What do you think?
Rate this book
Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders
A conservative columnist makes an eye-opening case for why immigration improves the lives of Americans and is important for the future of the country
Separating fact from myth in today’s heated immigration debate, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board contends that foreign workers play a vital role in keeping America prosperous, that maintaining an open-border policy is consistent with free-market economic principals, and that the arguments put forward by opponents of immigration ultimately don’t hold up to scrutiny.
In lucid, jargon-free prose aimed at the general-interest reader, Riley takes on the most common anti-immigrant complaints, including claims that today’s immigrants overpopulate the United States, steal jobs, depress wages, don’t assimilate, and pose an undue threat to homeland security. As the 2008 presidential election approaches with immigration reform on the front burner, Let Them In is essential reading for liberals and conservatives alike who want to bring an informed perspective to the discussion.
Separating fact from myth in today’s heated immigration debate, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board contends that foreign workers play a vital role in keeping America prosperous, that maintaining an open-border policy is consistent with free-market economic principals, and that the arguments put forward by opponents of immigration ultimately don’t hold up to scrutiny.
In lucid, jargon-free prose aimed at the general-interest reader, Riley takes on the most common anti-immigrant complaints, including claims that today’s immigrants overpopulate the United States, steal jobs, depress wages, don’t assimilate, and pose an undue threat to homeland security. As the 2008 presidential election approaches with immigration reform on the front burner, Let Them In is essential reading for liberals and conservatives alike who want to bring an informed perspective to the discussion.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2008
20 people are currently reading
466 people want to read
About the author
Jason L. Riley
7 books123 followersJason L. Riley (born July 8, 1971) is an American journalist, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and frequently appears at the Journal Editorial Report, other Fox News programs and occasionally on C-SPAN.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
June 22, 2020
Huh, I was expecting to find myself disagreeing with the book but ended up agreeing with most of it. This has to be the best free-market case I’ve seen for open immigration into the United States. On top of that Riley doesn’t use identity politics or scary rhetoric to make his case for open immigration. Very eloquent case overall.
That being said, my only complaint is that a few of the academic papers he cites have been challenged by other academics. The immigration debate among scholars is very intense and is likely to never be settled so I’ll give Riley that.
That being said, my only complaint is that a few of the academic papers he cites have been challenged by other academics. The immigration debate among scholars is very intense and is likely to never be settled so I’ll give Riley that.
September 6, 2025
More people should read this.
May 22, 2018
I picked up this book because I was intrigued by a conservative making a case for open borders. I have read and respected other books by Jason Riley and was curious what this would hold. I found it to be reasoned and challenging, which is refreshing, given that "discussion" on this topic tends to be ruled by emotional one-liners intended to shut down debate. I would recommend it to anyone interested in thinking rationally about our immigration policies and problems.
April 21, 2011
The thinking on the immigration, both in the US and even more so in other countries, is dominated by emotional arguments. In the light of that it is truly refreshing to come across a book like "Let Them In" where a principled free-market conservative ideas are promoted. In an era when there is an increasing interconnection and interdependence of world economies on each other, it becomes ever more untenable to insist on free exchange of goods and services, while preventing the free flow of people. This is particularly true in the light of the fact that it is precisely the human capital that drives most of the advanced economies forward.
Reilly is a journalist for Wall Street Journal, and this is reflected in his accessible and engaging writing style. The book is an easy read, well researched, and clear in its arguments. It is quite possible that there are flaws in those arguments, but if there are any they should be dealt on the intellectual and not personal level. The issues dealt in this book are already rife with passions on both sides of the debate and it is not helpful if they are only dealt in the lowest-common-denominator manner. Hopefully this book will help create a way for this debate to be elevated to a higher level of discourse.
Reilly is a journalist for Wall Street Journal, and this is reflected in his accessible and engaging writing style. The book is an easy read, well researched, and clear in its arguments. It is quite possible that there are flaws in those arguments, but if there are any they should be dealt on the intellectual and not personal level. The issues dealt in this book are already rife with passions on both sides of the debate and it is not helpful if they are only dealt in the lowest-common-denominator manner. Hopefully this book will help create a way for this debate to be elevated to a higher level of discourse.
July 25, 2023
The growing misinformation, jargon, polemics, and hate language around the crucial issue of immigration warranted a qualified, conservative commentator to write about the subject. The author of this book is a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board and has appeared on Fox News and Hannity & Colmes.
The author puts immigration in the U.S. into a historical perspective. He points to conservative hero President Ronald Reagan in responding to the arguments that immigrants depress wages, displace workers, and boost crime and disease while posing a threat to national security, which runs counter to the precepts of free trade. He opens his book with this quote from the former President:
America is many Americas. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and that’s truly what we are. We have drawn people from every corner of the Earth. We’re composed of virtually every race and religion, not in small numbers, but significant. We have a statue in New York Harbor that speaks to this—a statue of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to our country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door.
Since the government began keeping records in 1820, “…the United States has absorbed a world-leading 60 million immigrants from 170 nations. The latest census data puts our foreign-born population at 33.5 million, roughly Canada's population.”
He also provides a perspective on the sordid history of opposition to immigrants from Germany, Ireland, China, and Latin America. In a treatise against the political influence of Catholicism, a leading nativist of his day argued that” poor, uneducated Irish Catholics were subverting the values and ideals of Anglo-America and should therefore be kept out of the country.”
Later in the century, the “Yellow Peril” would become all the rage. One notable illustration in 1881 depicts Lady Liberty as a Chinese coolie gripping an opium pipe. “The rays of light emanating from the statue’s head are labeled “Immorality,” “Filth,” “Disease,” and “Ruin to White Labor.”
Here in Arizona, former Congressman J. D. Hayworth suggested we give America’s estimated 12 million undocumented residents—“half of whom have been here more than five years and many of whom have married American citizens and borne American children—120 days to leave the country voluntarily and then deport the remainders by force.”
Part of the justification for this ill-advised policy was that Latin Americans wouldn’t assimilate. Yet, the 2000 census found that 91% of the children and 97% of the grandchildren of Mexican immigrants spoke English well. Nor, according to the author, immigrant parents don’t necessarily want their children to speak Spanish. The Pew Hispanic Center survey found that 89% of Latinos “believe immigrants need to learn to speak English to succeed in the United States.”
The author effectively deals with each of the familiar tropes used to create fear and mistrust for the immigrants entering from Latin America today and concludes, “Domestic policies that encourage immigration help keep our population not only youthful but vibrant. Immigrants are giving the United States a distinct comparative advantage in human capital, which is no small matter in an increasingly globalized economy.”
He takes on the job displacement myth head-on, as it fuels much of the immigration debate. He points out that in 2006, there were 146 million workers in the U.S., and 15% were foreign-born. And they were doing jobs that wouldn’t have existed had the immigrants not been there.
Riley tracks the considerable amount of taxes paid by immigrants and how most of them work hard, as reflected in the record number of remittances sent back to family members in their respective countries. And according to the author they produce many new jobs as entrepreneurs in their own right.
