29 July 2018 — 1518 mdt
Two graphs, and two books, on immigration
Growing up in the fifties and early sixties, I didn’t realize I was living in an era of low immigration rates. I was taught that the Americanization of immigrants through their generations was akin to a melting pot. Intuitively, I understood that immigration is neither an unalloyed blessing nor an unmitigable curse; that a nation can absorb only so many immigrants without undergoing unacceptable change. But I didn’t give much thought to how and where limits should be set.
Now, thanks to President Trump’s cynical nativist attacks on immigrants, and his administration’s callous policies toward immigrants, including but certainly not limited to, separating the children of asylum seeking Latin Americans from their parents as the families cross the border, I’m spending part of my summer improving my understanding of the issue.
Two graphs
There’s a lot of information available from on the internet. One useful source is the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, published by the Department of Homeland Security, from which I drew the data for the two graphs below.
The first graph displays the actual number of persons annually obtaining permanent legal resident status. The second graph displays the same data as a percentage of the population. I’ve annotated both graphs with the countries of origin of the greatest number of immigrants for the various peaks. The graphs do not include the number of foreigners who are “undocumented,” the politically correct euphemism for aliens who are not here legally (some of the undocumented have overstayed their visas, others entered the country without authorization). That number is harder to calculate; see George Borjas’ book for additional details.
Annual legal resident status granted as a percentage of population is a much more useful statistic than the raw number of persons granted that status. The 1820–1925 immigration rate was considerably higher than it is today. That suggests immigration is less a problem than some now argue.
There are other sources of raw and interpreted data, among them the Pew Research Center.
Recommended reading
My summer reading list includes two books on immigration:
We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative. George J. Borjas, 2016. Born in Cuba, Borjas is an economist at Harvard, and a man who believes that some sociologists are advocates for immigration rather than dispassionate analysts for it. He explains how the number of immigrants here illegally is measured, and identifies situations in which some immigrants compete with, and in some cases displace, Americans seeking jobs.
Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy. Sasha Polakov-Suransky, 2017. If you’re trying to understand why right wing, anti-immigration political parties are on the rise in Europe, this is the book to read. In the sub-chapter “Xenophobia Beyond Black and White,” he writes:
Five thousand miles from France, and without a hint of hatred toward Muslims, Louw’s logic echoes the European backlash after the Brussels bombings of March 2016 and the frightening vision of Charlie Hebdo’s very large iceberg, where even the innocent are guilty when any one of their kind commits an offense.
South Africa is far from Europe and the Middle East, and fear of Islam is not the animating force behind the populist backlash there, but the pattern of resentful native-born citizens mobilizing against foreigners and politicians responding to their rage is very similar to what is happening in Europe. South Africa’s experience should serve as a warning that the virus of xenophobic violence lurks beneath the surface in all liberal democracies. Jealousy, resentment of competition, and a refusal to share the fruits of a liberal state with outsiders is a scourge that can emerge in any society, even when religious difference or fear of terrorism are not the catalysts.