The New Case Against Immigration

Executive Summary: For those who don't want to read the entire review, here is a summary of the book: The author uses every page in this book to depict the adverse effects of immigration. The author does not concede that immigration has any positive effect in any area whatsoever. The author takes every area from economics to crime to health care to social security and explains how immigration into the United States is a disaster.

And that's precisely why it won't be taken seriously by people outside the paranoid radical anti-immigration group. It's a biased book. It's not a book by someone who stepped back, gathered and reviewed all available information and tried to present a reasonable look at the effects of immigration. No. It's a book by someone with a pre-drawn conclusion who spins and selectively chooses facts and falsities to support said pre-drawn conclusion. The book serves no purpose but to be a rallying cry for people who already agree with the author.

Review: Anti-immigrant fanatics in recent years have tried to make the claim that the immigrants of today are different than the immigrants of yesteryear and therefore the same tired old arguments are now valid. Krikorian once argued that point but now admits that today's immigrants "are what they've always been." Krikorian's new thesis is that the same tired old arguments are valid now because America has changed.

21st CENTURY AMERICA IS DIFFERENT: Krikorian starts off by claiming that the conditions of modern society make assimilation difficult. Modern technology permits people to retain ties to their homeland (as if that's a bad thing). But more important is the fact that "elites" in modern societies (not just ours) devalue their own nation and culture and don't insist that immigrants be required to adopt our language, manners and customs.

This "downgrading of allegiance to the national community", according to Krikorian, leads to multiculturalism which he defines as tolerance of cultural diversity as well as "demand for legal recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, religious or cultural groups". He seems to think that recognizing the rights of minority groups is a bad thing.

Krikorian explains how in the good old days Quakers were banished by the Puritans as unfit for membership in the community. Italians, Jews and others, he goes on, were suspected of being unfit for the nation. He doesn't mention, he doesn't have to, how Native American children were taken from their homes to education camps, beaten for speaking their language and force-fed assimilation. The "elites" in our society frown on that type of behavior today.

DIVERSITY: Despite having claimed that today's immigrants are not systematically different than they were in the past, Krikorian goes on to explain how today's immigrants are systematically different than in the past. The volume of immigrants from a single ethnic group, he argues, lays the groundwork for the development of a parallel culture. Krikorian permits immigrants to retain their tastes in music, dance, art, literature, religion and cuisine "only". However, Krikorian demands that political, economic and social values of their homelands be "abandoned".

According to a study that Krikorian quotes, the effects of immigration driven diversity causes people to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbor, withdraw from friends, volunteer less, give less to charity, register to vote less and have less faith in their community leaders. Permitting diversity offers absolutely no benefit to America. Because of this, Krikorian believes that immigration should be sharply curtailed.

[The study that Kirkorian quotes made an observation; it did not determine the cause. One could argue that the reason people withdraw is a result of the hateful rhetoric spewed by people like Krikorian, not the fact that society is multicultural.]

THREATS TO SOVEREIGNTY: Krikorian's second problem with immigration is that it is a "serious challenge to America's sovereignty". The Mexican government is gradually acquiring more authority over the decision making of federal, state and local governments. As is customary in anti-immigration arguments, Krikorian talks about what "could" happen and not what is actually happening.

Continued immigration will lead to the government of California being prohibited from passing legislation that affects Hispanics without the Mexican consul's permission, Hispanic defendants receiving favorable treatment and foreigners being exempt from local laws. None of this is even close to being reality, but Krikorian says that it's inevitable unless mass immigration is stopped.
Krikorian makes a lame attempt to argue that immigration is restricting America's sovereignty right now. The most serious comes from lobbying American officials. Thanks to Mexico's lobbying efforts, the Mexican consular registration card is recognized by some American institutions as a form of identity. Mexico also lobbied for driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The Mexican government also produced a contact list for a demonstration that was posted on a website. According to Krikorian the Mexican government hired a lawyer in the Plyler vs. Doe case. Also bi-lingual consulate employees were trained by the U.S. Labor Department [sic] to connect workers with appropriate staff in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

[How any of this affects our sovereignty I'll ever understand. Krikorian has shown how the Mexican government voices its opinion on certain issues. None of what Krikorian produces provides any evidence that our national sovereignty is eroding.]