Riley concludes that because immigrants strengthen the economy through their labor and entrepreneurism, our policy on immigration should recognize economic realities and focus on providing legal ways for immigrants to enter the country through guest-worker programs.
According to the author, “Illegal immigration to the United States is a function, first and foremost, of too many foreigners chasing too few visas. Some 400,000 people enter the country illegally each year—a direct consequence of the fact that our current policy is to make available just five thousand visas annually for low-skilled workers…”
The author offers several examples of the consequences of not putting our immigration house in order. With 12 million undocumented immigrants, “…it makes little sense, public policy-wise, to let them stay, but not drive legally.” More unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road by denying licenses is counter-productive from a law enforcement and homeland security standpoint.”
The author does not contend that immigration has no economic costs, especially in border towns. However, “when those costs are properly weighed against the gains, open immigration and liberal trade policies still make more sense than protectionism, from both security and economic standpoints.” As the 2024 presidential election approaches with immigration reform on the front burner, Let Them In is essential reading for liberals and conservatives alike who want to bring an informed perspective to the discussion.
“This fact-laden polemic should make even the most die-hard xenophobe think twice.”—MAX BOOT, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations.
The author puts immigration in the U.S. into a historical perspective. He points to conservative hero President Ronald Reagan in responding to the arguments that immigrants depress wages, displace workers, and boost crime and disease while posing a threat to national security, which runs counter to the precepts of free trade. He opens his book with this quote from the former President:
America is many Americas. We call ourselves a nation of immigrants, and that’s truly what we are. We have drawn people from every corner of the Earth. We’re composed of virtually every race and religion, not in small numbers, but significant. We have a statue in New York Harbor that speaks to this—a statue of a woman holding a torch of welcome to those who enter our country to become Americans. She has greeted millions upon millions of immigrants to our country. She welcomes them still. She represents our open door.
Since the government began keeping records in 1820, “…the United States has absorbed a world-leading 60 million immigrants from 170 nations. The latest census data puts our foreign-born population at 33.5 million, roughly Canada's population.”
He also provides a perspective on the sordid history of opposition to immigrants from Germany, Ireland, China, and Latin America. In a treatise against the political influence of Catholicism, a leading nativist of his day argued that” poor, uneducated Irish Catholics were subverting the values and ideals of Anglo-America and should therefore be kept out of the country.”
Later in the century, the “Yellow Peril” would become all the rage. One notable illustration in 1881 depicts Lady Liberty as a Chinese coolie gripping an opium pipe. “The rays of light emanating from the statue’s head are labeled “Immorality,” “Filth,” “Disease,” and “Ruin to White Labor.”
Here in Arizona, former Congressman J. D. Hayworth suggested we give America’s estimated 12 million undocumented residents—“half of whom have been here more than five years and many of whom have married American citizens and borne American children—120 days to leave the country voluntarily and then deport the remainders by force.”
Part of the justification for this ill-advised policy was that Latin Americans wouldn’t assimilate. Yet, the 2000 census found that 91% of the children and 97% of the grandchildren of Mexican immigrants spoke English well. Nor, according to the author, immigrant parents don’t necessarily want their children to speak Spanish. The Pew Hispanic Center survey found that 89% of Latinos “believe immigrants need to learn to speak English to succeed in the United States.”
The author effectively deals with each of the familiar tropes used to create fear and mistrust for the immigrants entering from Latin America today and concludes, “Domestic policies that encourage immigration help keep our population not only youthful but vibrant. Immigrants are giving the United States a distinct comparative advantage in human capital, which is no small matter in an increasingly globalized economy.”
He takes on the job displacement myth head-on, as it fuels much of the immigration debate. He points out that in 2006, there were 146 million workers in the U.S., and 15% were foreign-born. And they were doing jobs that wouldn’t have existed had the immigrants not been there.
Riley tracks the considerable amount of taxes paid by immigrants and how most of them work hard, as reflected in the record number of remittances sent back to family members in their respective countries. And according to the author they produce many new jobs as entrepreneurs in their own right.
Riley concludes that because immigrants strengthen the economy through their labor and entrepreneurism, our policy on immigration should recognize economic realities and focus on providing legal ways for immigrants to enter the country through guest-worker programs.
According to the author, “Illegal immigration to the United States is a function, first and foremost, of too many foreigners chasing too few visas. Some 400,000 people enter the country illegally each year—a direct consequence of the fact that our current policy is to make available just five thousand visas annually for low-skilled workers…”
The author offers several examples of the consequences of not putting our immigration house in order. With 12 million undocumented immigrants, “…it makes little sense, public policy-wise, to let them stay, but not drive legally.” More unlicensed and uninsured drivers on the road by denying licenses is counter-productive from a law enforcement and homeland security standpoint.”
The author does not contend that immigration has no economic costs, especially in border towns. However, “when those costs are properly weighed against the gains, open immigration and liberal trade policies still make more sense than protectionism, from both security and economic standpoints.” As the 2024 presidential election approaches with immigration reform on the front burner, Let Them In is essential reading for liberals and conservatives alike who want to bring an informed perspective to the discussion.
“This fact-laden polemic should make even the most die-hard xenophobe think twice.”—MAX BOOT, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations.
August 20, 2020
Riley builds a strong case here. It's a bit of a rough start, but he gets a solid flow by the 3rd chapter. I really wish it had been written post-2016 though.
He argues for a "liberal" policy*, using "conservative"-type evidence. The following is my addition to his argument.
I spent 12 months closely observing illegal immigrants in California. I've seen all of his points proven. For the most part, illegal immigrants are law-abiding. Most violence and abuse from them are perpetrated from a minority of them. In other words, illegal immigrants are more likely to hurt other illegal immigrants because they know they won't go asking for help from the authorities. (#mybiasisshowing)
I would add that, if you want to decrease crime, it's easier to track legal citizens.
So, yes, I agree with him. Highly recommend the book. Read it. And share it with your friends.
*it's all conflated for me at the moment
He argues for a "liberal" policy*, using "conservative"-type evidence. The following is my addition to his argument.
I spent 12 months closely observing illegal immigrants in California. I've seen all of his points proven. For the most part, illegal immigrants are law-abiding. Most violence and abuse from them are perpetrated from a minority of them. In other words, illegal immigrants are more likely to hurt other illegal immigrants because they know they won't go asking for help from the authorities. (#mybiasisshowing)
I would add that, if you want to decrease crime, it's easier to track legal citizens.
So, yes, I agree with him. Highly recommend the book. Read it. And share it with your friends.
*it's all conflated for me at the moment
April 20, 2009
I read this book probably a year later than I should have. I heard a podcast from Riley at a CATO event and loved it. His hour podcast was energetic and full of potent historical examples of immigration stories demonstrating that Hispanic immigrants face the same criticism that many other immigrants have faced since our nation's founding. Riley uses mainly History and Economics to make a case for a free market approach to immigration.
He makes six arguments. They are: Population, Economics, Welfare, Assimilation, Political expediency, and Homeland Security. Although, his last two are the least objectionable arguments he makes, he seems to fall asleep while writing them. They were dispassionate and twice as long as they needed to be to convince.
His strongest points were Economics and Assimilation. I liked his welfare argument but felt he cherry picked statistics. Even though he persuasively demonstrates that Hispanic immigrants are the least likely to seek medical care, he fails to address the famous "hospitals are closing" panic blamed on Hispanics in California.
Here are some gems that revealed from the research:
"In his subtly titled book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan argues that Latin American newcomers harm the job prospects of working-class natives. Not especially known for his empathy towards the black underclass, Buchanan nevertheless posits that less immigration is a key to black economic advancement. I'm sure the NAACP appreciates his concern."
"The only reason our textile industry still exists is because textile mills in places like North Carolina and Georgia have access to immigrant labor. The same holds true for meatpacking plants in the Midwest"
"This isn't about immigrants displacing Americans in the labor force. It's about foreign workers coming here to fill jobs the natives don't want because they've got better opportunities."
"A study by the economists Rachel Friedberg and Jennifer Hunt states flatly, "The popular belief that immigrants have a large adverse impact on the wages and employment opportunities of the native-born population of the receiving country is not supported by empirical evidence"
"Before blaming the diminished job prospects of Jamal on Jorge, blacks would do better to address the anti-intellectualism that permeates the culture of the black underclass"
"It seems utterly cruel, from a public policy standpoint, for the United States to invite foreigners to participate in welfare and then hold it against them when they take us up on the offer. If welfare use among immigrants is deemed too high, then the better course of action is to limit benefits, not the immigrants who are otherwise enhancing the nation's economic vigor."
I could go on and on. The writing is forceful and energetic in the first four arguments and wanes with fifth and sixth. Riley treats his material with more scholarship than talk radio and television commentators, however, he could have fattened his examples on the welfare section. Great book for immigration free marketers. Everyone else might find it too Libertarian.
He makes six arguments. They are: Population, Economics, Welfare, Assimilation, Political expediency, and Homeland Security. Although, his last two are the least objectionable arguments he makes, he seems to fall asleep while writing them. They were dispassionate and twice as long as they needed to be to convince.
His strongest points were Economics and Assimilation. I liked his welfare argument but felt he cherry picked statistics. Even though he persuasively demonstrates that Hispanic immigrants are the least likely to seek medical care, he fails to address the famous "hospitals are closing" panic blamed on Hispanics in California.
Here are some gems that revealed from the research:
"In his subtly titled book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan argues that Latin American newcomers harm the job prospects of working-class natives. Not especially known for his empathy towards the black underclass, Buchanan nevertheless posits that less immigration is a key to black economic advancement. I'm sure the NAACP appreciates his concern."
"The only reason our textile industry still exists is because textile mills in places like North Carolina and Georgia have access to immigrant labor. The same holds true for meatpacking plants in the Midwest"
"This isn't about immigrants displacing Americans in the labor force. It's about foreign workers coming here to fill jobs the natives don't want because they've got better opportunities."
"A study by the economists Rachel Friedberg and Jennifer Hunt states flatly, "The popular belief that immigrants have a large adverse impact on the wages and employment opportunities of the native-born population of the receiving country is not supported by empirical evidence"
"Before blaming the diminished job prospects of Jamal on Jorge, blacks would do better to address the anti-intellectualism that permeates the culture of the black underclass"
"It seems utterly cruel, from a public policy standpoint, for the United States to invite foreigners to participate in welfare and then hold it against them when they take us up on the offer. If welfare use among immigrants is deemed too high, then the better course of action is to limit benefits, not the immigrants who are otherwise enhancing the nation's economic vigor."
I could go on and on. The writing is forceful and energetic in the first four arguments and wanes with fifth and sixth. Riley treats his material with more scholarship than talk radio and television commentators, however, he could have fattened his examples on the welfare section. Great book for immigration free marketers. Everyone else might find it too Libertarian.
October 4, 2011
This book seeks to dispel the myths that many on the right are perpetuating about immigration. What gives this author some credibility is that he's fairly conservative himself. He's anti-union, anti-government regulations, anti-tax, etc. but he makes a great case for why his belief that the arguments against immigrants, especially illegal ones, aren't based on anything other than belief.
Immigrants don't take jobs from Americans, in fact, Americans probably shouldn't be doing those jobs anyway. For example, is it a good use of resources to have someone with a college degree picking fruit?
Immigrants don't use more government aid, in fact they use less. The problem is that most critics want to conflate those born in the U.S. with those that are here illegally. Just because someone has a Spanish surname doesn't mean they're here illegally.
They don't commit more crimes. Further, and this I didn't know, being here illegally is a civil crime handled by civil courts not criminal courts. It's the equivalent of a traffic violation. Even Rudy Giuliani argued against Glenn Beck about the "criminality" of being here "illegally". (It has an excerpt of their exchange in the book.)
The book has some interesting points about the history of immigration in our country (blaming foreigners is old hat for the U.S.) and about Mexico specifically. The only true critique I would give of this books is that while it's well argued, it not well notated. There are no foot- or end notes, only a selected bibliography. You're given stats and research but no where to look it up. I'll admit, I don't always look up every footnote (and as Al Franken noted, sometimes pundits put footnotes to make their books seem more legitimate, but don't actually give real support) but with an issue like this I would have liked to have a couple articles I could have linked to in my own blogs.
Mr. Riley makes a convincing argument for more open borders and how it would actually help our economy, but considering I found this book in a bargain store, I'm guessing it's not being widely read, though it definitely should be.
Immigrants don't take jobs from Americans, in fact, Americans probably shouldn't be doing those jobs anyway. For example, is it a good use of resources to have someone with a college degree picking fruit?
Immigrants don't use more government aid, in fact they use less. The problem is that most critics want to conflate those born in the U.S. with those that are here illegally. Just because someone has a Spanish surname doesn't mean they're here illegally.
They don't commit more crimes. Further, and this I didn't know, being here illegally is a civil crime handled by civil courts not criminal courts. It's the equivalent of a traffic violation. Even Rudy Giuliani argued against Glenn Beck about the "criminality" of being here "illegally". (It has an excerpt of their exchange in the book.)
The book has some interesting points about the history of immigration in our country (blaming foreigners is old hat for the U.S.) and about Mexico specifically. The only true critique I would give of this books is that while it's well argued, it not well notated. There are no foot- or end notes, only a selected bibliography. You're given stats and research but no where to look it up. I'll admit, I don't always look up every footnote (and as Al Franken noted, sometimes pundits put footnotes to make their books seem more legitimate, but don't actually give real support) but with an issue like this I would have liked to have a couple articles I could have linked to in my own blogs.
Mr. Riley makes a convincing argument for more open borders and how it would actually help our economy, but considering I found this book in a bargain store, I'm guessing it's not being widely read, though it definitely should be.
