Testing the religion of immigration

We were told by the Biden-Harris administration and their media allies that reducing undocumented immigration would require PhDs in Migration Science, $118 billion in new laws and funding from Congress, and decades of hard work by properly credentialed people. We also needed a pathway to citizenship for the tens of millions of migrants already here (about 22 million in pre-Biden times). My 2019 idea, Why aren’t we paying the Mexicans to patrol our border?, was plainly unworkable. Yesterday, a little more than a month after the start of the second Trump dictatorship, the New York Times:

On the eve of President Trump’s deadline to impose tariffs on Mexico, one thing is hard to miss on the Mexican side of the border: The migrants are gone. … “All that is over,” said the Rev. William Morton, a missionary at a Ciudad Juárez cathedral that serves migrants free meals. “Nobody can cross.” … “We are going to wait to see if God touches Mr. Trump’s heart,” said a 26-year-old woman from Venezuela, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Maria Elena, as she sat eating with her 7-year-old son at the cathedral in Ciudad Juárez. … In response to Mr. Trump’s demands last month, Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, dispatched 10,000 national guardsmen to the border

(I would love to see a heart-touching meeting between God and Trump! Maybe God would be angrier than Zelenskyy?)

The threat of tariffs rather than my proposed cash payments is a twist from what I proposed and, I think, unfair our Mexican brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters (they’re not the ones who created the world’s second largest welfare state, as a percentage of GDP (maybe we’re #1 now, since the French have run out of money due to their own passion for hosting economy-boosting migrants)). But it seems to be working better than anything that the U.S. has done internally over the past 100 years.

Even if Trump has been successful in eliminating undocumented immigration, we are still on track to receive at least 10 million legal immigrants, many of them low-skill, over the next decade. Let’s step back from today’s news and look at the assumptions behind our policy.

Americans who advocate for and oppose open borders and low-skill immigration both agree on two things:

1. without immigration, demographics will make it difficult to keep our Ponzi schemes, such as Medicare and Social Security, going as the ration of taxpaying workers to beneficiaries shrinks (due to population aging)
2. with immigration, the Ponzi schemes can be continued for many additional decades, if not forever

Nobody seems to question the two points above. The righteous point out that immigrants make us safer because they don’t commit crimes (see 2024 state-sponsored NPR story below) and they will boost the economy because they’re smarter and more energetic than native-born Americans (see Albert Einstein as a typical example of someone who walks across the southern border). Haters, as seen in Fox News, say that they don’t want to live with people from all of the world’s most violent, dysfunctional, and impoverished societies. But even Fox News doesn’t question the Sacred Two elements of dogma above.

What if both the righteous and the haters are working from incorrect assumptions? That’s the question asked and answered in “Immigration does not solve population decline” (Aporia):

most of the problems of population decline, like pensions bankrupting the state or less innovation and entrepreneurship, are actually problems of population aging. … immigrants age too. This means that while immigration can definitely reverse population decline, it can’t do much for population aging. Assuming immigrant age-structure and fertility remain constant, the difference in the working-age share of the population in 2060 between zero net migration and 2019 levels of migration in the United States is… 2% (57% vs 59%).

The picture for the European Union is similar. The difference in the old-age dependency ratio in 2016 between zero non-EU migration and the existing levels is tiny: 118:100 vs 114:100. By comparison, the 2015 level is 76:100. The total effect of all non-EU immigration on aging means that instead of this ratio increasing by 55% over 45 years, it will increase by “only” 50%.

In other words, if we accepted the full slate of New York Times assumptions about migrants, a best-case scenario, and we maintained the open borders of the Biden-Harris administration, we still would be on track to spend ourselves into either insolvency or hyperinflation. What are the assumptions of the Righteous?

• migrants, despite not being able to speak English or having education beyond 7th grade, will earn about the same as native-born Americans
• migrants never commit crime
• migrants don’t reduce our quality of life by bringing an alien culture, e.g., one where female circumcision and honor killing are accepted and one where females running around with hair or bare skin showing is unacceptable
• population growth via immigration does not reduce our quality of life by burdening infrastructure and creating congestion, e.g., massive traffic jams in every city other than Detroit, Baltimore, Buffalo, and the other write-off cities
• immigrants and children of immigrants won’t clog up public housing and exacerbate homelessness (remember that public housing is a human right and also that a person might get put on a 10-year waiting list in order to receive this right; it’s the inequality factory for people who say that they hate inequality)

How did we get to a place where half of the country felt that it was time to open the borders?

Democracies naturally tend towards vote-buying, and paying off current voters with the earnings of future generations who cannot vote is a winning strategy. This creates a Ponzi scheme in which huge fractions of state budgets are redistributed from current workers to retirees in ways that require an ever-growing number of workers to be sustainable. Productivity gains don’t usually help, because the expected living standards of retirees, often enforced by law, rise with productivity.

What does this look like from the perspective of a peasant with a job? The author gives us a figure captioned “Change in real purchasing power by age group in Spain since 2008. Every group under 65 has gotten poorer; only pensioners’ living standards are improving”:

One blind spot in the article: no discussion of natural resources and the fact that a larger population means dividing the value of those resources by a larger number and, therefore, each individual has less natural resource wealth.

Bigger blind spot in the editing: much of the content in the article isn’t related to the central point of dependency ratio and, instead, talks about negative non-demographic effects of low-skill immigration (i.e., effects that immigration advocates deny). I think it would be more interesting and persuasive to have an article solely focused on the dependency ratio and demographics issues while accepting the assumptions of those who advocate for open borders. People who are pro-immigration will never be persuaded by facts and figures about how much low-skill migrants cost in welfare benefits. People who are anti-immigration don’t need these facts and figures because they never expected a Tren de Aragua member to pay a lot in federal personal income tax.

More: Read “Immigration does not solve population decline”.

Related:

• “Immigration and the Aging Society” (CIS, 2021), which seems to be the author’s principal source for the interaction between immigration and population age structure: “In 2000, the average age of all immigrants — not just new arrivals — was 39.2 years. By 2019, it was 46 — a seven-year increase. Over the same period, the average age of native-born Americans increased only slightly, from 35.4 years to 38 years. … the relatively high and increasing average age of all immigrants is a good reminder that they grow old like everyone else, even if they do arrive when relatively young. … nder the Census Bureau’s current projections, there will be 2.5 working-age people per retiree in 2060. If the projected immigration rate were cut in half, there would be 2.3 workers per retiree. … to roughly maintain the working-age share of the population, immigration rates would have to increase five-fold over what the bureau currently foresees. This would create a total population of 706 million in 2060 … the average age of new immigrants, including illegal immigrants, is still much higher than it was in the past — increasing from 26 in 2000 to 31 in 2019. Perhaps even more surprising, the share of newly arrived immigrants who are 55 and older more than doubled, from 5 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2019. This means that one in nine new immigrants is arriving old enough to move directly into a retirement community. … U.S. citizens can sponsor their parents for permanent residence without numerical limits. Parents typically immigrate to the United States after age 50, meaning they tend to be at or near retirement age as soon as they arrive. … Immigrants are human beings, not just the idealized workers or child-bearers that some commentators imagine.”