My devil's advocate argument would be that there is more to the public's skepticism than just data. It's tribal, cultural, and emotional. Although it's true that minds are resistant to change, it would be inaccurate to ignore the depth of this resistance by dismissing it as ignorance. Even with an impenetrable model, people would continue to advocate for "America First."
Furthermore, even though "build a wall around the welfare state" makes sense in theory, too many voters adore their benefits and don't care who foots the bill, making it an unpopular political strategy in reality. Voters are unlikely to support a policy that singles out immigrants for exclusion if they don't give a damn about who pays for it. Even though the logic is sound, it could worsen the situation by inciting a backlash (imagine charges of "unfairness" or "discrimination"). Politicians are aware of this and would prefer to accommodate it rather than propose a solution that might annoy voters.
Bryan lives in a bubble where all the immigrants he meets are nice and friendly. His kids were home schooled and even if they did go to the local school they’d be surrounded by nice, wealthy immigrants with perhaps a few handpicked poor families in attendance. His view on this would be radically different if he spent a few years living in (say) NYC next to one of those immigrant hotels that were opened up when the border was flooded. I’ve lived next to one - happy to share the address if one wants to run an experiment.
I don’t blame him, living in a bubble means your viewpoint is inherently biased. Mine would be biased too if I was a successful professor! But I do wish Bryan took the time to move out of the bubble into the real world. I’ve never lived in DC but I’m sure one could find a suitable immigrant-rich neighborhood there.
Fair point. Where you live shapes what you see, and Bryan’s lens might be polished by a cushy and selective bubble.
However, Bryan's argument, which is supported by statistics like DiMartino's, is more about immigrants' rights and economic role than it is about whether or not they are generally delightful. His argument still stands even if you live next to the noisiest hotel: low-skilled immigrants are at a net positive fiscal impact if benefits are reduced. He confronts the "net burden" fear head-on and isn't obliging to criticism, even though his solution - a "wall around the welfare state" - might seem like an ivory tower to someone trying to avoid chaos on the streets.
You’re right, though - stepping out of the bubble could sharpen his take. DC’s got plenty of immigrant-heavy spots, where he could see the unfiltered mix of hard work and hard edges. I’d wager he’d still argue for open borders, but he might tweak the rhetoric.
It’s a bit of a false dichotomy. You can have all the immigrants in the world without any of the downsides of immigration. How? Just ask Dubai!
- Anyone can come and do work, with an ~easy work visa process.
- They can stay as long as they have a work contract, but must leave as soon as their services are no longer required
- Most workers cannot bring in their families, nor do they have any pathway towards permanent residency. Currently you need to earn at least $1000 to be allowed to bring in your spouse/kids, which is bar at most 20% of the residents can meet, so only ~10% of the immigrants sponsor a family visa.
- While the best-paid workers can bring in their families and can stay in the UAE without working, almost none of them are eligible for UAE citizenship, and even those with a 'Permanent' status are not eligible to use any social services such as education or healthcare free of charge.
Boom, best of both worlds! A gigantic foreign workforce that has no roots whatsoever and promptly departs the country once their contract has expired. No need to pay for their schooling, their healthcare, their Social Security - that’s a headache for their home country to deal with. I would make an exception for the top-10% of foreign workers conditional on them and their spouse passing an advanced English language test, but otherwise... no need to be generous, people will still happily come and dedicate the best years of their lives to your country in exchange for a large (by their standards) salary.
What's your plan for launching the military coup necessary to turn America into a dictorial petro state? Which is the only possible way we are getting UAE outcomes.
What are the potential downsides of converting America into a narrow dictatorship?
Is the context of the UAE and the context of America analogous? What are some of the differences between the two societies?
This too is a false dichotomy! You don’t need to be a dictatorship to support a Dubai like immigration policy! We should definitely ensure that any workers who want to go home are able to do so, including a program paying for people’s airplane tickets in case they’re left stranded or need to escape their employer. But there’s no law of nature saying you must grant Permanent Residency to immigrants!
There are, however, laws of nature that say if a regime restricts immigration, it is is harming its subjects, prospective immigrants, and, at least eventually, itself.
"Even low-skilled workers contribute something to society besides taxes."
Yeah, they take up space, dilute the existing capital stock per capita, vote differently (worse) then natives, and degrade social trust and pro-social action.
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[34] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[35] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[36]
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[37] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[38]
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[39][40]
I think 2025 SCOTUS would uphold it. Also, the challenge wasn't to the constitutionality of restricting benefits, but to doing it at a the state level.
My take on the article is that Caplan has defined merit as "capable of living in the US without state assistance" while "working for willing employers, renting from willing landlords, and shopping from willing merchants". By this standard even many "unskilled" workers would have merit.
My devil's advocate argument would be that there is more to the public's skepticism than just data. It's tribal, cultural, and emotional. Although it's true that minds are resistant to change, it would be inaccurate to ignore the depth of this resistance by dismissing it as ignorance. Even with an impenetrable model, people would continue to advocate for "America First."
Furthermore, even though "build a wall around the welfare state" makes sense in theory, too many voters adore their benefits and don't care who foots the bill, making it an unpopular political strategy in reality. Voters are unlikely to support a policy that singles out immigrants for exclusion if they don't give a damn about who pays for it. Even though the logic is sound, it could worsen the situation by inciting a backlash (imagine charges of "unfairness" or "discrimination"). Politicians are aware of this and would prefer to accommodate it rather than propose a solution that might annoy voters.
Bryan lives in a bubble where all the immigrants he meets are nice and friendly. His kids were home schooled and even if they did go to the local school they’d be surrounded by nice, wealthy immigrants with perhaps a few handpicked poor families in attendance. His view on this would be radically different if he spent a few years living in (say) NYC next to one of those immigrant hotels that were opened up when the border was flooded. I’ve lived next to one - happy to share the address if one wants to run an experiment.
I don’t blame him, living in a bubble means your viewpoint is inherently biased. Mine would be biased too if I was a successful professor! But I do wish Bryan took the time to move out of the bubble into the real world. I’ve never lived in DC but I’m sure one could find a suitable immigrant-rich neighborhood there.
Fair point. Where you live shapes what you see, and Bryan’s lens might be polished by a cushy and selective bubble.
However, Bryan's argument, which is supported by statistics like DiMartino's, is more about immigrants' rights and economic role than it is about whether or not they are generally delightful. His argument still stands even if you live next to the noisiest hotel: low-skilled immigrants are at a net positive fiscal impact if benefits are reduced. He confronts the "net burden" fear head-on and isn't obliging to criticism, even though his solution - a "wall around the welfare state" - might seem like an ivory tower to someone trying to avoid chaos on the streets.
You’re right, though - stepping out of the bubble could sharpen his take. DC’s got plenty of immigrant-heavy spots, where he could see the unfiltered mix of hard work and hard edges. I’d wager he’d still argue for open borders, but he might tweak the rhetoric.
It’s a bit of a false dichotomy. You can have all the immigrants in the world without any of the downsides of immigration. How? Just ask Dubai!
- Anyone can come and do work, with an ~easy work visa process.
- They can stay as long as they have a work contract, but must leave as soon as their services are no longer required
- Most workers cannot bring in their families, nor do they have any pathway towards permanent residency. Currently you need to earn at least $1000 to be allowed to bring in your spouse/kids, which is bar at most 20% of the residents can meet, so only ~10% of the immigrants sponsor a family visa.
- While the best-paid workers can bring in their families and can stay in the UAE without working, almost none of them are eligible for UAE citizenship, and even those with a 'Permanent' status are not eligible to use any social services such as education or healthcare free of charge.
Boom, best of both worlds! A gigantic foreign workforce that has no roots whatsoever and promptly departs the country once their contract has expired. No need to pay for their schooling, their healthcare, their Social Security - that’s a headache for their home country to deal with. I would make an exception for the top-10% of foreign workers conditional on them and their spouse passing an advanced English language test, but otherwise... no need to be generous, people will still happily come and dedicate the best years of their lives to your country in exchange for a large (by their standards) salary.
What's your plan for launching the military coup necessary to turn America into a dictorial petro state? Which is the only possible way we are getting UAE outcomes.
What are the potential downsides of converting America into a narrow dictatorship?
Is the context of the UAE and the context of America analogous? What are some of the differences between the two societies?
This too is a false dichotomy! You don’t need to be a dictatorship to support a Dubai like immigration policy! We should definitely ensure that any workers who want to go home are able to do so, including a program paying for people’s airplane tickets in case they’re left stranded or need to escape their employer. But there’s no law of nature saying you must grant Permanent Residency to immigrants!
Which large democracies do you know of that have run a UAE style immigration system?
If its a false dichotomy, surely you can point to some sizable empirical examples.
Courtesy of Claude 3.6, ranking countries by following criteria:
1. De facto temporary status with minimal/no path to long-term residency (whether legal or tolerated)
2. High financial barriers to family reunification
3. Wage discrimination legalized/tolerated
4. Limited labor rights compared to citizens
5. Restricted access to healthcare and social services
6. Easy for employers to bring in large numbers of temporary workers
7. Restricted political expression for migrants
8. Highly efficient deportation mechanisms
9. Limited access to public education for workers' children
SOUTH KOREA
- ✓ Temporary status: EPS workers limited to maximum 4+4.5 years then must leave for 3+ months
- ✓ Family reunification barriers: EPS workers cannot bring family regardless of income
- ½ Wage discrimination: Equal pay laws exist but enforcement gaps create nationality-based disparities
- ½ Limited labor rights: Restricted ability to change employers; practical barriers to unionization
- ½ Restricted healthcare access: National insurance required but barriers in usage and coverage
- ½ Employer-friendly recruitment: Quota system exists but with bureaucratic requirements
- ½ Political restrictions: Labor activism can affect visa status; limited tolerance for organizing
- ✓ Efficient deportation: Regular immigration crackdowns with streamlined deportation procedures
JAPAN
- ✓ Temporary status: Technical interns limited to maximum 5 years with mandatory departure
- ½ Family reunification barriers: Technical interns and many visa categories cannot bring family
- ½ Wage discrimination: Legal equality but systematic underpayment of foreign workers
- ½ Limited labor rights: Technical interns face practical barriers to exercising rights
- ½ Restricted healthcare access: Insurance required but usage barriers and exclusions exist
- ½ Political restrictions: Political activity can affect visa renewal; limited tolerance for activism
- ✓ Efficient deportation: Strict visa enforcement with limited tolerance for overstays
Small democracies that meet the criteria: Singapore, Israel, Taiwan.
-----
Bryan is a big fan of the UAE btw, though he doesn't quite explain why we can't copy their FULL approach and not just the 'bring tons of people' part: https://www.betonit.ai/p/reflections-on-abu-dhabi-and-dubai
There are, however, laws of nature that say if a regime restricts immigration, it is is harming its subjects, prospective immigrants, and, at least eventually, itself.
"Even low-skilled workers contribute something to society besides taxes."
Yeah, they take up space, dilute the existing capital stock per capita, vote differently (worse) then natives, and degrade social trust and pro-social action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187
You can't restrict welfare to immigrants. All keyhole solutions are bullshit.
https://www.cato.org/blog/proposition-187-turned-california-blue
BTW, your pro-immigrant propagandist Alex Nowrasteh is simultaneously arguing that Proposition 187 is political suicide. You can't have it both ways.
Seems to me you are just saying opposite things based on whatever audience your speaking to.
Why can't you restrict benefits?
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[34] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[35] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[36]
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[37] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[38]
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[39][40]
I think 2025 SCOTUS would uphold it. Also, the challenge wasn't to the constitutionality of restricting benefits, but to doing it at a the state level.
Wow! I just read the comments to your post and I could imagine Americans in the Jim Crow South saying and thinking such things.
No wonder democracy is so irrational.
Merit is a great idea. So define merit?
My take on the article is that Caplan has defined merit as "capable of living in the US without state assistance" while "working for willing employers, renting from willing landlords, and shopping from willing merchants". By this standard even many "unskilled" workers would have merit.