January 30, 2009
This is what I learned.. Notes are for my benefit as much as anyone. I agree that the first chapter was a disaster, but I hung in there and learned a lot.
Ben Franklin was among the first in a long line of immigrant-bashers to claim they were a drag on the economy, brought disease and crime and were depleting the core values of the nation. They said this about Germans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Asians and now Latinos. They were/are all wrong.
Immigrants, including illegal immigrants are a net plus to the nation. They pay more in taxes and Social security than the benefits they use. They are underrepresented on the welfare roles since they come here to work. They are underrepresented in our jails. Illegal immigration tends to coincide with periods of higher prosperity. The illegals contribute to that prosperity by doing jobs that citizens do not want to do, and doing it at a lower salary which both keeps production costs low and allows for a more efficient use of the US work force. On the whole, immigrants stimulate the economy to support more jobs for American citizens than take jobs from American citizens.
Rather than deport illegal immigrants, the US should allow for more legal immigration to provide the domestic, farm and construction workers that the nation needs. This will free border patrol agents to concentrate on terrorists rather than be distracted by picking up construction workers and farm hands.
Ben Franklin was among the first in a long line of immigrant-bashers to claim they were a drag on the economy, brought disease and crime and were depleting the core values of the nation. They said this about Germans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Asians and now Latinos. They were/are all wrong.
Immigrants, including illegal immigrants are a net plus to the nation. They pay more in taxes and Social security than the benefits they use. They are underrepresented on the welfare roles since they come here to work. They are underrepresented in our jails. Illegal immigration tends to coincide with periods of higher prosperity. The illegals contribute to that prosperity by doing jobs that citizens do not want to do, and doing it at a lower salary which both keeps production costs low and allows for a more efficient use of the US work force. On the whole, immigrants stimulate the economy to support more jobs for American citizens than take jobs from American citizens.
Rather than deport illegal immigrants, the US should allow for more legal immigration to provide the domestic, farm and construction workers that the nation needs. This will free border patrol agents to concentrate on terrorists rather than be distracted by picking up construction workers and farm hands.
December 6, 2008
I am pro open borders on a fairness basis, I would like to see how well some of the people who rail against immigrants would do without their advantageous accident of birth! But even from a chauvinistic pro-USA viewpoint it is hard to argue with the economic value that all immigrants provide. Firstly they self-select as risk takers, that by itself is a powerful argument as risk takers create value for all of us. Secondly, value they create for us is value they do not create for "not us" thereby improving our chances in the global zero sum game. Thirdly, they inspire us to try harder so as not to be embarrassed by the achievement of folks that often come handicapped with poverty, language and cultural deficiencies, and suffer from blatant discrimination.
This book presents arguments against a lot of the objections to more open immigration policies and shows them to be biased and often racist. Nice to see from a conservative source.
Just to take one argument on: it is often said that immigrants steal "real americans" jobs, this books argues convincingly that at both ends of the economic scale immigrants actually create jobs.
I think the policy should be wide open but at the very least if an immigrant can earn a degree from one of our Universities they should be handed a free green card with their diplomas.
This book presents arguments against a lot of the objections to more open immigration policies and shows them to be biased and often racist. Nice to see from a conservative source.
Just to take one argument on: it is often said that immigrants steal "real americans" jobs, this books argues convincingly that at both ends of the economic scale immigrants actually create jobs.
I think the policy should be wide open but at the very least if an immigrant can earn a degree from one of our Universities they should be handed a free green card with their diplomas.
March 25, 2020
Rarely have I agreed with a book's conclusion ( a more open immigration policy), while so strongly disagreeing with the author's reasons for that conclusion. Jason Riley takes a very strong business position for advocating for a more open immigration policy. He argues that immigrants provide low skilled labor that is needed in certain sectors, and seeks to show how immigrants are not taking away jobs or causing a drain on the nation's social sector. In the process he argues against unions of any kind as well as multiculturalism, taking a very strong assimilation stance. His arguments seem to be (1) cheap labor is good for business (ignoring the fact that in part is due to the fact that many immigrants will accept lower than minimum wage) and (2) that like other immigrant groups by the 2nd generation they will begin to be very "American" (and aren't we the greatest country in the world when it comes to accepting people(?) ignoring our history of racism and exploitation of immigrant peoples. The most interesting part of the book for me was the intra-conservative debate on this issue, and the acknowledgment that many of the conservative media pundits like Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity really don't know what they are talking about most of the time. While I can't really recommend the book, for non-conservatives it is an interesting read.
February 26, 2024
Entering this book as a skeptic, I came out with a more nuanced view of the other side. Riley doesn’t really define open borders but it means no quantitative quotas or caps on the number of immigrants or arbitrary qualitative restriction of the kind of persons national origin, ethnicity, race etc. It does not mean criminality per se if what is illegal remains illegal. Riley argues that immigrants complement rather than substitute native labor, don’t commit more crime or use more welfare which is restricted to citizens. There are at least two confounding points, how much of the economic benefits of immigration accrue to immigrants themselves and those who employ them and social services used by their children who may be citizens. Politically even if noncitizens may not be able to vote they still count in the census and can bolster urban areas and blue states. *Also crime stats differ for legal and illegal immigrants and for future generations. I think a better alternative to the current US system is get rid of national quotas and have a yearly cap that could increase yearly and a merit-point system to award visas. But such a system shouldn’t be for temporary or work visas but people we expect to eventually become citizens. What worries ‘nativists’ and populists is not so much immigrants but sudden and large uncontrolled immigration.
October 1, 2008
I thought this was excellent. The author is a WSJ reporter. He went through each of the most common arguments against immigration and refuted them. The facts presented were exhaustive, and I learned much more than I ever expected to. In fact, he sold me on the idea. :-)
August 14, 2011
The data he shared was interesting and I agreed with some of the things he said, but some of his personal commentary turned me off. However, this book would provide some good ammunition next time you're talking to a so-called fiscal conservative who claims that immigration is ruining our economy.
February 28, 2014
A great exposition of ways in which immigration has helped, and not hindered, progress in America.
May 13, 2024
One might expect an advocate of open borders to come from the far leftwing. Jason Riley, however, is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He presents a conservative case that immigrants are an asset, not a liability, and that the U.S. should welcome immigration.
Conservatives often draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. That dichotomy is outdated, however, given that millions of migrants nowadays present themselves at the border to legally apply for refugee status. They are permitted to enter the country while their applications go through the overwhelmed adjudication process.
Whether poor Latin Americans enter legally as refugees or come in illegally, many Americams see them as a problem.
When Donald Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, for example, he warned about dangerous illegal immigrants from Mexico. His campaign struck a populist nerve when he promised to build a wall along the Mexican border. One of President Trump's first acts was an illegal attempt to ban Muslims from entering the country.
Are Americans justified in their fears about hordes of immigrants invading our country? Or are immigrants being scapegoated for our problems?
