I have this habit of going on reading binges whenever a subject catches my interest, on when current events dictate I should become better informed on certain issues. This book concerns the latter. It is much better to learn about things before forming an opinion, eh?

"The Truth About Immigration" just about put the final nail in the coffin for me on the issue of immigration, and I'm not sure I am in need of any more material. There's only so many times you can read about the Mariel boat lift, Braceros, the facts and figures concerning the contributions of immigrants to the economy, and the misleading rhetoric on immigrant crime. When the studies are peer-reviewed and the researchers are intellectually honest, they tend to uncover the same truths and typically arrive to the same conclusion.

In a way, there's nothing in Zeke Hernandez' book that hasn't been done just as well or better elsewhere, however, it does a few things very well and presents some unique perspectives that make it, in my opinion, the top recommendation for anyone that wants to learn more about the subject without without getting mired in partisan muck.

The book is broken down in two parts: part 1 deals with the economics of immigration, while part 2 deals with the social implications. The first half felt very familiar to me having read excellent works such Thompson and Watson's [b:The Border Within: The Economics of Immigration in an Age of Fear|57331792|The Border Within The Economics of Immigration in an Age of Fear|Tara Watson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1628993829l/57331792._SY75_.jpg|89724838]. There' still things to learn here, as Hernandez shows early on how immigrants make the welcoming country more productive and innovative, on top of establishing networks with their homeland that bring in waves of investments and imports that increase the amount and variety of goods available to natives. This dynamic, says Hernandez, acts as a two-way door in a way that benefits both the receiving and the sending country:

Immigrants don't just increase the amount of investment. They increase its variety. And-this is key-they do that because they have networks different from yours. They know different people, in different places, with different ideas, skills, and resources. Immigrants' differences can cause fear (more to come on that). But when it comes to investment, those differences are essential.

According to Hernandez, current model of investment that relies on tax subsidies and other sweeteners to cajole industry to open factories in struggling towns is broken and have shown not to be effective. