immigrants are barely different from natives in their political views, and they adopt a lot of the cultural values of their destination country.
The US is famous for being culturally and politically polarized. What does it even mean for immigrants to be “barely different from natives” politically? Do they have the same (polarized) spread of positions? Do they all fit into one of the existing political camps without creating a new one? Do they all fit into the in-group camp for Caplan’s target audience?
And again:
[Caplan] finds that immigrants are a tiny bit more left-wing than the general population but that their kids and grandkids regress to the political mainstream.
If the US electorate is polarized left-right, does being a bit more left-wing mean a slightly higher percentage of immigrants than of natives are left-wing, but immigrants are still as polarized as the natives?
Finding the percentage of “immigrants” is misleading, since it’s immigrants from Mexico and Central America who are politically controversial, not generic “immigrants” averaged over all sources.
Statistics show that Latinos vote around 2⁄3 for the Democrats. That’s a pretty big imbalance. And it’s even more imbalanced than those statistics show because Cubans are likely to vote Republican, and the immigrants who are the center of current political controversy don’t include Cubans.
Finding the percentage of “immigrants” is misleading, since it’s immigrants from Mexico and Central America who are politically controversial, not generic “immigrants” averaged over all sources.
I’m no expert on American immigration issues, but I presume this is because most immigrants come in through the (huge) south land border, and are much harder for the government to control than those coming in by air or sea.
However, I expect immigrants from any other country outside the Americas would be just as politically controversial if large numbers of them started arriving, and an open borders policy with Europe or Asia or Africa would be just as unacceptable to most Americans.
Are Americans much more accepting of immigrants from outside Central and South America?
The question is whether immigrants have different political positions than natives.
Latinos (and especially non-Cuban Latinos) absolutely have different political positions than average natives, and immigration consisting largely of them would in fact have the effect that Caplan denies.
However, I expect immigrants from any other country outside the Americas would be just as politically controversial if large numbers of them started arriving
I expect that if lots of them (or their descendants) voted for Republicans, they wouldn’t be politically controversial, because the Democrats and the left are spearheading the push for more immigration, and they would abruptly stop doing so. (This would not be compensated by Republicans pushing for them, because Republicans have no power to make such a push.)
The US is famous for being culturally and politically polarized. What does it even mean for immigrants to be “barely different from natives” politically? Do they have the same (polarized) spread of positions? Do they all fit into one of the existing political camps without creating a new one? Do they all fit into the in-group camp for Caplan’s target audience?
And again:
If the US electorate is polarized left-right, does being a bit more left-wing mean a slightly higher percentage of immigrants than of natives are left-wing, but immigrants are still as polarized as the natives?
Finding the percentage of “immigrants” is misleading, since it’s immigrants from Mexico and Central America who are politically controversial, not generic “immigrants” averaged over all sources.
Statistics show that Latinos vote around 2⁄3 for the Democrats. That’s a pretty big imbalance. And it’s even more imbalanced than those statistics show because Cubans are likely to vote Republican, and the immigrants who are the center of current political controversy don’t include Cubans.
I’m no expert on American immigration issues, but I presume this is because most immigrants come in through the (huge) south land border, and are much harder for the government to control than those coming in by air or sea.
However, I expect immigrants from any other country outside the Americas would be just as politically controversial if large numbers of them started arriving, and an open borders policy with Europe or Asia or Africa would be just as unacceptable to most Americans.
Are Americans much more accepting of immigrants from outside Central and South America?
The question is whether immigrants have different political positions than natives.
Latinos (and especially non-Cuban Latinos) absolutely have different political positions than average natives, and immigration consisting largely of them would in fact have the effect that Caplan denies.
I expect that if lots of them (or their descendants) voted for Republicans, they wouldn’t be politically controversial, because the Democrats and the left are spearheading the push for more immigration, and they would abruptly stop doing so. (This would not be compensated by Republicans pushing for them, because Republicans have no power to make such a push.)