Though the right rails against "open borders," fear and loathing of immigrants is not a legacy of Ronald Reagan. In 1952, he gave a speech stating that "any person with the courage...to travel halfway across the world was welcome here." In 1986, Reagan signed a law giving amnesty to three million immigrants who had entered illegally.
In his farewell address, Reagan again sounded the open borders theme. Calling America the shining city, he described what he meant. "A tall, proud city... teaming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports...and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."
Certainly the millions of migrants entering each year, some coming up through Central America and Mexico, have demonstrated the "will and heart to get here."
Opposing immigrants, however, has a long tradition. It goes back to Ben Franklin opposing the "swarm" of unassimilable Germans. The Know-Nothing party in the mid 19th century warned against the invasion of Irish Catholics. In the 1880s, the first anti-immigrant laws were adopted to ban Chinese.
In the 20th Century, prominent environmentalists were among the leading restictionists. They include Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, and Lester Brown who warned about the dangers of unrestrained population growth.
These earlier restictionists "have a perfect record of being wrong," quips Riley. "Doomsday scenarios never seem to come to fruition." The
same can be said of an earlier prpophet of doom, Thomas Malthus.
The facts are that from 1900 to 2000, the world population mushroomed from 1.6 billion to more than 6 billion. Yet the standard of living grew substantially, and food was more abundant in 2000 and less expensive. The lesson is that while resources are limited, human ingenuity is not.
In addition, the population growth rate has been declining steadily since the 1960s.
In the U.S, the population reached 200 million in 1967 and 300 million in 2006. Roughly half of that growth was due to immigration. There's no question that Americans in 2006 enjoyed a better standard of living, better health and a cleaner environment than they had 39 years earlier. "To the extent that immigrants facilitate U.S. population growth and wealth creation," Riley writes, " they are part of the solution, not the problem."
How could immigrants make things better if they "steal" jobs from citizens and lower wages, as restictionists insist?
This argument is less plausible today when unemployment is at a record low and wages are rising. The key question is whether or not immigrant labor contributes to productivity and growth.
Riley devotes his longest chapter to this anti-immigrant stealing jobs canard. The evidence suggests that immigrants help to expand the economic pie and increase the demand for labor. They
take jobs that most native Americans don't want or aren't qualified for, in the case of engineers. Immigrants also start a disproportionate number of businesses, among them Google, eBay and Yahoo.
Despite several million immigrants entering the country each year, the economy in 2023 has a labor shortage, not a surplus. Wages are rising faster than they have in decades.
There is contradictory evidence about whether citizens without a high school diploma face lower wages due to immigrant labor. What's not in doubt is that immigration creates more jobs, and that the number of American high school dropouts is declining.
Another major argument against immigration is that the newcomers are a drain on welfare and other tax-funded programs. The undocumented, however, are not legally eligible for welfare. Some avoid ERs and other services for fear of detection. Besides, what they most want to do is work.
Legal immigrants are another story, since they eventually qualify for government assistance. On the other hand, the high employment rate among immigrants -- higher than among native Americams -- indicates the new residents didn't come here to be on the dole. The undocumented have the highest work rate of any group in the country.
Since they work, and are younger than the average American, they are paying taxes to support Medicare and Social Security and will be for many decades. The undocumented will not qualify for benefits given their legal status, so the government gets a windfall.
In short, the data show that low-income immigrants are less likely to be on welfare programs than their citizen counterparts.
The main costs of immigration are absorbed at the state and local level. For example, the children of immigrants attend public schools. The large majority of those children are born in the U.S. and therefore are citizens. In addition, immigrant labor contributes to productivity growth and benefits the state economy.
The next objection to a generous immigration policy is that today's immigrants will be unassimilable because they supposedly come from cultures too different from our own.
This same argument has many historical precedents going back to Ben Franklin railing against German immigrants in the 1750s. It was also used against the Chinese in the 1880s, and against Italians and Jews in the early 1900s.
When we examine the status of Latinos who have been in the U.S. for two or three decades, as opposed to new arrivals, "there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time."
The evidence shows that more than 90 percent of immigrant children speak English well, as well as 97 percent of their grandchildren. The American model of assimilation still works. Compared to assimilation in other countries -- such as France, Germany and Britain -- it works very well.
Another anti-immigrant argument is that we're in the midst of an illegal alien crime wave, as Donald Trump said in 2015. Victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants were prominent in Trump's campaign.
The data, however, show that immigrants have a consistently lower incarceration rate than the native-born. The most recent arrivals have the lowest rate. Besides, the violent crime rate except for homicide has been declining or stable since the early 90s, despite increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. In short, it's a canard to scapegoat immigrants for crimes that the native born are more likely to commit.
The most effective ways to reduce illegal immigration are either a recession, so fewer jobs are waiting, or increasing legal ways of entering. Would-be immigrants would take legal entry if it were available, as they have recently by invoking the refugee statute.
In sum, Riley exposes restrictionist half-truths and inconsistencies. For example,
restrictionists blame undocumented immigrants both for stealing our jobs and for living on the dole. They should pick a lane.
There are significant costs to border towns, and lately to big cities, from an influx of refugees. Nonetheless, Riley makes a persuasive case that the country enjoys a net benefit from immigration. With the U.S. birthrate at a record low, continued population growth requires immigration.
In addition, taking in people from poor countries is the single most reliable way to reduce poverty because almost all of them become more productive in the U.S. and improve their standard of living.
If and when Congress can deal with this issue rationally, it will allow more immigration for both skilled and unskilled workers. It would also modernize the refugee act.
As Richard Reeves said, "If responsible people don't deal with issues, then irresponsible people will exploit them." -30-
Conservatives often draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. That dichotomy is outdated, however, given that millions of migrants nowadays present themselves at the border to legally apply for refugee status. They are permitted to enter the country while their applications go through the overwhelmed adjudication process.
Whether poor Latin Americans enter legally as refugees or come in illegally, many Americams see them as a problem.
When Donald Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, for example, he warned about dangerous illegal immigrants from Mexico. His campaign struck a populist nerve when he promised to build a wall along the Mexican border. One of President Trump's first acts was an illegal attempt to ban Muslims from entering the country.
Are Americans justified in their fears about hordes of immigrants invading our country? Or are immigrants being scapegoated for our problems?
Though the right rails against "open borders," fear and loathing of immigrants is not a legacy of Ronald Reagan. In 1952, he gave a speech stating that "any person with the courage...to travel halfway across the world was welcome here." In 1986, Reagan signed a law giving amnesty to three million immigrants who had entered illegally.
In his farewell address, Reagan again sounded the open borders theme. Calling America the shining city, he described what he meant. "A tall, proud city... teaming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports...and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here."
Certainly the millions of migrants entering each year, some coming up through Central America and Mexico, have demonstrated the "will and heart to get here."
Opposing immigrants, however, has a long tradition. It goes back to Ben Franklin opposing the "swarm" of unassimilable Germans. The Know-Nothing party in the mid 19th century warned against the invasion of Irish Catholics. In the 1880s, the first anti-immigrant laws were adopted to ban Chinese.
