ground to stand on at all. We already have a fringe political party that preaches and teaches it's constituents to hate this country and destroy its history and to hate people that look different. We need shared beliefs in our nation once again.

[Cek994 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written, but sits uncomfortably between an essay and a book. Could have been either condensed or significantly expanded on, and lands in a place that’s only incrementally more conservative than mainstream centrist immigration reform proposals, albeit with a more incendiary title.

The “backlash paradox” was the most revealing and novel insight I found in this book: that center left immigration proponents see it as obvious that immigration has contributed to a racist backlash, but view slowing immigration as a “callow surrender to bigotry”, so are willing to double down on the status quo and “hope that the storm passes — even if this approach risks triggering an extinction level event for open societies.” I found this formulation provocative.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

a very fresh(for me) perspective on the value of immigration and the immigrant experience, I find this perspective very authentic and the author knows the experience very well. I still do not Like Katar as a country though, Singapor is a benevolent facist dictatorship..
children who grow up second-class citzens will have alot of contempt for their society is spot on I think and will take any slight insult and magnify it, that is true.

and i find his optimistic view of the irreplacable nature of un-skilled labour to be optmistic but rather depressing ( to think that alot of skilled workers will probably be replaced by machines and be sales associates) but meh..

[Jake Losh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Salam presents a very nuanced, maybe overly so, argument in favor of immigration restrictions. His arguments seem to me to stand in contrast to the stereotypical version of the restrictionist argument, favoring offshoring, increased spending on domestic social services and welfare and increased economic aid to developing countries as substitutes for immigration-as-economic-aid. The ideas are worth engaging with, even if one disagrees.

I can recommend the audiobook as it is narrated by the author.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remember that paradox you heard in Philosophy 101: "This sentence is false"? If its false then its true and if its true then its false. Reihan's book is like a post-Trump version of that. On the one hand, he is against open borders so you want to call him a racist, but on the other hand he is an immigrant person of color so he can't be racist... Are you the racist? We probably won't be able to wrap our heads around this paradox until a democrat takes office who, like in the past (Obama), opposes open borders and thereby absolves that position of racism. That could be a very long time.

[Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this book right now. It nicely and very compactly lays out a lot of the arguments and learning and impacts of both open and closed border immigration. I wouldn’t call it comprehensive but it’s accessible and doesn’t go in for sound bites and it gets around both (or all) sides well. He offers some possible solutions and lots of things to think about. I wish everyone could take about the immigration debate in these matter of fact, fact based ways. We’d likely be doing better to get to resolution if we could.

[vin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Advocates same failed policies of the past: grant amnesty for 15 million illegals while getting the democrats to promise border strengthening measures. We tried this in the 80s and Democrats didn’t keep their word. Once we grant citizenship to 15 million illegals we become a one party nation. We can’t make that mistake. Also wants Americans to spend their money to raise the standards of living for other countries. When is enough enough? Author tries to offer practical solutions but comes off as naive.

[Leif Paulson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author admirably stated and explained many options and case examples to improve and reform immigration in the United States. As someone who's right of center, I usually resort to rule of law. However, the current administration's draconian approach just won't work. So, kudos to Salam for his thoughtful and important work. I just struggle, however, to envision these reforms happening anytime soon.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full disclosure: I had to return this one to the library before I was completely finished, but it is good enough that I will check it out again or get myself a copy. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to look past headlines and try to understand impacts of immigration policy. I think it's an accessible read for most. I wouldn't say it aligned with my ideas one hundred percent, but I really appreciated its grounding in research and reality.

[Paul Goins · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good, very readable analysis of America’s immigration environment. Salam comes at the issue as a conservative-an intelligent and humane conservative. In the book he proposes several solutions that require each side to yield a bit in order to create a rational and effective immigration policy that emphasizes high/skill immigration. I’m in agreement with him on most counts. I’m not optimistic that politicians can set aside their partisan warfare to move forward.

[Wolf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hilary Clinton in 2013 during a multi-year wave of speeches to Wall Street and international business and banking institutions netting her about $26 million in speaking fees:

" "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere," Mrs Clinton said. "

[Andrew Kagan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A walk down a memory lane

It certainly brought up some memories and generally comported with my experiences as a first generation immigrant, an observer of the next waves of immigrants, a father of second generation Americans, and someone who made my own way in this brave new world.

Immigration is a huge issue that impacts so many other things, from economy to law and order and beyond, but most importantly we need to bring harmony to the social fabric of our society.

[Kevin Atkinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well thought-out, and compelling. While Salam could have done a better job citing his sources at times, overall this was a great quick read that offers a synthesis of both sides of the imigration debate.

[Richard Weaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s a WONK book for sure, and this dry ... but at least he is trying to find a long term solution to impoverished immigrant children in America. And if you think USA immigration policy is rough, we got nothing on Mexico, Canada, Singapore, or Qatar