If you look carefully at the current immigration debate in the US, it pits immigrants, business interests and a thin layer of middle class do gooders on one side against nationalists and working class people in general on the other side. What struck me about this arrangement is that it’s exactly the same structure you’ll find in dozens of other times and places. In modern Korea, the people who like “외국인 노동자” (foreign laborers) are generally business interests, immigrants themselves and a thin layer of justice people. The people who want to send the foreigners packing are, you guessed it, the poor and working class along with the nationalists. From my reading of “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” the French and even the Nazis seem to have had the same viewpoint with their foreign and native Jews. The Yellow Scare in the late 19th century – surprise surprise! – broke down mostly along the lines of big businesses supporting the Chinese against the anti-immigrant passions of California labor unions. Even the Roman Republic, during the debates on whether or not to grant citizenship to the Italian Allies, faced a similar split.
Why is this so? I think there are two main reasons or, to be more precise, two main inequalities. The first is an inequality between immigrants and natives. To put it bluntly, immigrants are on average smarter, more entrepreneurial, more upwardly mobile, less prone to crime than natives of similar income and their kids are better, too. They are generally really good at integrating and this doesn’t change when we focus on immigrants from “shit hole countries.”
This makes sense even if we dispose of the data and work completely by logical deduction. The requirements for being a poor native are only two: don’t succeed and don’t be dead yet. The requirements for being an immigrant are much more extensive. The immigrant must be brave enough to leave behind their family and friends, adaptive enough to survive in an alien culture, smart enough to either learn the new language or inventive enough to survive without being able to speak, physically strong enough to survive the journey and tough enough to to endure the inevitable setbacks that come with stepping into the unknown. People who meet the criteria for being a poor native are obviously clearing a much, much lower bar than the immigrants are.
The second inequality is between the countries of origin and the destination countries. It seems pretty obvious that most folks would rather live in the US, England or South Korea than Mexico, Syria or the Philippines. If for some reason you doubt that, here are the quality of life rankings. So, in short, immigration is the process of very competitive people leaving worse cultures in order to compete with the least competitive people in the best cultures.
Looking at it this way, the consistent fault lines pro and anti immigration make more sense. The poor and working classes are obviously threatened by incoming groups of people who are, on average, smarter, more entrepreneurial, less criminal and more adaptive than they are. After all, on a level playing field, they’re going to get their butts kicked. We might look at these people as anti-competition.
A such, they team up with with nationalists. The nationalists, while they might also be part of the working class, would seem to have a different motivation. They, as their rhetoric clearly demonstrates, see the immigrants as carriers of bad culture. This makes some sense. After all, the United States certainly profits by NOT adhering to Mexican cultural norms and Japan would not be happier if it gave up its own traditions in favor of Cambodian values. From the nationalists’ point of view, then, the immigrant represents a sort of disease vector, a covert means to import Sharia Law and drug cartels. We might look upon these people as opposing the worst cultures.
The businessman’s motivation is obvious. The better the workers he can find, the more money he can earn. Or to invert this viewpoint, the more he is forced to use less competitive native workers, the less he can compete with other businesses. His entire world is built on a foundation of merit and he is unlikely to sympathize with the natives who, in essence, are asking to be protected from competition. The businessman is then oriented towards the meritocracy and confident in his ability to assimilate his immigrant workers into the more desirable culture.
The immigrant is the businessman’s ally because, as the smarter, more upwardly mobile, less criminal person, she is also likely a believer in the meritocracy. After all, in a meritocracy, smart, upwardly mobile and self-controlled people tend to win. However, the immigrant is a risk to bring the broken parts of her original country with her. As we can see in the Muslim areas of Western Europe or in the generations long pain in the neck French Canada has been to the English-speaking parts of Canada, unassimilated minorities are a legitimate threat to the stability and power of the more desirable cultures.
As for the do-gooders, I guess they provide ideological cover for everyone else’s self interested positions.
The next question, for me at least, is how we balance the priorities of these four groups. Do we care about the suffering of downwardly mobile natives looking to hang on or do we care about disadvantaged but highly competitive immigrants? Just saying that we “care about the downtrodden” does nothing here since helping the former almost invariable hurts the latter and vice versa. Do we value “our” people over “those people?” Do we value the continuation of more successful cultures over the contributions of immigrants (on average more competitive people) and their cultural baggage? Do we value competitive prowess in our work forces and our businesses more than we care about the downwardly mobile of our own societies?
Personally, I value merit much more than any sentimental attachment to the weaker members of my group and see assimilation as a positive good. In other words, I want to see lots of immigrants who more or less blend into the dominant culture. That said, as an immigrant myself, I’m probably biased. Whose interests do you think should come first?