Matt Yglesias has a post on the politics of immigration that is well worth a look:

I like to make the broad case for higher levels of immigration at all skill levels rather than the narrow case for skills. The basic issue with immigration is that it’s all about complementarities. When new immigrants arrive who are very similar to you personally the tendency is for your real wages to fall, but the real wages of everyone else (including the immigrant) to rise. And the important fact about this is that the gains are much larger than the losses. Because it’s a positive sum interaction, in principle you could compensate the losers with redistribution. But in the particular case of immigration, there’s no need to do that because very few people are very similar to you personally. The important thing is just to not restrict immigration to one particular kind of person. Only allowing computer programmers in is bad for computer programmers and only allowing plumbers in is bad for plumbers. But a broad-based expansion of legal immigration is good for everybody as long as the immigrants are genuinely here to get jobs. You wouldn’t want to throw our doors open to criminals or let every foreign 83 year-old start getting Medicare coverage, but more foreign workers in general is good for American workers in general while if you scrutinize any particular potential migrant you’re going to find plenty of people with a rational basis for wanting to keep him out.

This is a strong argument, in my view, yet I persist in favoring a skill-biased immigration system. The premise is that high-skilled immigrants are particularly attractive because, among other things, (a) they strengthen existing domestic talent agglomerations, (b) they are relatively unlikely to represent a net fiscal burden, (c) they are somewhat more likely to assimilate to the cultural norms that prevail among the self-reliant and upwardly mobile, and (d) they complement less-skilled and mid-skilled domestic workers in in-person services. The case for HSI is closely related to the case for increasing the density and connectivity of high-productivity regions: creating thick economic interrelationships between high-skilled and less-skilled workers can greatly contribute to collective wealth and well-being.

So why not also find complements for high-skilled domestic workers by sharply increasing the intake of less-skilled foreign workers? The main arguments against flow from (b) and (c), i.e., less-skilled foreign workers are somewhat more likely to represent a net fiscal burden and they might have a somewhat more difficult time assimilating to the cultural norms that prevail among the self-reliant and upwardly mobile, but the case on both counts is not extremely strong. A closely related reason is that an less-skilled workers potentially contributes to wage and wealth dispersion, as low-cost labor in in-person services increases the earning capacity of high-skilled workers while restraining wage growth for similarly-skilled domestic workers. The trouble with this latter argument, i.e., the argument from restraining wage growth, is, as immigration advocates often correctly observe, is that less-skilled foreign workers and less-skilled domestic workers tend to have quite different skill sets, e.g., different levels of English-language proficiency, highly specialized skills rooted in the culture of the source country, etc. I still think that an outcome in which a significant rise in HSI leads to tighter labor markets and higher wages for less-skilled and mid-skilled domestic service workers can reasonably be preferred to one in which a significant rise in HSI is balanced by a significant rise in LSI, and the society as a whole is wealthier but (i) wage and wealth dispersion increase considerably, thus prompting a politco-economic backlash and (ii) the assimilation process is somewhat slower, and cultural isolation cuts against upward mobility for a significant share of the population.

But I should stress that this is definitely not a no-brainer.

Reihan Salam — Reihan Salam is executive editor of National Review and a National Review Institute policy fellow.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More