In the 20th Century, prominent environmentalists were among the leading restictionists. They include Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, and Lester Brown who warned about the dangers of unrestrained population growth.
These earlier restictionists "have a perfect record of being wrong," quips Riley. "Doomsday scenarios never seem to come to fruition." The
same can be said of an earlier prpophet of doom, Thomas Malthus.
The facts are that from 1900 to 2000, the world population mushroomed from 1.6 billion to more than 6 billion. Yet the standard of living grew substantially, and food was more abundant in 2000 and less expensive. The lesson is that while resources are limited, human ingenuity is not.
In addition, the population growth rate has been declining steadily since the 1960s.
In the U.S, the population reached 200 million in 1967 and 300 million in 2006. Roughly half of that growth was due to immigration. There's no question that Americans in 2006 enjoyed a better standard of living, better health and a cleaner environment than they had 39 years earlier. "To the extent that immigrants facilitate U.S. population growth and wealth creation," Riley writes, " they are part of the solution, not the problem."
How could immigrants make things better if they "steal" jobs from citizens and lower wages, as restictionists insist?
This argument is less plausible today when unemployment is at a record low and wages are rising. The key question is whether or not immigrant labor contributes to productivity and growth.
Riley devotes his longest chapter to this anti-immigrant stealing jobs canard. The evidence suggests that immigrants help to expand the economic pie and increase the demand for labor. They
take jobs that most native Americans don't want or aren't qualified for, in the case of engineers. Immigrants also start a disproportionate number of businesses, among them Google, eBay and Yahoo.
Despite several million immigrants entering the country each year, the economy in 2023 has a labor shortage, not a surplus. Wages are rising faster than they have in decades.
There is contradictory evidence about whether citizens without a high school diploma face lower wages due to immigrant labor. What's not in doubt is that immigration creates more jobs, and that the number of American high school dropouts is declining.
Another major argument against immigration is that the newcomers are a drain on welfare and other tax-funded programs. The undocumented, however, are not legally eligible for welfare. Some avoid ERs and other services for fear of detection. Besides, what they most want to do is work.
Legal immigrants are another story, since they eventually qualify for government assistance. On the other hand, the high employment rate among immigrants -- higher than among native Americams -- indicates the new residents didn't come here to be on the dole. The undocumented have the highest work rate of any group in the country.
Since they work, and are younger than the average American, they are paying taxes to support Medicare and Social Security and will be for many decades. The undocumented will not qualify for benefits given their legal status, so the government gets a windfall.
In short, the data show that low-income immigrants are less likely to be on welfare programs than their citizen counterparts.
The main costs of immigration are absorbed at the state and local level. For example, the children of immigrants attend public schools. The large majority of those children are born in the U.S. and therefore are citizens. In addition, immigrant labor contributes to productivity growth and benefits the state economy.
The next objection to a generous immigration policy is that today's immigrants will be unassimilable because they supposedly come from cultures too different from our own.
This same argument has many historical precedents going back to Ben Franklin railing against German immigrants in the 1750s. It was also used against the Chinese in the 1880s, and against Italians and Jews in the early 1900s.
When we examine the status of Latinos who have been in the U.S. for two or three decades, as opposed to new arrivals, "there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time."
The evidence shows that more than 90 percent of immigrant children speak English well, as well as 97 percent of their grandchildren. The American model of assimilation still works. Compared to assimilation in other countries -- such as France, Germany and Britain -- it works very well.
Another anti-immigrant argument is that we're in the midst of an illegal alien crime wave, as Donald Trump said in 2015. Victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants were prominent in Trump's campaign.
The data, however, show that immigrants have a consistently lower incarceration rate than the native-born. The most recent arrivals have the lowest rate. Besides, the violent crime rate except for homicide has been declining or stable since the early 90s, despite increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. In short, it's a canard to scapegoat immigrants for crimes that the native born are more likely to commit.
The most effective ways to reduce illegal immigration are either a recession, so fewer jobs are waiting, or increasing legal ways of entering. Would-be immigrants would take legal entry if it were available, as they have recently by invoking the refugee statute.
In sum, Riley exposes restrictionist half-truths and inconsistencies. For example,
restrictionists blame undocumented immigrants both for stealing our jobs and for living on the dole. They should pick a lane.
There are significant costs to border towns, and lately to big cities, from an influx of refugees. Nonetheless, Riley makes a persuasive case that the country enjoys a net benefit from immigration. With the U.S. birthrate at a record low, continued population growth requires immigration.
In addition, taking in people from poor countries is the single most reliable way to reduce poverty because almost all of them become more productive in the U.S. and improve their standard of living.
If and when Congress can deal with this issue rationally, it will allow more immigration for both skilled and unskilled workers. It would also modernize the refugee act.
As Richard Reeves said, "If responsible people don't deal with issues, then irresponsible people will exploit them." -30-
February 9, 2019
I wanted to read a book on open borders. This is not a book on open borders. This is a Reagan Republican screed about how the GOP should not be so punitive on Latino immigration as a tactical electoral move to win more latino votes as well as because a hard-working, low-paid labor force is good for the economy, and that can be achieved with more open immigration on the southern border. As a bonus, it also contains a healthy dose of anti-black racism and the quote: "Keep the immigrants. Deport the Columbia faculty" because latino immigration can benefit business interests, whereas the threat of "liberal elites" opposes the author's personal politics.
There are some redeeming aspects of the book, but I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone. He makes intelligent points about the lack of evidence for the correlation between immigration and crime as well as the fact that immigration has a greater effect on growing the economy rather than acting as a replacement for non-immigrant labor. However, when noting that this does tend to affect poor and black communities more, he doubles down on a "ghetto culture" argument and basically says "tough luck", blaming poor black communities for their own problems.
Similarly, he notes that the effects on a social safety net by immigrants are a non-issue because we should privatize health insurance and remove welfare programs, so it wouldn't be a problem. As someone who doesn't believe that privatization is good, this book has provided no insight into actual solutions and instead is simply a way to advocate for a program that creates more poor workers to be exploited by big business interests, while saving money on border control because increased immigrant quotas would decrease costs of immigration enforcement by replacing illegal immigration with legal immigration. Similarly, he makes the important point that the rhetoric of securing the southern border for anti-terrorism purposes is silly and a waste of money. However, he then goes on to say that we should restrict travel from Muslim countries with no particular evidence beyond a vague counting of terrorist violence with none of the nuance he used in the previous sections of the book.
The first half is tolerable, the second half is miserable and I only read it because I wanted to know what conclusions he would come to. They were pretty uniformly monstrous.
There are some redeeming aspects of the book, but I really wouldn't recommend it to anyone. He makes intelligent points about the lack of evidence for the correlation between immigration and crime as well as the fact that immigration has a greater effect on growing the economy rather than acting as a replacement for non-immigrant labor. However, when noting that this does tend to affect poor and black communities more, he doubles down on a "ghetto culture" argument and basically says "tough luck", blaming poor black communities for their own problems.
