Garrett Jones Reviews the Literature on Immigrant Success
Recently I put up a few graphs showing that the income of immigrants is correlated with the income of the country from which they hailed, and that this relationship is especially true for immigrants who have been in the US the longest
Garrett Jones has been covering the same ground, and here he provides a bit of a review of the literature:
Recently, a small group of economists have found more systematic evidence on how the past predicts the present. Overall, they find that where your nation’s citizens come from matters a lot. From “How deep are the roots of economic development?”published in the prestigious Journal of Economic Literature:
A growing body of new empirical work focuses on the measurement and estimation of the effects of historical variables on contemporary income by explicitly taking into account the ancestral composition of current populations. The evidence suggests that economic development is affected by traits that have been transmitted across generations over the very long run.
Does that sound familiar? It should. It’s what I keep getting excoriated for writing around here.
More from Jones:
And finally, from “Post-1500 Population Flows and the Economic Determinants of Economic Growth and Inequality,” published in Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics:
The positive effect of ancestry-adjusted early development on current income is robust…The most likely explanation for this finding is that people whose ancestors were living in countries that developed earlier (in the sense of implementing agriculture or creating organized states) brought with them some advantage—such as human capital, knowledge, culture, or institutions—that raises the level of income today.
Hmmm… that too seems familiar.
Moving along, since many of today’s immigrants to the US hail from countries with very different institutions than their adopted home, this next paragraph from Jones is also very interesting (and also parallels quite a bit of what I have written):
If migration shaped institutions in the past, perhaps migration will shape institutions in the future. Or perhaps not: while violent European colonizers imposed their institutions and their culture on lands that had belonged to Native Americans, perhaps peaceful mass migration in the 21st century will leave today’s institutions and culture undisturbed. Perhaps, to coin a phrase, this time really is different.
The danger in all of this is that Americans are pretty bad at picking their bedfellows. If you doubt that, ask any of the nice women who attended the March on Washington this weekend what they think of cliterectomy-enthusiasts. Then ask them if they favor restricting the immigration of people from cultures where cliterectomy-enthusiasts are especially prevalent. Even if you point out this isn’t a case of a few bad apples giving the the rest a bad name – according to UNICEF there are countries where over 9 in ten women have been subjected to FGM – I am going to guess a lot of Americans find restricting immigration to be more icky than FGM. The result is that according to the CDC, in 2012 half a million women or girls in America were at risk of FGM. The CDC attributed that to immigration from countries where the practice is rampant. Now, this behavior is still illegal here in the US, but that can change. After all, the people who would do such things to their daughters also vote.
Mike:
The later part of this is getting a bit creepy. You have wandered from a supposed economical basis of determining who can come to America to one of beliefs of FGM. “more icky, ” is a term we are now utilizing?
This scenario harkens back to the day of books/pamphlets passed around featuring images of Jews so people and teachers could determine whether others had the physical features of a Jew. I know your background and my family works in the community and the news.
I think you have wandered here without sound reason Mike.
Run,
I understand your point. I have focused on the economics of this issue and put up graphs and data for post after post, and some of the readers keep denying their own lying eyes. As you know, I keep getting called racist simply for graphing publicly available data, most of which is collected by our government or foreign governments.
I figured it would be worth throwing something a bit more visceral out there as well. Note that the contention that the only reason there were 500k women and girls at risk of FGM and that this was due to immigration came from the CDC, not me. Even this topic can still be approached from a data oriented perspective.
The fact of the matter is that there some issues that would have gotten 99%+ agreement among Americans as recently as the year 2000. For example, you aren’t justified in killing, stealing from, or otherwise physically harming someone else simply because they have a different ethnicity, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. than you. Sure, one person might look at another and decide they were not as smart or more lazy or whatever based on various characteristics, but very very few would say that justified physical harm. (I note we had bigots of every race and creed and shape.)
You mentioned Jews. I doubt we could get 99%+ agreement today among the population that physically attacking Jews is a bad idea. And I doubt the change came about due to an increase in the number of Neo Nazis. And not by coincidence, we have had a lot of immigration from countries where anti Semitism is rampant. And I can replace the word Jews with the word Gay. Maybe the far right may still not like Gay people but most of the far right managed to get themselves to a point where they have a live and let live attitude. There are even some far right leaders who are out of the closet. But countries where harming Jews is OK are also countries where harming Gays is OK. And where FGM is OK. The list expands as the number of people with hateful ideologies expands.
And as the Pastor once said, “first they came for the…” This time the “they” aren’t interested in communists and trade unionists. This time, first they came for the little girls. Their own daughters.
But, I get it and will lay off the ick factor after this post.
Mike:
Niemöller had a point of not sitting back and letting things happen. Some of us did go to war and some of us did not go, protested, and left the country. Which of us are the braver of the bunch who took action? It has to be tough to leave your home forever or go to jail/prison. It is not fun to lose friends to something which should never have happened either. I am not one to sit back and let things happen. I did what I thought was right and many of the people from my generation did also. There were also those who hid or threw the rocks of hatred at those who protested.
