PDF Ebook Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders

PDF Ebook Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders

Curious? Naturally, this is why, we suppose you to click the web link page to see, then you could enjoy the book Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders downloaded and install up until completed. You can conserve the soft file of this Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders in your gizmo. Certainly, you will bring the device almost everywhere, will not you? This is why, every time you have spare time, each time you can enjoy reading by soft copy book Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders

PDF Ebook Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders

Discovering is a process that will be undertaken by all people in every age. In this situation, we have always guides that need to be accumulated and check out. Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders is just one of guides that we always suggest for you in finding out. This is the means exactly how you discover pertaining to the subject. When you have the existence of the books, you should see how this publication is actually advised.

The Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders is the book that we now advise. This is not kind of large book. Yet, this book will help you to reach the big idea. When you involve read this book, you could get the soft documents of it as well as save it in some different devices. Naturally, it will depend on exactly what gadget that you have as well as do. For this case, the book is suggested to conserve in laptop computer, computer, or in the device.

Associated with why this Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders exists initially below is that this referred publication is the one that you are trying to find, aren't you? Numerous are also exact same with you. They additionally seek for this wonderful publication as one of the resources to check out today. The referred book in this kind is mosting likely to offer the preference of expertise to acquire. It is not only the particular society yet also for the general public. This is why, you must take place in collecting all lessons, and also details about just what this publication has been written.

Investing the downtime by reviewing Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders could offer such wonderful encounter even you are simply sitting on your chair in the workplace or in your bed. It will not curse your time. This Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders will certainly assist you to have even more precious time while taking rest. It is really delightful when at the midday, with a mug of coffee or tea and also an e-book Melting Pot Or Civil War?: A Son Of Immigrants Makes The Case Against Open Borders in your gadget or computer system display. By taking pleasure in the sights around, here you could start reviewing.

Product details

#detail-bullets .content {

margin: 0.5em 0px 0em 25px !important;

}

Audible Audiobook

Listening Length: 4 hours and 24 minutes

Program Type: Audiobook

Version: Unabridged

Publisher: Penguin Audio

Audible.com Release Date: September 25, 2018

Whispersync for Voice: Ready

Language: English, English

ASIN: B07H42Q72F

Amazon Best Sellers Rank:

Anyone familiar with Reihan Salam's writings knows his unusual ability to sketch a practical, thoughtful vision solving difficult, polarizing problems of public policy. This book is his latest application of that incisive perspective on the world. This topic is so emotionally charged but too important to leave to less thoughtful voices.

This is an important book. It’s a shame that only policy wonks will read it. Though it is short and by no means conclusive, it has many fine insights.At first, I was a little miffed that Reihan Salam quickly got entangled in speculations about the economic consequences of various migration mixes. This approach tends to veer off into “who owns whom a living” micro-statism. However, the macro issues come later, along with the promised policy ideas.RS says his perspective is closer to Mr. Trump’s than to that of the “open borders” advocates. This makes no sense. First, his prescription (amnesty, skills-based quotas, and subsidies to migrants with children) is heresy to Trumpists; also, Mr. T’s deep primal need to hurt people, though popular, is not a coherent policy. Secondly, while all decent people should agree that no-borders is the utopian ideal, hardly anyone advocates them, accusations notwithstanding. It is not possible today.RS’s ideas are sane, practical, and reminiscent of the various compromises that never pass Congress (except in 1984). Indeed, RS sounds more like Brookings Institution than National Review, and there were times when he reminded me of some commissar in the industrial planning bureau of the Supreme Soviet – an impression he anticipates and tries to rebut.I am also not a fan of Salam’s “amalgamation/racialization” dichotomy. America was never meant to be a melting-pot, though the effect occurs. It’s not that Sioux and Jew, Amish and Inuit should gradually homogenize into Midwestern pea-soup. Au contraire: We may be totally different but are still 100% American (or should be). It’s this wild but mutually-tolerant diversity that makes America a unique miracle of history (or used to?). It also speaks for the widest possible net in accepting migrants. (That’s why Han Chinese will never replace us as the universal culture!)Then again, RS is spot-on in warning against importing a permanent underclass. Like Europe did.Salam is far from a “back-to-first-principles” guy, but he has “thought long and hard” about the moral obligation of letting people move as they please if they cause no trouble. But he rejects the utopian, libertarian doctrine that migration is not the problem – borders, and the states they delineate, are. Fences are unavoidable, so the issue comes down to damage-limitation. If you favor free trade in goods and services, and free movement of capital, you must favor the same in labor; the problems arise when these components slip out of formation, as the Europeans have discovered.Though his perspective is American, his Bengali ethnicity accords him some sympathy for the immigrant experience. His comparisons of policies globally are very interesting, but as a pragmatist he never drives ideas to their logical ends. We are entering an apocalyptic new age of mass migrations, with tidal waves of desperate humans sweeping across oceans and continents. All the “desirable” countries face the onslaught but seem to craft vastly different answers. RS decorously avoids discussing the famous “Wall” – but as the Chinese could tell us, walls don’t work; wall-ism is a symptom of weakness and fear in declining civilizations.RS doesn’t mention climate change – though Bangla Desh will soon be under water – or that the true problem is crazy overpopulation. But Europe cannot be expected to take in one billion Nigerians, nor can the US absorb entire peoples of failed states. He does see that a “forward strategy” is the key: fix and develop broken countries. Offshoring work (“virtual immigration”) is one way, but he also discusses “charter-cities” – new megacities a la Shenzhen designed by international experts to absorb the overflow. He’s toying here with something more fundamental: effectively, recolonization. I.e., successful civilizations create a demographic bow-wave in front of them; like the Romans, they must advance, slowly making citizens of “the barbarians.” Bicycle-like, the empire falls when it stops moving. Already, Europe is facing the consequences of ending the Reconquista at the sea, as Rome did at the Rhein-Donau line and China did at the Wall. From the stop-point, the wave is soon reflected back, out of control.States able to provide order, rule of law, and development should stop apologizing and yielding the field to local thugs. Go with what works. As RS clearly sees, it is far better to make, say, Syria livable than try to accept its entire population in Chicago and Berlin – or to have them subsist for generations in camps.RS’s domestic solutions are “about compromise.” Obviously, we need to favor those who can support themselves, regularize those already settled, and advance the lower-skilled out of their poverty trap. Salam likes the Canadian point-based system, but having gone through it, I don’t think bureaucrats should pick winners and losers for the economy; the market can do that much better, and even rich countries need lettuce-pickers as well as physicists. The Canadian system surely beats the family-weighted U.S. one, but in practice I doubt there’s a lot of difference in outcomes.Another insight: RS sees that US immigration laws are designed to be broken so as to provide cheap, defenseless labor. Few natives know that legal immigration is a costly, drawn-out, Kafka-esque process that is open to very, very few. “They should come legally” are cheap words. (But paradoxically, this broken system with its “work-or-die” result works far better than Europe’s “Let’s take in millions of moochers and malcontents and put them all on relief for eternity.”)Salam has also spotted a little recognized, but key phenomenon. In thermodynamic terms, migration is an attempt to exploit a steep gradient in prosperity-levels, but that search for equilibrium goes both ways. As he says, the already rich should consider emigrating to where their fixed income buys the most. (Within Europe this has long been common; also, US retirees abroad may find lower prices, better climates, nicer people, and they escape the US medical-industrial kleptocracy). But this principle of counter-migration can be extended much further. Rich countries quickly develop “flab” – non-productive, burdensome, or even dangerous segments. For them, comparative advantage lies in poor countries. Contracting, say, India to house our prisoners would cost maybe a tenth of their upkeep here (and they’d probably be better off). Same for high-cost patients and assisted-care recipients. In return we’d import the young, hungry, striving hard workers our economy needs. Think about it.At home, seeking to avoid creating a permanent migrant underclass, RS blunders badly by arguing for big subsidies to poor families. Incentivizing childbirth among the inept is absolutely the last thing needed to fight inequality. The opposite would work, but there again: the solutions that could actually work are politically impossible, whereas those that are possible merely make things worse in the long run.RS correctly flags birthright citizenship as an anachronism, but how to replace it? No European-style ethnicism, please. Some of us think modern citizenship should move in the direction of voluntary association: agree to the burdens, earn the bennies. Which leads to another issue: Nowhere does RS say that American citizenship should FIRST require true, informed allegiance to the Republic. The Europeans have a similar problem: how to define Western values? (But we know it when we don’t see them.)Perhaps a tougher citizenship test, longer probation, and a term of public or military service would work? Oops, most natives would fail.It remains a mystery how RS reconciles his “pro-imm” ideas with supposedly being a Republican strategist. Maybe that’s why he skirts politics. Given his backlash-warnings, he’s well aware that the issue is tailor-made for demagogues and political pyromaniacs, but he does not acknowledge that the two political gangs that take turns destroying the country have NO interest in resolving the issue: Keep the rabble roused, the system broken, and the checks coming. Remember the gang-of-eight who tried to do the right thing? They were slapped down when they threatened the party’s bread-and-butter. How do we address this? Would that be Volume II, Reyhan?

