Agnostic’s assertion that higher wages through left-economic populism–free college tuition, free health care, guaranteed jobs and wages for everyone (including criminals and aliens), etc–will ultimately lead to a reduction in immigration is one we can take a contemporary empirical look at.
At the state level, the correlation between the minimum wage and the percentage of the population that is foreign-born is a positive .48. That is, states with higher minimum wages tend to attract–or have, anyway, because of course correlation is not (necessarily) causation–more immigrants than states with lower minimum wages do.
The best state-to-state comparison here is between California and Texas. Both are southern border states with comparable unemployment rates. California’s minimum wage, at $11, is country’s second-highest after Washington, while Texas’ is the $7.25 mandated by federal law. While California has a minimum wage over 50% higher than that of Texas, the percentage of its population that is foreign-born is about 65% higher than Texas’, too!
That’s not to say California’s wage rate is necessarily a net driver of immigration to the state nor that Texas’ is a net repellent. But it suggests that other factors are more important. Most saliently, the entire state of California is a sanctuary for illegal aliens. In contrast, there is not a single sanctuary city in all of Texas. It’s too easy to be an illegal alien anywhere in the US, but there are differences between states. It’s relatively more difficult to squat in Texas than it is in California.
Policy nudging isn’t going to stop the invasion. The West’s peak labor force participation rate is in the rear view mirror. Guaranteed basic income is probably a question of when rather than of if. That’ll be one hell of a global magnet, one with a stronger pull even than Sweden’s current cradle-to-grave setup.
It’s probably also a question of when rather than if the US will face a concentrated massive influx from the Global South comparable to what Europe has experienced over the last few years. Currently the focus is on central America, but that’s relatively small potatoes. It could easily expand to places in South America like Venezuela.
Or to Africa. Think a president Harris or ¡Ocasio! will heed the call for the US to take its fair share of ‘refugees’ from a continent set to add 3 billion people over the next century?
Imagine a presidential platform in 2020 or 2024 calling for the abolition of ICE. If that wins, what sort of mass migration does it set off on inauguration day?
It’s going to have to be enforcement or nothing at all.
The Italian populist left-right coalition attacking that country’s invasion has done so not by improving worker conditions but by telling would-be invaders they are not welcome and by pledging to boot those currently squatting in the country out of it.
The Visegrad group’s resistance isn’t based primarily on material concerns. It’s based on cultural and identitarian ones. In Stephen Mill–I mean, Donald Trump’s words–the fundamental question of the 21st century is whether or not the West has the will to survive.
Save for a total elimination of the welfare state–something the DSA/Sanders-wing of the American left could not possibly be more wholly opposed to–there isn’t an economic way to halt the invasion.
That’s the great lesson from our cousins across the pond. Europe’s invaders are primarily bypassing the relative low wage countries of southern and central Europe and heading instead to the high wage (and in the case of Germany, significantly unionized) countries of northwestern Europe and Scandinavia. In the central European–and now with Italy, part of the southern–countries, enforcement is very high and welfare is relatively low.
In Austria, the ruling People’s Party is similar to the Republican party in the US–center-right, anti-Marxist, economically liberal in the Reaganesque mold–and recently turned quite restrictionist. That’s our blueprint with the greatest chance of success.
It’s unfortunate president Trump isn’t as doggedly focused on the National Question as many of us hoped he would be. He has created a template for others with high political aspirations to follow, though.
And the Republican party is changing. There is no path to the presidency in the GOP that doesn’t involve a hardline stance on immigration anymore. Trump and Cruz, the only two restrictionist utterly dominated the field. For the first time ever, immigration is now consistently a top issue among Republican voters, especially younger ones. The party’s most shamelessly open-borders shills are leaving. We’re approaching the first election cycle after Trump’s election.
The process will take some time and the Chamber of Commerce wing will fight to maintain the upper hand, but the greedy grip will become more tenuous with each passing day.
Parenthetically, we rightly hear a lot of grumbling about the agricultural industry crying about crops rotting in the fields. The farming sector’s desire to socialize costs while privatizing profits is one of many reasons the invasion is ongoing.
It’s important to realize, though, that foreigners in the US–both legal and illegal–disproportionately reside in urban areas. America’s large cities are teeming with them. The countryside and even suburbia, not so much. While the number of native whites in urban areas and rural ones are the same, there are ten times as many foreigners in urban areas as there are in rural ones!