I read some of the things being said in defense of a man who is our leader and it is unbelievable. For me it is hard not to say something and I do. It is definitely a chaotic period and our new fearless leader thrives in chaos where nothing is taken as true and little is factual. If nothing is true or factual, then anything is possible. This is Trump’s reality.
The thousands protesting is only a start
“brought with them some advantage—such as human capital, knowledge, culture, or institutions—that raises the level of income today.”
Yep only three advantages possible. Couldn’t be more.
Course, I could take this thing to the nth degree and come up with some data that would undoubtedly show that males make more money and more assets than females, especially those who have been in this country for generations.
Logically, one would think only having males allowed in the US would help increase our economic growth; greatly reduce violent crime; and give every man a pony.
What could go wrong?
Mike’s response to Run’s comment make prominent mention of the data supplied by the CDC .. specifically related to FGM which Mike has brought up before — also by using erroneous claims.
In this case Mike says:
“ Note that the contention that the only reason there were 500k women and girls at risk of FGM and that this was due to immigration came from the CDC, not me. Even this topic can still be approached from a data oriented perspective.
[The statement that] “..500k women… at risk of FGM…came from the CDC, not me.”
The facts are that the CDC specifically highlighted that they cannot make any distinction between “at risk” and “actual FGM occurrences.”
That they make a simplifying ASSUMPTION that the prevalence of FGM by immigrants who come from nations that practice FGM occurs in the US at the same rate as in the nations that practice it.
That this ASSUMPTION is likely in error because of differences in the US than in the native nations.:
That these differences “would very likely result in reduced risk” in the US.
AND more significantly:
“A systematic review of FGM studies in Europe concluded that children born to an immigrant family run very little risk of undergoing FGM”
These and other caveats are what the CDC actually stated. So to take a top-line number widely reported (and re-reported by anti-African immigrant proponents) without providing the caveats is highly mis-leading. Though the CDC has no objective data on the prevalence of FGM in the US, the available objective data in Europe says there is very little risk.
The CDC said in fact that it is very likely that immigrants change their behavior relative to FGM practices in the US.
From the GAO report from which the CDC information on FGM is derived. (source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678098.pdf )
CDC acknowledged four specific limitations to its most recent estimate, which are similar to those applicable to the 1990 estimate.
1. Estimate does not account for changes in behavior upon moving to the United States. CDC’s estimate assumes that, with regard to FGM/C practices, people behave the same in the United States as they would in the countries from which they came. However, there are several reasons why the behaviors are likely to differ from those in the countries of origin, including assimilation, differences in education and other socioeconomic characteristics, and U.S. laws banning FGM/C. The authors note that these differences would very likely result in reduced risk for FGM/C. While there are no data to test this hypothesis for a U.S.-based population, a systematic review of FGM/C studies in Europe concluded that children born to an immigrant family run relatively little risk of undergoing FGM/C.25
2. Estimate does not account for variation of prevalence within countries of origin. CDC’s estimate was based on national prevalence levels reported for the countries of origin where FGM/C is practiced. However, in many of those countries, the prevalence of FGM/C varies by geographic area (e.g., urban or rural), ethnic group, and other factors including socioeconomic status. Further, the population coming to the United States may not be representative of the entire country of origin.
3. Estimate does not include countries where it is known that FGM/C is practiced, but for which there are no data. CDC only had FGM/C prevalence estimates from countries for which such information had been published at the time the agency’s estimates.. and there are more that follow.
Here’s one of the European reports on FGM among immigrants from countries where FGM is practiced.
http://www.awepa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Female-Genital-Mutilation-in-the-Netherlands.pdf
Caution: It’s a long, highly detailed report (very unlike the CDC report), including detailed methods of analysis, different assumptions used, age groups, differentiating those who came to the Netherlands with FGM and those that occurred while resident in the Netherlands, etc.
Their data is based on regions in the FGM practicing nations rather than the nation itself. As the CDC noted there are wide differences in FGM practicing nations in the cultural prevalence. The CDC specifically stated that they made no effort to make distinctions by regions without nations from where US immigrants from those nations emigrated.
The summary conclusions from the report states:
“…we conclude that annually 40 to 50 girls living in the Netherlands, run a risk of fgm. For part of these girls the risk only gets real when they visit their countries of origin”.
The number of women in the Netherlands who come from nations where FGM is practiced is 70,000 (all ages 1st and 2nd generation)
In other words some of the risk isn’t even in the Netherlands but in their country of origin when returning to it. (visits) .
Of girls in ages of risk, 89% have zero risk of FGM, 9% have “doubtful” risk — which is factored down by other data that shows half or more of this category are not actually at real risk, and 2% have real risk.
But the real risk is only present if and when they travel back to their country of origin and zero risk otherwise.
This is real, objectively based data and conclusions, very unlike the CDC report, so it is surprising to me that the CDC report did not refer to or make use of any other known FGM studies on immigrants from nations that practice FGM culturally.
This makes me suspect that the reason for publishing the 500k number “at risk” was to provide more emphasis to congress and the public that this needs far more funding and emphasis to objectively measure and for prevention by youth groups, information from medical facilities, follow-ups by more social workers, etc.
Never the less the available objective information shows very little risk and nothing at all anywhere near the number 500k!!! in the US.
Longtooth,
You left out this sentence from all your quoting:
But they then go on to assume the low estimate because:
1. The Dutch government has been running programs to reduce the incidence of FGM
2. Youth Health Care reported figures at the low end.
I read the report quickly, so perhaps I missed something important, but item 2 seems to go like this if I understand the process correctly. You start with the number of girls brought in for a physical that for whatever reason ends up involving a genital examination. Now, of that group, you need the attending physician to conclude that it is best to report the family to the authorities, knowing that it might cause the kid to be taken away by protective services. And of that group, you also need the family to state that the procedure was done in the Netherlands knowing full well that the procedure is illegal in the Netherlands but at the time the survey was done, it was still legal to have the procedure done abroad if you are a Dutch citizen. Now, the number you are left is 2% of the Dutch girls who are 1st or 2nd gen immigrants who have undergone the procedure in a given year in the Netherlands (as opposed to having gone abroad to have it done).
The report notes:
If I understand the process they used correctly, a similar methodology can be used to show that that only 2% of the vehicles on a freeway are speeding, or that only 2% of us ever overeat.
of the number of families that took their daughters to physicians to have their genitals examined for whatever reason, and of that group, of the number that doctors and social workers decided to report to the authorities (bearing in mind the doctor is put in a position
sick, demented motherf1cker.
Someone needs to stop you kimel.
This is disgusting.
EMichael,
Not that this will sink in with you, but other people read this so I want to make sure other readers are aware of what is going on.
In other posts – for example – in comments to this one, Mr. Tooth (then spelled “Longttooth”) objected to my objections to FGM and bacha bazi. (Also, to honor killings and the notion of killing infidels.)
Bacha bazi, as he defined it, is merely
And FGM, he felt, was OK because:
Who are we to judge, he asks?
He approaches the issue from the perspective that we shouldn’t discriminate against immigrants who bring these cultural traits with them because hey, its a tradition. And many women are big promoters of FGM, he tells us.
In this post, he comments selectively from a Dutch report on FGM. “40 to 50 girls” a year getting FGM in Holland is a horrible thing, but it still sounds a lot better than up to 939 out of 1,705.
Which brings me to a comment you made on a post I put up a few days ago
Now, you meant interesting to see who agrees with Mike Kimel. But it goes both ways. I find it interesting to see who agrees with Longtooth.
Because your comment, your words:
That to the guy who is firmly in opposition to FGM and child molestation and honor killings, and in support of the guy who thinks those are cultural mores no better and no worse than watching the Rose Parade, eating Turkey on Thanksgiving or wearing ten gallon hats. Good to know where you stand.
Yeah, anyone who disagrees with your neverending story somehow supports child molestation.
Interesting that Wikipedia reports the origin of Americans with the highest income is famously impoverished India, with those from the Phillipines in third place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income
EMichael,
Hey, I disagree with you and you call me a racist and a sick demented motherf1cker. You also suggested that it makes sense to see who agrees with me. Turnabout is fair play. I haven’t called you a racist or a sick demented motherf1cker but I have pointed out who agrees with you. Since who agrees with me was supposed to mean something, then I suggest by your standards, who agrees with you means something too.
Pal Wedderien,
As I noted in other posts, the fit isn’t perfect. And since you used Wikipedia, you might as well have headed over to their piece on Filipino Americans. It includes this sentence:
As I keep stating, we want to encourage groups that fit in more easily and have similar values to that of the majority of Americans. Filipinos seem to fit the bill. And since people like EMichael keep insisting that I only want immigration by Northwest Europeans, check your map – you’ll find the Philippines smack dab between France and the Low Countries.
As to Indians… I know a lot of Indian Americans. Perhaps there is something unrepresentative about the ones I know, but they all seem to be Brahmins or from one of the merchant castes, which seems to indicate that the population of Indian Americans is not representative of Indians in general. As another bit of evidence for that statement – 18% of Indian Americans are Christian (I used Wikipedia) but only 2.3% of India’s population is Christian. Christians are not randomly distributed in India, but mostly live in the South and the far Northeast of the Country. (One of my two closest childhood friends, the only two childhood friends I am still in close touch with, is the child of immigrants from Goa, and they are Catholic.) I did some searching, and cannot find any information on the castes of Indian Americans, but my impression based on close interaction with many Indian Americans is that the Indian American community may not represent a random selection of the people of India.
In any case, it would be nice to do a study of the Indians who have done well in the US and determine what are their traits. They are the kind of people whose immigration we want to encourage. (And yes, of course they are Northwest Europeans too!)
To me what you post is equivalent to saying that social mobility in the USA is low. The rest is ethnocentrism.