It is a well researched book with many references.I am not sure the author fully debunks some of the leftist views. He covers immigration policies of many coutries and I find this useful.It is interesting to see that people come up with ideas such as: unskilled immigrants are useful because they elevate the status of native low skilled workers.What they imply is that American low skilled workers will be managers of foreign low skilled workers. From experience, I see newly arrived workers, branch out on their own within a couple of years to open their own businesses; gardening shops, hairdressing, cantinas etc.The author suggests that the focus of immigration policy needs to change away from bloodlines to a system that helps the US cover its skills deficit, whether highly skilled or low skilled. It needs to be a Controlled process. Another debate should be whehter illegal arrivals should be given a path to citizenship or a legal residency status because the former creates a huge moral hazard.Another question about the US multi-racial society is whether it should be mono-cultural. Culture is the gel that keeps the nation togehter.The author points out the Right's hypocricy because they resist verification of their employees' status.I enjoyed the book and the author provided a comprehensive description of where we are a society and plenty of food for thought.

There have been many important books on immigration. Back in the 90s there was Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow,an Englishman who was with National Review and Forbes at the time and started VDARE magazine to look at thenational question. (Christopher Hitchens noted on Firing Line that you don't really become an English-American,it's not offensive, just intriguing to him). Pat Buchanan had several, including State of Emergency. Perhaps the mostconsequential of all was Ann Coulter's !Adios America! I believe that without Coulter's book, President Trump nevercould have given the opening minutes of his announcement speech on June 16 of 2015.Reihan Salam's book is of a different sort, and I identified with it for different reasons. In the opening pages he talksabout being of Bengal (Bangladesh) heritage, and being expected to know more about Islamic terrorism. He mostlyhad only positive experiences with stereotypes and little racism, although his parents did in Brooklyn. In my case,with Filipino and French-Canadian background I didn't have a lot of other ethnic kids around, so besides being closeto my family and religion I mostly just identified with my peers and the culture of the local rural area.At the end Salam talks about how people need to cross over to meet the other political tribe. So while the titletalks about being opposed to open borders, the book actually argues for amnesty. He understands why thiscauses skepticism after what happened after the 80s amnesty and the effects of globalization and over thepast few decades. But besides amnesty he argues for points to look at the merits of the immigrants, and childtax credits to look at the kids of the next generation which needs to have the hope of mobility and opportunitybeyond the jobs of the first generation. The book looks at a lot of the complexities from a fair perspective. Forinstance, bringing in low skilled immigrants to take the jobs may make them better off than in their former countries,but somebody still has to be at the bottom of the ladder here. Countries that are more welcoming of guest workersdon't allow them to remain permanently, etc. Many seem to realize that the overwhelming immigration and difficultyof assimilation is causing backlash, but they just want to continue on and crush the former majority culture. Salamis aware that the Trump era has been polarizing, but he seems to be seizing the moment as an opportunity to speakthese difficult things in a balanced way, because Trump has forced the conversation even if it's been a little rough attimes. There's also discussion of the effects of outsourcing jobs overseas and automation, replacing jobs with robots,as it relates to trade policy and immigration.While I found the discussion of economics and education very good, there could have been more onreligion and family influences on culture. Salam names his editor Rich Lowry, his former co-writerRoss Douthat, David Frum, Yuval Levin and the former colleagues at Slate at the end. Combinedthey certainly would have plenty of insights on culture as it relates to religion, family, educationand economic factors influencing the topic of immigration. I used to like Slate back in the late90s and early 2000s, but in the mid 2000s things got too polarized. Jacob Weisberg's reports onthe 2000 GOP debates were great-Republicans Test Their Metal (Alan Keyes vs. John McCainon Nine Inch Nails) and Anarchy in the GOP (Gary Bauer vs. Keyes on Rage Against the Machine).An exception was always Camille Paglia (actually she was Salon) who was various aspects of leftbut in weird ways.The term unauthorized for illegal is still a euphemism, but somewhat less awkward than undocumented,I suppose.

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders PDF
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders EPub
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders Doc
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders iBooks
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders rtf
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders Mobipocket
Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders Kindle

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders PDF

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders PDF

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders PDF

Melting Pot or Civil War?: A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders PDF