Similarly, he notes that the effects on a social safety net by immigrants are a non-issue because we should privatize health insurance and remove welfare programs, so it wouldn't be a problem. As someone who doesn't believe that privatization is good, this book has provided no insight into actual solutions and instead is simply a way to advocate for a program that creates more poor workers to be exploited by big business interests, while saving money on border control because increased immigrant quotas would decrease costs of immigration enforcement by replacing illegal immigration with legal immigration. Similarly, he makes the important point that the rhetoric of securing the southern border for anti-terrorism purposes is silly and a waste of money. However, he then goes on to say that we should restrict travel from Muslim countries with no particular evidence beyond a vague counting of terrorist violence with none of the nuance he used in the previous sections of the book.
The first half is tolerable, the second half is miserable and I only read it because I wanted to know what conclusions he would come to. They were pretty uniformly monstrous.
July 10, 2024
This confirmed a belief I’ve held for a while: the answer is more—way more—LEGAL immigration. For that, I am totally on board. Most people just want to come here for work, education, family, or safety. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses!
I have a few questions. 1) How are illegal immigrants paying payroll taxes like he claims? Aren’t they getting paid under the table? Are they committing identity fraud to file taxes? 2) A smaller percentage of illegal immigrants are committing crimes than natives, but isn’t that still crime that could be prevented? We already have enough crime here without importing more. Shouldn’t we deport those who break our laws? 3) What is his response to people on the terror watchlist now crossing the Southern border in the 2020s? (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cb...) This book is almost 20 years old and I’d love a follow up!
I loved his exploration of history and the cyclical response to immigration. It should really put people who are leery of immigrants in their place! And anytime you emphasize economics over dogma I’m here for it. One more excellent argument for the free market and not arbitrary law-making in Congress.
Let them in.
I have a few questions. 1) How are illegal immigrants paying payroll taxes like he claims? Aren’t they getting paid under the table? Are they committing identity fraud to file taxes? 2) A smaller percentage of illegal immigrants are committing crimes than natives, but isn’t that still crime that could be prevented? We already have enough crime here without importing more. Shouldn’t we deport those who break our laws? 3) What is his response to people on the terror watchlist now crossing the Southern border in the 2020s? (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cb...) This book is almost 20 years old and I’d love a follow up!
I loved his exploration of history and the cyclical response to immigration. It should really put people who are leery of immigrants in their place! And anytime you emphasize economics over dogma I’m here for it. One more excellent argument for the free market and not arbitrary law-making in Congress.
Let them in.
January 9, 2021
I picked up this book because I wanted to see for myself why Trump's big border wall fiasco was a terrible idea, besides the fact that it's simply a physical wall with many gaps. The book proved through five main arguments not only why the idea of a border wall is wrong, but how it came to be over the past few decades of political messaging, which had some interesting history surrounding Bush and the republican party during that time period.
Being an issue given ample consideration during most election cycles, I wanted to be able to have a stable argument for immigration. This book does that in a way that's very easy to understand.
Being an issue given ample consideration during most election cycles, I wanted to be able to have a stable argument for immigration. This book does that in a way that's very easy to understand.
December 10, 2024
I read it over the summer just to give the liberals a chance to make a case for mass migration from the Global South. Every point the author makes is mainly economic and is used to debunk common GOP talking points. Overall, if I were a standard Republican reading this book, it would have changed my views on this topic. However, I’m not. If you are in the Church of GDP and only care about economic growth, then this book is great for you and will change your views on mass migration.
!
February 18, 2023
Pretty decent book. A bit out dated
April 14, 2020
Riley makes a nearly airtight case that open immigration policies benefit the country in terms of improving economic efficiency. He isn’t as convincing when he brushes aside other potential concerns, but shows these should not be as worrisome as much current anti-illegal immigration rhetoric would suggest.
April 30, 2009
Well. This is a much-needed book. The author, a journalist (it shows, unfortunately) on the WSJ editorial board, does a reasonably good job of presenting the facts, but tends to have a rather cutesy, my-isn't-that-a-clever-turn-of-phrase tone that I did not love. I just wanted good, solid reasoning with the facts to back it up; there was some of this, but it could have been tighter, and annotated. Still, a good effort. Unfortunately nowhere near a strong enough book to sway the position of the immigrants-are-evil crowd. Of course, I'm unsure a thunderbolt from God would do that . . .
Anyway, the book tackles six common arguments against immigration, from both left-wing and right-wing sides.
1. Immigration leads to too much population growth and this damages the environment;
2. Immigrants take jobs needed by Americans;
3. Immigrants use up disproportionate amounts of welfare resources;
4. The current crop of Latino immigrants are very different from previous immigrant groups and are unlikely to assimilate into American culture;
5. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a terrific way for Republicans to get votes;
6. More open borders would result in serious national security risks.
I'd give Riley an A- for his arguments against 2, 3, and 4; and perhaps a B for 5 and 6, C+ for effort for argument 1.
Anyway. The economic arguments FOR open borders are so overwhelmingly strong, it would be hard to overstate them. Riley does not come close to this, in fact he does not really make the results sound as vivid as they really are--probably because he is a journalist and not an economist. And I could think of a lot of other examples and studies he could have used, both for his economics arguments and especially his assimilation arguments. But still, a badly-needed book. Unfortunately, the copy I read is the ONLY copy in the ILL system in the state of Iowa, and many in my state desperately need to hear these arguments; the knee-jerk anti-immigration strain runs deep here.
Anyway, the book tackles six common arguments against immigration, from both left-wing and right-wing sides.
1. Immigration leads to too much population growth and this damages the environment;
2. Immigrants take jobs needed by Americans;
3. Immigrants use up disproportionate amounts of welfare resources;
4. The current crop of Latino immigrants are very different from previous immigrant groups and are unlikely to assimilate into American culture;
5. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a terrific way for Republicans to get votes;
6. More open borders would result in serious national security risks.
I'd give Riley an A- for his arguments against 2, 3, and 4; and perhaps a B for 5 and 6, C+ for effort for argument 1.
Anyway. The economic arguments FOR open borders are so overwhelmingly strong, it would be hard to overstate them. Riley does not come close to this, in fact he does not really make the results sound as vivid as they really are--probably because he is a journalist and not an economist. And I could think of a lot of other examples and studies he could have used, both for his economics arguments and especially his assimilation arguments. But still, a badly-needed book. Unfortunately, the copy I read is the ONLY copy in the ILL system in the state of Iowa, and many in my state desperately need to hear these arguments; the knee-jerk anti-immigration strain runs deep here.
June 8, 2010
First of all I should note that the author is a Wall Street Journal reporter and editorialist.