SAFETY: According to Krikorian, if mass immigration were halted, then it would be more difficult for terrorists and other enemies to live among us. He's not just talking about Islamic terrorists but enemies from other places like Colombia and China. He claims that "there can be little doubt" that North Korea "has a network of agents already in place among the Korean immigrant community in the United States."

[Krikorian, despite his paranoia, makes a valid point here. The more immigrants that come, the more likely one of them will harm someone. This is a valid argument for restricting immigration and securing borders.]

THE ECONOMY: Krikorian claims that immigration lowers the earnings and opportunities of the poorest Americans thereby making it a significant contributor to the problems of the "economically marginal".

Krikorian explains how a "sudden" infusion of immigrants over the past 20 years [I've never heard anyone refer to something that happened over the course of two decades as "sudden"] has reduced wages for high school drop outs by five percent.

Krikorian also claims that mass immigration increases income inequality. If more poor people come to the US, then there is a larger class of poor people. The existence of unskilled labor compliments the higher educated U.S. workforce causes the ranks of the upper middle class to increase. However, it comes as no surprise that Krikorian is short-sighted. Krikorian is unable to see past the U.S. border.

Krikorkian even cites a study that concluded that 10% of African American men that are in jail are there as a result of immigration. He actually believes that there are men in jail, not because of their own decisions, but because immigration drove them to a life of crime. Krikorian should be ashamed of himself.

[Studies have shown that merely graduating from high school can increase one's earnings potential by as much as 40%. The United States provides a K-12 education for every child at no cost to the student. Beyond that additional educational and training opportunities are available to help residents learn job skills. Krikorian's recommendation is to restrict immigration to benefit people who have squandered the myriad of opportunities provided to them. What needs to be done is to encourage high school drop outs to learn to get out of bed in the morning, get a GED and then take responsibility for themselves.]

[With respect to immigration increasing income inequality, the opposite is true. Immigration actually decreases income inequality. The immigrants that have come to the United States have experienced dramatic increases in income and standards of living. In addition their respective families in their home countries also experience increases in standards of living from the remittances that immigrants have sent back.]

INNOVATION: Krikorian also claims that mass immigration has slowed innovation in the United States. Japan, which has severe restrictions on immigration, has developed robots while America uses cheap labor. Japan got robots; we got Mexicans, he says.

[The Japanese econ¬omy grew at an annual rate of only 0.6 percent between 1992 and 2007. During that time, eight countries surpassed Japan's per capita income. Meanwhile the U.S. economy has experienced a period of unprecedented economic growth and increase in standards of living over the past two decades. Should we really endeavor to emulate the Japanese economy?]

WELFARE: Krikorian cites various estimates of how much immigrants cost federal, state and local governments from the cost to educate their children to food stamps and other benefits.
[Again Krikorian makes a valid point. While estimates vary widely, most estimates conclude that immigrants and their children pose some cost to taxpayers in the form of welfare.]

SOCIAL ENGINEERING: In chapter 6 Krikorian claims that mass immigration is permitted by the federal government. It is "social engineering, an attempt by the government to undo the childbearing decisions of modern Americans to reshape the people more to its liking." I told you this book was whacked.

Krikorian claims that because Americans have fewer children, therefore, they want a lower population. Krikorian believes that the government has made a conscious decision to allow more immigration because they want more people. I know. It's a ridiculous premise and doesn't even deserve a response.

In summary, Krikorian takes the shotgun approach throwing every argument against immigration that he can possibly think of whether it has any merit or not with the hopes that one of the arguments will convince a reader that immigration has adverse effects on the nation and must be stopped. The result is that he ends up looking like a paranoid radical anti-immigration fanatic.

The truth is that there are some very valid arguments against mass immigration. By presenting them alongside ridiculous claims like the government is engaged in social engineering by permitting immigration only serves to lessen the impact of the arguments.
Krikorian's answer to every problem is stop mass immigration. A more intelligent analysis would be to consider the costs and benefits of immigration and devise policies to accentuate the benefits meanwhile minimizing the costs.