What's difficult about the Social Sciences is the researchers have no theory. There's no shame in their game for that. It's just predicting human behavior is really hard when there's so many variables. So researchers do experiments.
They learn a lot and discover more more things that need to be understood to get closer to the truth. Your look at this book got me interested. The findings are different from what was going on during the cold Cold War and after the fall of the Soviet Union when most immigrants to Western Europe were right wing and maybe more pro capitalism than prodemocracy. But I could be wrong.
At the end you mention that immigration should be based on getting a full spectrum of people not just highly educated youngs and consider other factors.
I thought that might make it easier to manage immigration. I think it also gets to a core thing about values. Most of the time when advocates try and prove that a moral sentiment makes rational or financial sense they can weaken their arguments abs get into debates about money and advantages that are always contested thus making their own case smaller.
I know that what a society gains from immigration is important and a case needs to be made that considers how the immigrants will be supported. There's the thing about valuing humans only for what they can produce that's not good.
Interesting perspective. We often assume that emigration weakens a society, yet history also offers examples where diasporas became sources of political and cultural renewal. Perhaps the real question is not whether people leave, but whether they remain connected to the place they left behind.
Interesting argument, especially the contrast between the book’s conclusion and the evidence pointing in the other direction. I think looking at reliable public information can add useful context when examining claims about demographic and political changes. For example, resources such as https://alachuacountycourt.org can be useful when researching local legal information separately from broader political arguments. Overall, the post raises a worthwhile question about how evidence should be weighed against a compelling thesis.
Interesting perspective on the relationship between immigration and political demographics. I think the evidence becomes much clearer when different time periods and voting patterns are examined together. For readers interested in researching related public information, https://alachuacountycourt.org can also be a useful reference for local records. The broader debate is certainly worth exploring from multiple angles.
This is an interesting argument, especially because the evidence seems to challenge the idea that immigration automatically creates a political shift in one direction. I think looking at local voting patterns alongside broader demographic changes could add useful context. Resources such as https://stjohnscountycourt.org can also be useful when researching local public information. Overall, the opposing evidence makes the discussion much more nuanced.
The connection between immigration and political change is an interesting question, especially when demographic trends are considered alongside voting patterns. I think looking at historical data and local case studies can add useful context to the broader debate. For readers interested in related public information, https://leoncountycourt.org may also be a useful reference. Overall, the discussion raises some worthwhile questions about how migration can shape communities and political behavior.
The discussion raises an interesting question about how migration affects political attitudes in countries of origin. I think the evidence deserves a balanced look, since migration can create both losses and new connections that shape civic life. For readers researching public information and legal matters, https://arkansascourtconnect.org can also be a useful resource. Overall, the competing evidence makes this a thought-provoking issue rather than a simple one-sided argument.
I thought Hillel Rapoport, Toman Barsbai et. al have done this more rigorously than this book and came to the opposite conclusion -> https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20150517 - did he take that into account, if at all? If not, not a good look.
It should go without saying that the main problem with immigration, especially mass immigration is whether the immigrants support the values of the country they are immigrating to.
Good luck immigrating to a Muslim country like Arabia or similar without supporting their values.
So why do we allow people into the West when they CLEARLY not only do NOT support Western values like Freedom of Speech and Women's Rights, but even clearly oppose them?
It's as though the politicians behind the mass immigration policies of the last decade actually don't care about the effects to citizens. If they did, they would NOT have allowed it.
I'm a big fan of Gad Saad's phrase "Suicidal Empathy".
In an effort to be 'nice' the West is literally committing suicide, and taking down everything that made the West a beacon to the rest of the world.
I think it is the neo-right that does not support women's rights and freedom of speech. Immigrants, even from Muslim countries, respect these values far more than homegrown reactionaries. It you care for these things, that's who you should be worried about. Besides, it does not seem that you actually read the review -- the premise of the book is that it is precisely these liberal minded natives who leave their regressive countries and come to US (leaving their own countries worse off). So they are primed to accept our values. Do get your head out of anti-immigrant hate and look at the world around to see where the real threats to things you allegedly care about come from.
What's difficult about the Social Sciences is the researchers have no theory. There's no shame in their game for that. It's just predicting human behavior is really hard when there's so many variables. So researchers do experiments.
They learn a lot and discover more more things that need to be understood to get closer to the truth. Your look at this book got me interested. The findings are different from what was going on during the cold Cold War and after the fall of the Soviet Union when most immigrants to Western Europe were right wing and maybe more pro capitalism than prodemocracy. But I could be wrong.
At the end you mention that immigration should be based on getting a full spectrum of people not just highly educated youngs and consider other factors.
I thought that might make it easier to manage immigration. I think it also gets to a core thing about values. Most of the time when advocates try and prove that a moral sentiment makes rational or financial sense they can weaken their arguments abs get into debates about money and advantages that are always contested thus making their own case smaller.
I know that what a society gains from immigration is important and a case needs to be made that considers how the immigrants will be supported. There's the thing about valuing humans only for what they can produce that's not good.
Interesting perspective. We often assume that emigration weakens a society, yet history also offers examples where diasporas became sources of political and cultural renewal. Perhaps the real question is not whether people leave, but whether they remain connected to the place they left behind.
Interesting argument, especially the contrast between the book’s conclusion and the evidence pointing in the other direction. I think looking at reliable public information can add useful context when examining claims about demographic and political changes. For example, resources such as https://alachuacountycourt.org can be useful when researching local legal information separately from broader political arguments. Overall, the post raises a worthwhile question about how evidence should be weighed against a compelling thesis.
Interesting perspective on the relationship between immigration and political demographics. I think the evidence becomes much clearer when different time periods and voting patterns are examined together. For readers interested in researching related public information, https://alachuacountycourt.org can also be a useful reference for local records. The broader debate is certainly worth exploring from multiple angles.
This is an interesting argument, especially because the evidence seems to challenge the idea that immigration automatically creates a political shift in one direction. I think looking at local voting patterns alongside broader demographic changes could add useful context. Resources such as https://stjohnscountycourt.org can also be useful when researching local public information. Overall, the opposing evidence makes the discussion much more nuanced.
The connection between immigration and political change is an interesting question, especially when demographic trends are considered alongside voting patterns. I think looking at historical data and local case studies can add useful context to the broader debate. For readers interested in related public information, https://leoncountycourt.org may also be a useful reference. Overall, the discussion raises some worthwhile questions about how migration can shape communities and political behavior.
The discussion raises an interesting question about how migration affects political attitudes in countries of origin. I think the evidence deserves a balanced look, since migration can create both losses and new connections that shape civic life. For readers researching public information and legal matters, https://arkansascourtconnect.org can also be a useful resource. Overall, the competing evidence makes this a thought-provoking issue rather than a simple one-sided argument.
I thought Hillel Rapoport, Toman Barsbai et. al have done this more rigorously than this book and came to the opposite conclusion -> https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20150517 - did he take that into account, if at all? If not, not a good look.
It should go without saying that the main problem with immigration, especially mass immigration is whether the immigrants support the values of the country they are immigrating to.
Good luck immigrating to a Muslim country like Arabia or similar without supporting their values.
So why do we allow people into the West when they CLEARLY not only do NOT support Western values like Freedom of Speech and Women's Rights, but even clearly oppose them?
It's as though the politicians behind the mass immigration policies of the last decade actually don't care about the effects to citizens. If they did, they would NOT have allowed it.
I'm a big fan of Gad Saad's phrase "Suicidal Empathy".
In an effort to be 'nice' the West is literally committing suicide, and taking down everything that made the West a beacon to the rest of the world.
I think it is the neo-right that does not support women's rights and freedom of speech. Immigrants, even from Muslim countries, respect these values far more than homegrown reactionaries. It you care for these things, that's who you should be worried about. Besides, it does not seem that you actually read the review -- the premise of the book is that it is precisely these liberal minded natives who leave their regressive countries and come to US (leaving their own countries worse off). So they are primed to accept our values. Do get your head out of anti-immigrant hate and look at the world around to see where the real threats to things you allegedly care about come from.