Debate the only sound, non-racist argument for immigration control I've ever read

[BrainGlutton]

Lind revisited the “overclass” in Up from Conservatism (1996):

Though “overclass” is widely used, there is no consensus on its definition. Sometimes the word is used to refer to the affluent, sometimes to the skilled. I use the word “overclass” to refer not to the rich in general or the educated in general, but to a specific social group that is at once an elite and a quasi-hereditary social class. The overclass is the credentialed managerial–professional elite, consisting of Americans with advanced degrees (MBAs, JDs, PhDs, MDs) and their spouses and children. How big a group is it? Less than 10 percent of the U.S. population holds an advanced degree (and this includes advanced degree holders from third- and fourth-rate universities). If we eliminate the holders of advanced degrees from diploma mills, and limit ourselves to graduates of professional or graduate programs at prestigious private schools or first-rate state universities, we discover that the overclass is very small indeed, no more than 5 or 10 percent of the American people (inclidng children and spouses makes the number higher).

Tiny though this corps of highly educated managers, lawyers, professors, and doctors is, its members provide the overwhelming majority of leaders in the highest reaches of American business, politics, education, and journalism. There are differences among particular institutional elites – CEOs and federal judges tend to be more highly educated on average than members of Congress – but compared to the majority of Americans whose education ends with teh acquisition of a high school diploma, these differences are minor.

The overclass is, if I am correct – or is in the process of becoming – not merely an institutional elite, but a quasi-hereditary social elite. Whether the overclass is a genuine social class, othat is, a hereditary or quasi-hereditary elite, can be debated. If the overclass consists of random individuals from different backgrounds who just happen to acquire good degrees and good jobs, then the overclass is not a class at all, but a meritocratic elite, which can be expected to reconstitute itself with every generation. If, on the other hand, the members of the overclass tend to be born to overclass parents, then the overclass, in addition to being an elite, is a quasi-hereditary social class. Since the expansion of higher education since World War II, there has only been time for one generation to be born to a large stratum of college-educated parents. The question cannot be finally resolved, therefore, unitl 2025 or 2030.

In the meantime, the smart money should be on the overclass turning itself into a self-perpetuating social stratum, instead of a completely open – and therefore completely unstable – meritocracy. The reason is what anthropologists call “assortative mating,” that is, marriage between people of similar backgrounds. Now that coeducation has become the norm, college-educated members of the professional class increasingly marry other members of the college-educated professional class – often, the boyfriend or girlfriend they ment in their first year of law school or business school. It is not a daring prediction that the children of two lawyers, or two MBAs, will be more likely to get a JD or an MBA than the children of parents whose education ended with the twelfth grade, or a BA.

Conservatives attacked my account of the American overclass in two ways. Some have dismissed the overclass theory as “Marxism” (in fact, it owes its inspiration to non-Marxist sociological accounts of class, like those of Max Weber and Digby Baltzell). The conservative party line with respect to the subject of class in the United States holds that America is a classless society, or a two-class society, divided between the middle class (the 95 percent of the populations that includes everyone from the working poor to the hereditary rich) and the underclass (the 5 percent or so made up of the nonworking hereditary poor). The absurdity of either view is self-evident, as is the utility, to the political faction that represents the wealthy, of a theory that persuades blue-collar workers that they really belong to the same class as Malcolm Forbes, Jr. or Pierre DuPont or William F. Buckley, Jr. and share the same economic interests.

Another argument that conservatives use in their effort to prove that the United States is a classless, or two-class, society is the existence of a substantial degree of social mobility in America (as in other industrial democracies). The point is well taken – and irrelevant. The fact that there is a degree of mobility between social classes does not mean classes does not mean that classes do not exist. For a thousand years, commoners have been joining the English aristocracy, while younger sons have been falling out of it. This turnover does not mean that there is no English aristocracy.

It is not my contention that the overclass is exclusively conservative. Most conservative politicians and intellectuals belong to the overclass. So do most left-liberal politicians and intellectuals. So do most neoliberal politicians and intellectuals. With the sole exception of their political views, overclass conservatives have more in common with overclass left-liberals and overclass neoliberals than they do with middle-class conservatives. They go to the same Ivy League schools and leading state universities, and send their children to the same private schools or good public schools; they have similar tastes in dress and dining and recreation; they have similar patterns of marriage and child rearing.

The latter is particularly significant. Consider this portrait of a typical overclass family. The parents of both the husband and wife were college-educated. Both husband and wife went to private schools or good public schools. Both husband and wife have advanced degrees and professional careers. Their children are raised by a live-in servant, whom they need, because they are a two-professional family, and whom they can afford, because they are a two-professional family. The archetypal family pattern of the overclass is the “three-parent family” – husband, wife, and Latin American nanny.

Here, then, is a simple test of overclass status. Americans who do not have advanced degrees and cannot afford maids or nannies are middle class. Americans who have advanced degrees and can afford maids or nannies are overclass. It’s as simple as that.

[XT]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

1. It is not racist to point out that unskilled or semiskilled immigrant labor, legal or illegal, is generally cheaper than native-born labor; and that, therefore, the availability of a very large supply of immigrant labor in the marketplace may have some depressive effect on the native-borns’ wages and benefits and job security.
   [/QUOTE]

Is it racist when right wingers use this exact same argument? Because that’s generally where I hear this sort of horseshit from…though without the class wrappings of course.

2. Eh? Oh, the “white overclass” is actually a distinctly non-lefty theme in Lind’s case, dating at least from his 1995 book The Next American Nation. (Wherein he also lambastes affirmative action and multiculturalism, by the way.)

Because he ‘lambastes affirmative action and multiculturalism’ does not make this a non-lefty theme. That just makes me think this guy is a closet racist MORE, but doesn’t mean he’s not a lefty. It’s the same old class based argument they (and you) have been making for years…hell, decades. Just skimming the parts you quoted it’s the same old tired arguments and themes.

You asked for peoples impressions of the supposedly non-racists anti-immigration argument, and you should focus on that. My impression is above…it IS a racist based argument, though couched in a left wing cloak of class struggle to make it acceptable to lefties who would normally see through the BS and smell the racism hidden (not very well IMHO) underneath. If someone made exactly the same arguments but from a right winger and without all the class horseshit I can guarantee you that 'dopers would be flocking to mock the OP and rub their faces in the racism. Sadly, because it does have that cloak of class BS, 'dopers aren’t doing that.

That said, think what you like about it BG. Basically, since this is how it looks to me ought to indicate you need to look at it exactly opposite anyway…and trust EC and Der to back you up on it.

[Der_Trihs]

@XT

That just makes me think this guy is a closet racist MORE, but doesn’t mean he’s not a lefty. It’s the same old class based argument they (and you) have been making for years…hell, decades. Just skimming the parts you quoted it’s the same old tired arguments and themes.

You asked for peoples impressions of the supposedly non-racists anti-immigration argument, and you should focus on that. My impression is above…it IS a racist based argument, though couched in a left wing cloak of class struggle to make it acceptable to lefties who would normally see through the BS and smell the racism hidden (not very well IMHO) underneath.

What’s racist about pointing out that there’s a race based “elite” in this country? When has there not been such an elite in America?

[Evil_Captor]

@XT

Well yeah…I am. I’m all for immigrants coming here, full stop, without all the…um…overtones of your post. Frankly, I have no idea why ‘they’ should be kept out, or why ‘just because they want to come here’ isn’t a good enough reason, but I’m sure it has to do with your more sensitive lefty perspective on it all.

The immigrants would not have to come here if conditions in their country were more egalitarian. My preference would be to work toward a world where no one had to emigrate because their native land was run by greedy assholes who didn’t give a shit about the rest of the people in the country … which describes many South American countries, though more and more they are actually out-performing the US in terms of egalitarianism and industrial acumen. Perhaps one day they will want to limit immigration by North Americans … I would not deny them that right.

My ‘Latinos’ folks came to this country without a dime to their name and with very few skills…they didn’t even speak English. My dad built his own business and became one of those 1%er overclass guys, and every one of my brothers and sisters, including my own humble self, makes more than the national average both in terms of individual salaries and family income…in fact, for my part, I make more by myself and not including my wife’s salary than the national average for a family in the US.

Just pointing out that when you paint with a broad brush, it sort of shows your own colors.

Well that’s very nice for you, huzzah and all, but possibly your family is an outlier.

[XT]

@Der_Trihs

What’s racist about pointing out that there’s a race based “elite” in this country? When has there not been such an elite in America?

It’s a thread on immigration, or rather, on an anti-immigration stance that basically states that we shouldn’t allow immigration free immigration, but instead only allow in skilled workers with higher price points for their labor so as not to bring down all the other, American workers wages. What the fuck do YOU think are going to be the workers who are allowed in, and who the workers who will be turned away?? And how is this argument substantially different than right wingers who want to limit immigration for exactly the same reasons, but without all the class/overclass horseshit attached??

[XT]

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
The immigrants would not have to come here if conditions in their country were more egalitarian. My preference would be to work toward a world where no one had to emigrate because their native land was run by greedy assholes who didn’t give a shit about the rest of the people in the country … which describes many South American countries, though more and more they are actually out-performing the US in terms of egalitarianism and industrial acumen. Perhaps one day they will want to limit immigration by North Americans … I would not deny them that right.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: So, tough shit for them. They want to immigrate here because it’s worse in their countries (which is pretty much the reason why pretty much everyone, through our entire history have wanted to immigrate here :smack:), so we’ll block them until there isn’t any reason for them to want to come here because their countries would be ‘more egalitarian’ in this fantasy future and they will have the right to block our citizens from wanting to live in their countries.

Well that’s very nice for you, huzzah and all, but possibly your family is an outlier.

Or, perhaps you attempted to paint with a broad brush, and that large sound passing by over your head was the point you missed. Let me try a different way though, since that didn’t get through. Of all the Americans in this country, how many of them do you suppose were descended from folks leaving their former countries who were vastly valuable, productive citizens (the only kind you seem to want us to accept now)? Do you suppose it was a large percentage or a small percentage? Did they leave their former countries because it was an egalitarian utopia and they just figured it would be cool to come over here and start a new life, or perhaps because things weren’t so good where they were and they thought there was more opportunity here?

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil_Captor

I’m all for immigrants coming to America and making good, it’s good for them, good for us. But there is absolutely no reason in the world that we HAVE to accept immigrants, just because they want to come here. Is anyone in this thread making that claim?

No, but DrCube does in this thread.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

No, but DrCube does in this thread.

Good on DrCube then.

[Human_Action]

@XT

Or, perhaps you attempted to paint with a broad brush, and that large sound passing by over your head was the point you missed. Let me try a different way though, since that didn’t get through. Of all the Americans in this country, how many of them do you suppose were descended from folks leaving their former countries who were vastly valuable, productive citizens (the only kind you seem to want us to accept now)? Do you suppose it was a large percentage or a small percentage? Did they leave their former countries because it was an egalitarian utopia and they just figured it would be cool to come over here and start a new life, or perhaps because things weren’t so good where they were and they thought there was more opportunity here?

This alone makes me reject Lind (well, that and the all-middle-class society nonsense). When you accept immigrants, you also get their American-born children. And those children tend to kick the asses of the children of natives.

Of the 36 million people in this group, some 20 million have reached adulthood, and, according to the report, they are less likely than the foreign born and the general population to be in poverty. Their rates of homeownership are on par with those of the general adult population.

In terms of educational attainment, 36 percent have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 29 percent of the foreign born and 31 percent of all adults.

“In all the ways our country measures how well you’re doing, the second generation is doing very well,” said Paul Taylor, the executive vice president of the Pew Research Center.

…

Hispanics and Asian-Americans, who make up about half of that group, place more importance on hard work and career success than the general public, according to the report. And they are also likely to consider themselves a “typical American.”

Our nation was built by this same story of the first generation’s struggles paving the way for the subsequent generation’s success.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Human Action]
Our nation was built by this same story of the first generation’s struggles paving the way for the subsequent generation’s success.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. In Lind’s (and BG’s, and EC’s and Der’s) world, I wouldn’t be here. My family wouldn’t be here. We’d be back in Mexico scratching out a living in the dirt, instead of as productive citizens of this country, paying our taxes and doing our part to make this a better country.

This alone makes me reject Lind (well, that and the all-middle-class society nonsense). When you accept immigrants, you also get their American-born children. And those children tend to kick the asses of the children of natives.

Even if that weren’t the case, people deserve the chance to make a new life for themselves and their families. This freaking country was built on that idea, and to me it’s heavily ironic that lefties try and use the same arguments as righties to attempt to game the system to what they think is their best advantage, while essentially ignoring history and what made this country great.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I’m genuinely surprised that a hack like Lind is the first time BG has heard such arguments.

African-American public figures and intellectuals as diverse as Booker T. Washington and Toni Morrison have long argued, with good reason, that immigration has been terrible for African-Americans.

[Wesley_Clark]

@XT

This is only a valid argument if you actually believe in things like the ‘overclass’…or that it’s low wage immigrants holding down the wages (along with the ‘overclass’ of course) of good, hard working ‘mericans. I’m not seeing how this isn’t racist, however, since the implications is that those dirty immigrants are holding back the wages of those hard workin’ 'mericans at the behest of, I assume a ‘white’ ‘overclass’. Though I’m sure it’s couched is suitable loony lefty rhetoric about class or some equal nonsense.

Sure it does. Let’s not even touch on the ridiculousness of a single class system, or how the US could ever maintain something like that when trade is open and free. Let me guess…we become an isolationist psudo-communist country that has no trade or dealings with the outside world, while we live in the workers paradise. Look how well that works out for the North Koreans, after all.

I’m sure. Gee, never heard anything like THIS before…

Um, no…I don’t think I have the stomach for it this week. You’ve most likely already summarized it anyway, and doesn’t seem the sort of thing to take very seriously from where I’m sitting.

It’s basic racism couched in terms to make it palatable to left wingers with an equal inability to grasp reality, but who want to believe that it’s those dirty immigrants keeping us back…but, you know, we don’t mean those brown kinds (we ARE lefties after all), so we just mean the unskilled ones that we will select out and only let in the high skill ones who will fit into the classless overmind groupthink thingy we are building (what we will do with the home grown losers, under achievers or simply those who don’t want to fit in to the new, sole middle class remains to be seen, but there are always those reeducation training camps…)

These are mostly strawman arguments and red herrings.

If there is a labor surplus of desperately poor people who cannot ask the police for help, form a union or petition the government to respect their rights, that is going to drive wages down. Why is that racist or controversial? That sounds pretty basic. A labor surplus of desperate people who are not protected by the legal system are going to drive down wages.

If immigrants are here (which they are) we should provide them with the same protections US workers have, and create a system (where possible) that they do not drive down wages.

As far as the US being a widely middle class society, that is perfectly achievable. Many other OECD nations are largely middle class. The US is not anymore, most people are unable to achieve the middle class dream anymore which includes the ability to weather a serious illness, the ability to retire with autonomy and security, the ability to send your kids to college, having a stable job, etc. We have wealth, but no middle class security.

[Belowjob2.0]

Lind’s not a racist. He is a citizenist. That is to say, he places a higher value on the interests of native born Americans, especially the white and black working classes, than he does on the interests of random foreigners who would like to settle here.

As a practical matter, it’s simply impossible to be pro working class American and at the same time be pro high levels of immigration.

[BrainGlutton]

@TriPolar

I would be all for open borders if we could handle the associated issues, security, social costs, etc. But we can’t, so we must be somewhat selective. But we need immigration, we always have. The menial labor of this generation gives birth to the educated, motivated, machinery of progress that has made this country what it is.

Well, yes. But, there are plenty of native-born Americans of all races who are fit (in their present generation) only for menial labor – why not let them get first in line to grab the bottom rung of that ladder? That’s really the whole of Lind’s point here.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Belowjob2.0

Lind’s not a racist. He is a citizenist. That is to say, he places a higher value on the interests of native born Americans, especially the white and black working classes, than he does on the interests of random foreigners who would like to settle here.

As a practical matter, it’s simply impossible to be pro working class American and at the same time be pro high levels of immigration.

I’ll certainly agree that African-Americans were heavily fucked over by the fact that the US didn’t start instituting immigration controls various European groups until the 1920s and would be in a dramatically better position had we done so in the 1880s, I strongly disagree with the idea that it’s not possible to support both immigration and the lower middle class and lower class Americans.

I do.

[BrainGlutton]

@Wesley_Clark

As far as the US being a widely middle class society, that is perfectly achievable. Many other OECD nations are largely middle class.

And what are their immigration policies?

[Wesley_Clark]

@BrainGlutton

And what are their immigration policies?

I think some are more lax, there is a lot of African and mideast immigrants in Europe as an example. Japan and S. Korea supposedly have a much more strict immigration policy.

But evenso, I would assume the immigrants are more included in the legal and economic system than they are here. I don’t know for sure though.

[marshmallow]

I don’t really see how that’s different than the right’s opposition to immigration. Am I missing something?

[TriPolar]

@BrainGlutton

Well, yes. But, there are plenty of native-born Americans of all races who are fit (in their present generation) only for menial labor – why not let them get first in line to grab the bottom rung of that ladder? That’s really the whole of Lind’s point here.

I don’t have a problem with that as it represents the status quo. However, there shouldn’t be many US citizens in that category. There are more than there should be for reasons that have nothing to do with immigration, and cutting out immigration won’t change that.

[DrCube]

@BrainGlutton

Unrestricted immigration only serves the interest of the overclass in holding down working Americans’ wages, etc. Lind wants America to become an all-middle-class society, and a constant inflow of low-skill manual workers just holds us back from that; therefore, he believes we should select for high-skill/education immigrants and discourage others.

This is a form of protectionism. And it works equally well as an argument against allowing the poor to procreate. Hell, it’s also an argument for states, counties and municipalities to restrict immigration from other regions of the US.

People migrate for a reason. To be better off than they were. To get jobs where they’re better suited and more productive. If everyone could migrate freely, the world would be a happier and wealthier place overall. It’s frankly just a better allocation of resources.