Typically, I'm suspicious of argumentation via personal annecdote; but I've seen far too many Chinese youth (including exchange students studying for long periods in the West) roundly reject modern, liberal principles in favor of traditional, authoritarian, ethnocentric beliefs. I think it's a cornerstone of modern liberalism that the fruits of post-Enlightenment thinking are so mind-blowingly obvious that no one could fail to be persuaded. It is a source of terrible existential discomfort to find out otherwise. I do, however, think that if you believe that liberalism can take all comers in all venues, then you don't get out enough.

Despite all of this, as the US-citizen spouse of a non-citizen, I'm tremendously pro-immigration. While I don't believe that freedom will necessarily out-compete tyranny, I do believe in the fundamental virtue of the immigrant. Immigration is, in a way we can barely understand, a drastic psychological trial that self-selects exclusively for those who are willing to entertain the possibility that one way-of-life might be superior to their own. Tellingly, all of people I've met who have rejected modern liberalism are still here (in China).

Typically, I'm suspicious of argumentation via personal annecdote; but I've seen far too many Chinese youth (including exchange students studying for long periods in the West) roundly reject modern, liberal principles in favor of traditional, authoritarian, ethnocentric beliefs. I think it's a cornerstone of modern liberalism that the fruits of post-Enlightenment thinking are so mind-blowingly obvious that no one could fail to be persuaded. It is a source of terrible existential discomfort to find out otherwise. I do, however, think that if you believe that liberalism can take all comers in all venues, then you don't get out enough.

Despite all of this, as the US-citizen spouse of a non-citizen, I'm tremendously pro-immigration. While I don't believe that freedom will necessarily out-compete tyranny, I do believe in the fundamental virtue of the immigrant. Immigration is, in a way we can barely understand, a drastic psychological trial that self-selects exclusively for those who are willing to entertain the possibility that one way-of-life might be superior to their own. Tellingly, all of people I've met who have rejected modern liberalism are still here (in China).

Sure it is a great piece but shouldn't you add a little disclaimer
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/about/
http://kerryhowley.com/bio/

Did you even read the section you quoted ouside of the words “wage inequality”? And yeah, after a point wage inequality does get bad, as it leads to resentments and lack of social cohesion. You get an elite group that is sufficiently removed from the masses that they don't understand their concerns or care about them. For instance, present-day Mexico, with reasonable per-capita wealth, but gross inequalities which send many poor people up here.

“I am interested in what is right.”

Good for you. Most people think nations are “right”. I'm one of them, but don't really feel like going off on that tangent. Suffice it to say that very few people want to give their votes/money/time/lives to leaders who don't believe in protecting the welfare of their subjects' children.

Mexicans have been in the US for 3+ generations. They don't show the same patterns of achievement as the Italians, Jews, etc. See, eg: http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/generat…. I should remind you again that those former ethic groups had, essentially, the door shut behind them by the 1924 law, so they were forced to assimilate, unlike the Hispanics, whose environs in the US are constantly replenished with new blood from the south. I'd like to do them the same favor we did for the others.

Woah.

And why not? Do you believe they're biologically inferior, perhaps? At least the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans already speak a language spoken in about 1/3 of Californian homes and about 10% of US homes overall, unlike your Italians, Poles and Jews who spoke a hodge-podge of unknown tongues, and were usually poorer and less well educated than modern immigrants. Hell! Millions of 'em (according to Henry Cabot Lodge) were illiterate!

You're looking, today, at the great wave early twentieth century immigrants after 3 generations. While Cahal, Giuseppe, Alesky and Aaron were herding their wives and pinch-faced brood off the boats at Ellis Island, the good Anglo-German-Danish stock already in residence were lamenting the pathetic quality of this latest boat load and begging their leaders for limits.

After all, this latest lot simply couldn't possibly bring .. ahem …the same 'social capital' as THEIR grandparents

Again, as I pointed out before, the problem with using inequality as a sign of bad things in the immigration debate is that inequality is often a meaningless artifact of measurement choices, not a sign that any particular person is being made worse off. You seem to not understand this point, because you keep repeating the same error.

I wish all immigration advocates were as honest as you. If they would just be open about the post-nationalist premises of their beliefs they would lose the public debate for certain.

Of course, my goal here is not to “win a debate with the public”, i.e. make politically popular pronouncements. I am not interested in appeals to the majority. I am interested in what is right.

I'd be happy with a somewhat less race-centric version of that now. Our current percentage of foreign born among the population is comparable to the historic highs reached early in the last century, and I think a similar legislative response would be wise. In fact we are in even more peril now, as such a large proportion of our foreign-born population is distinct from the mainstream in language, culture, and ethnicity, making assimilation more difficult. And, frankly, I think we were a lot better off last century getting Italians, Poles, and Jews than we are now getting Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans. Judging by the history of those European nationalities, they seem to have more, um… “social capital”.

And let's just say LA and Detroit didn't used to be “vibrant and diverse [cities] with all the troubles that attend megapolises all over the world”.

(Also, megapolises like Tokyo? Hong Kong? Berlin?)

Not according to the stats I've seen! According to Census data, the foreign born population of the United States only fell below 5% once, in 1970, and then it was 4.7%. Between 1930 and 1950 there was a pause, but I'd point out that for 5 of those years the country was rather preoccupied, and even then immigration was still a feature of national policy, and immigration on a (relatively) massive scale. Besides – that's 20 years out of more than 150 now.

“'of Mexicans changed Los Angeles, or of blacks changed Detroit'
How exactly have these places changed? “

Wow. Just…wow.

No. Please. Do tell. Be specific.

You mean the riots? Never heard of the Irish anti-draft riots of the 1860s? Or the Bonus Army march on Washington of 1832? Riots are bad, mmmkay. But they're a result of grievance. Not a consequence of race?

Economics? LA is doing fine. Detroit's in a mess, but so are a host of other rust belt cities.

In LA — which I know better than Detroit — I see a vibrant and diverse city with all the troubles that attend megapolises all over the world.