Riley starts out talking about how many weird alliances have formed amongst the anti-immigrant crowd, but it seems to me after starting this book that there's equally weird alliances on the other side. I myself am pro-immigration on a humanitarian basis. Riley's position comes from an economic basis, as one would expect from the WSJ. Everything is seen through the lens of benefit or harm to the free-market economy, with a "free market" assumed as a given to be an innate good.
The first chapter is about population and the environment, and he spends a lot of time mentioning statistics that seem to show that environmentally, the world has been getting better in the last 40 years or so, especially the U.S., even as its population has been shooting up. However, his main source of statistics is a study by the Pacific Research Institute, which is in bed and funded by people like oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc, and their director writes and speaks prolifically about how bad single-payer healthcare is and would be.
Later chapters discuss other common arguments around immigration, including national security, labor, "non-assimilation", politics, etc. Like in the above-mentioned first chapter, if you're a progressive humanitarian like myself, you'll find lots of things to question or even disagree with outright regarding the back-handed complaints he makes about liberals and the motivations for the author's entire project. Nevertheless, the book is chock-full of great statistics and cited studies as well as a historical perspective, all of which will be very useful ammunition in discussions with nativists and xenophobes and other ignorant types that you might happen across.
Riley starts out talking about how many weird alliances have formed amongst the anti-immigrant crowd, but it seems to me after starting this book that there's equally weird alliances on the other side. I myself am pro-immigration on a humanitarian basis. Riley's position comes from an economic basis, as one would expect from the WSJ. Everything is seen through the lens of benefit or harm to the free-market economy, with a "free market" assumed as a given to be an innate good.
The first chapter is about population and the environment, and he spends a lot of time mentioning statistics that seem to show that environmentally, the world has been getting better in the last 40 years or so, especially the U.S., even as its population has been shooting up. However, his main source of statistics is a study by the Pacific Research Institute, which is in bed and funded by people like oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc, and their director writes and speaks prolifically about how bad single-payer healthcare is and would be.
Later chapters discuss other common arguments around immigration, including national security, labor, "non-assimilation", politics, etc. Like in the above-mentioned first chapter, if you're a progressive humanitarian like myself, you'll find lots of things to question or even disagree with outright regarding the back-handed complaints he makes about liberals and the motivations for the author's entire project. Nevertheless, the book is chock-full of great statistics and cited studies as well as a historical perspective, all of which will be very useful ammunition in discussions with nativists and xenophobes and other ignorant types that you might happen across.
February 19, 2013
Looking at other reviews, I was happy to see recent one's by Erin F. B. and Drick Boyd that pretty much summarize my thoughts on this book. But to expand on their comments, one of the most difficult things to stomach while reading this, was Riley's casual acceptance of conservative ideology, particularly, since at least on my copy, no where on the cover or in the book's description or blurbs does it mention this conservative stance (although it becomes quickly apparent in the first chapter).
Here's an example taken from chapter 2. It regards US dependence on foreign professionals such as college graduates majoring in technical professions such as engineering and computer science:
"It's a tragedy that America's public school system is geared more toward appeasing teacher's unions than educating kids. And until that changes, the trends will be difficult to reverse."
And that's it, that's his complete summary of what's wrong with our education system and just like that, he moves on, as if this simple statement is an accepted given.
All things considered, pushing through the rest of the book, though painful, did yield some worthwhile information and if it hadn't been for the first chapter, I may have ranked this at 2 stars instead. Even so, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. You'd be better off cutting out the middle man and going online to look up specific stances and arguments from different political perspectives.
Here's an example taken from chapter 2. It regards US dependence on foreign professionals such as college graduates majoring in technical professions such as engineering and computer science:
"It's a tragedy that America's public school system is geared more toward appeasing teacher's unions than educating kids. And until that changes, the trends will be difficult to reverse."
And that's it, that's his complete summary of what's wrong with our education system and just like that, he moves on, as if this simple statement is an accepted given.
All things considered, pushing through the rest of the book, though painful, did yield some worthwhile information and if it hadn't been for the first chapter, I may have ranked this at 2 stars instead. Even so, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone. You'd be better off cutting out the middle man and going online to look up specific stances and arguments from different political perspectives.
July 31, 2008
This is well written and thought provoking. Although it deals primarily with Latin American immigrants, it does not address the drug cartels. I plan to read the opposing viewpoint of Brian Krevorkian.
The author states (loosely quoted):
Each immigrant creates the need for 3 jobs as he uses goods and services.
Illegal immigrants pay taxes and into SS which funds SS for current retirees.
Illegal immigrants avoid using our welfare programs.
The obvious: immigrants do the jobs that "Americans don't want".
Immigrants from Latin America are usually less educated and more willing to work. The U.S. population is increasingly better educated and most have a high school diploma and are increasingly less willing to do jobs considered menial.
Using immigrants increases our workforce efficiency and allows others to work at their own skill level.
94% of illegal immigrants are participants in the U.S.work force.
The author states (loosely quoted):
Each immigrant creates the need for 3 jobs as he uses goods and services.
Illegal immigrants pay taxes and into SS which funds SS for current retirees.
Illegal immigrants avoid using our welfare programs.
The obvious: immigrants do the jobs that "Americans don't want".
Immigrants from Latin America are usually less educated and more willing to work. The U.S. population is increasingly better educated and most have a high school diploma and are increasingly less willing to do jobs considered menial.
Using immigrants increases our workforce efficiency and allows others to work at their own skill level.
94% of illegal immigrants are participants in the U.S.work force.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2008
Although he makes some interesting points, the author has a decidedly heated and opinionated tone which, combined with lots of statistics which weren't properly referenced (he had a short bibliography at the end, but no endnotes or footnotes), kept me from being totally convinced. Which is funny, considering I am definitely not of the opinion that illegal immigrants are evil. Still, it was interesting to hear the "free-market" point of view. Too bad he couldn't do better with his statistic citation. I like to be able to verify someone's statistical claims.
Read
August 6, 2010totally an interesting read that i'm not quite sure how i feel about. riley is a free market conservative basically arguing that immigrants (and by immigrants he means mainly poor brown people from latin america) fuel our free market economy and thus our border policy should reflect that. riley loves reagan a lot and quotes him often as an example of someone to look up to for his views on immigration. hmmm.
December 21, 2013
The author presents several well-reasoned arguments as to why immigration is good for us, and several more as to why the opposition to immigration is mostly specious. He misses the boat a few times when he tries to attack the liberal bias against immigration--it's there, but it's much more powerful in the labor realm than in the environmental world. And that's also a harder argument to make.
February 4, 2017
Mostly devoted to trenchantly and lucidly debunking the case against the "threat" of illegal immigration.
Being myself rather absolutist on "This is AMERICA! We don't keep people out!", it appeals to me greatly. But towards the end he tends to fall into namecalling ("kooks", etc) Really, Mr. Riley, I thought we left that to THEM
Being myself rather absolutist on "This is AMERICA! We don't keep people out!", it appeals to me greatly. But towards the end he tends to fall into namecalling ("kooks", etc) Really, Mr. Riley, I thought we left that to THEM
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews