Immigration Is, and Isn't, the Problem
On Musk, H-1B Visas, getting replaced by Indians instead of Mexicans, and why I dislike most immigration discussions.
Hello! This is one of my quick blog posts sharing some unpolished thoughts and ideas. I think this is relatively thoughtful and sound; but if you have contrary arguments or evidence, please make them in the comments. And thank you for reading!
It's the New Year, and I'm using social media less because I want to live a happier life — and hopefully, I will stick to that informal resolution for over a month.
But, in my final days of being terminally online, I was able to enjoy the online right tearing itself up in the most predictable way. Namely, Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk were championing H-1B visas, and MAGA fans were enraged. Musk was calling them idiots. Restrictionists made the case, as a friend summarized it, that "Americans didn't vote for Trump just so they could be replaced by Indians instead of Mexicans." Terminal grifter Laura Loomer capitalized on this to try and get some clout, and Musk took the bait, so they both started spatting with each other across the internet with their usual level of dignity and intelligence.
This was hilarious but also predictable. It shouldn't be shocking that Trump's billionaire supporters didn't fund his run out of new-found ideological conviction but out of self-interest. Trump is uniquely suspectable to flattery, and has few mooring values, so he's happy to provide for his billionaire chums, even though he leads a political movement built on anti-elitism and restricting immigration, and they're asking for an increase in H-1B visas.
But when you buy yourself the Presidency, you get to use it however you please. Expect inquiries into Musk's ties to China to disappear, for the tax incentives for Tesla-competing EV manufacturers to evaporate, and for safety regulations on self-driving cars to thin out. If Musk wants cheaper foreign talent for his companies, he's going to get it.
The irony of this whole situation is that, instead of saying his own fans are mouth-breathers, Musk could have made an argument that joins the two positions; that immigration to the US is not correctly controlled and needs to be cracked down on, but also that America should brain-drain the best of foreign talent. And I say that as it's broadly the view that I hold.
My immigration ideal, broadly, is high immigration across income brackets, with special visas for high-talent individuals, but done in a rigorous, serious way, with growth to support it, with massive importance on assimilation. It also would require a complete intolerance for illegal immigration. If you try breaking the rules, you should know you will be caught and deported.
Here in the UK, much huff is made about how towns aren't looking like Britain anymore because of immigrants and how it's driving up the prices. There's some truth to both points there, but the answer isn't "less immigration."
The former is only true in small areas with a high density of unassimilated people; the problem therefore being assimilation, not immigration. The second problem is real — particularly regarding housing — but that's a problem with planning and growth, not immigration. We can't build anything here, and if you keep increasing the population and not increasing the housing supply, what do you think happens to the prices and availability? If you think the statement, "we can't build anything here" is a bit grave, then read this rather depressing, incredibly long, excellent essay from Ben Southwood, Samuel Hughes, and Sam Bowman. One of the lowlight quotes:
The planning documentation for the Lower Thames Crossing, a proposed tunnel under the Thames connecting Kent and Essex, runs to 360,000 pages, and the application process alone has cost £297 million. That is more than twice as much as it cost in Norway to actually build the longest road tunnel in the world.
Back to immigration, though.
UKIP and Reform won votes because neither major party took immigration seriously when they should have. However, immigration became an issue because no government since Thatcher dealt with the country's graver economic issues, which populist parties offer an easy but wrong fix for.
Suppose Brits saw their neighborhoods getting richer and safer, with more buildings going up, their taxes lowering, and more money in their bank account. In such a world, only a niche few would give a damn about immigration, and current Reform supports would be happily shopping from Boss Man at the Kabab shop, who has a picture of Winston Churchill on the wall (and it's honestly a bit annoying how much he loves the King). The issues about immigration are as much emotional as they are economic, but growth has a highly positive emotional response. Proper economic growth, plus care for assimilation, would make immigration a non-issue.
Our economy is barely growing, we have catastrophically high national debt, and we can't build anything — so of course we can't sustain our current rates of immigration. But it would be sustainable in a Britain with lower income taxes, lower corporate taxes, less regulation (particularly on start-ups, competition, and planning) and a bigger policy emphasis on growth. In fact, it could genuinely support a higher rate of immigration than right now — so long as the immigration system was super disciplined with illegal immigrants and assimilation. The Brexit promise of making London "Singapore on the Thames" was always a flagrant lie; but that's a really good goal to aim for!
Note: I'm not saying this as some ra ra libertarian right-winger. I'm a Blairite liberal and happy for smart, pointed state intervention — but Whitehall is choking Britain's private sector whilst simultaneously running our public sector into the ground, so it's not hard to see where the problem lies.
Again, though, back to immigration.
Turning to the US; its economic situation is infinitely brighter than Britain's, but its immigration handling is far, far worse. In my view, the current US immigration system is the worst of all worlds (worse than open borders) because it fails at all levels, to the benefit solely of corporations.
It allows for massive numbers of uneducated workers to enter the country illegally, working off the books, with no legal protections, in below-minimal-wage jobs. Not only is this a poor existence for them, but it raises housing prices and reduces low-qualification employment opportunities for working-class Americans. Undocumented immigrants also don't integrate because they have few means or reasons to do so, meaning you get more social tensions.
Conversely, H-1B visas are not usually used to attain the best global talent. Instead, it's used to import the cheapest.
There's no reason an American can't code as well as an Indian immigrant, but Indian immigrants will generally work longer hours for lower pay, and companies know that, which is why they want those visas. It's a diverse, faux-progressive, PR-friendly way to avoid unions and labor rights, and those employees are usually more disposable.
Limiting H-1B visas for this use case would unquestionably raise prices for American consumers, but probably less than people expect, and it would result in many more Americans being employed in these areas, with companies Microsoft incentivized to invest in the education of local talent. By contrast, the current Trump plan — of high tariffs plus increased H-1B visas — raises prices far further, without any benefit to US workers.
Finally, the current system is also a lousy brain-drain, because they aren't going for the top talent. If the US seriously wanted to take the talent from its advisories — which I would support — then it should advertise loudly that Iranian, Russian, and Chinese entrepreneurs, with a proven track record or brilliant idea, will get a fast-tracked free visa if they cut ties with, or shut down, their local version and build it new in the US; and the same should apply to artists, scientists, lawyers, and so forth. If you're an exceptional individual working in an enemy country, Western countries should give you a free pass to a life that benefits us; so long as you pass security checks and don't mind having more eyes on you than the usual American. The government could even have a list of top talent individuals they would love to have working in the US, and approach them quietly offering these visas. You don't hear about that happening, though, because it doesn't happen.
(To be clear: Britain could and should do this too, but our overregulation, high taxes, low growth, and risk-averse capital markets limits the potential of such a move, and makes us far less appealing too).
What should America do then? Fund its immigration courts, pass solid bipartisan border control bills, and start thinking more seriously — and creatively — about the way to use its oh-so-desired visas.
Could that happen? Sure.
Will it? Uh, no.
And no, Britain isn’t going to get in shape anytime soon either.
Happy New Year.