Immigration in American Economic History (2017) [pdf]

When looking beyond solely economic effects, studies paint immigration/diversity less favorably - that it reduces trust and social cohesion [0,1], and makes ethnic conflict more likely [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and...

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/juaf.12015

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Page 1315 (actually page 5 in the PDF) has a graph which illustrates an interesting fact that many people don't seem to be aware of. The percentage of foreign-born people living in the United States is the highest it's been in nearly a century. There are some interesting correlated facts (such as % of people living in the US that aren't citizens being similarly record-breaking).

It seems crazy to me that this fact isn't part of the table stakes for any debate about US immigration. This isn't a liberal or conservative argument, it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that there's no precedent in living memory for the current number of foreign born, non-citizens living in America.

It's possible to stake out many positions based on these facts. Depending on your persuasion you could argue that the road to citizenship needs to be easier because we're creating a disenfranchised underclass; or you could argue that America is under assault from foreign influences; or you could argue something else. But it seems like this hugely relevant fact doesn't even get discussed in most public or policymaking discourse.

From the paper: new arrivals created winners and losers in the native population and among existing immigrant workers, reducing the wages of low-skilled natives to some degree

What the MSM buries, immigration is a mixed bag, immigrants are not a magical people that always benefit citizens in the US. Of course on the negative side, Americans in the most vulnerable position take the hit.

One can be pro immigration but acknowledge this, and advocate for policies that encourage high skilled immigration.

These things can never be understood purle statistically but have to be understood in a complex mix of evolutionary, social, psychological and geographical, economical, context before we can even start to talk about benefits and problems with immigration.

I believe a different question needs to be asked which is. What conditions need to be in place before immigration becomes a net positive or a net negative.

It's always struck me as an important difference that the US is so attractive to people even though they don't get anything compared to Europe.

I remember when I grew up in Denmark and we had discussions about why immigrant/refugees got free bikes and free metrocards to take public transportation.

This turned into a kind of resentment where every time you saw an immigrant doing well you would often hear "well of course since they get everything from the government" The sentiment is that it's less deserved.

There is something about access to better opportunity which transcends the actual state of that opportunity as long as it feels deserved which I believe is what actually helps a country get more out of its immigration even though if it's system isn't as generous as ex. the Scandinavian or German immigration systems.

The US system could be much better but the opportunities here are still second to none IMO (I moved from Denmark because of better opportunity for what I want to do with my life)

Immigration is at times great for a country at other times can be a problem depending on the state of the situation the country finds itself in.

Looking at it statistically just isn't the right way to do things. It will always be a mix and doesn't really make sense to talk about net benefits in any truly meaningful way IMO. Only context matters.

It says my ip address was infiltrated and is being used as a proxy, any clue what this means?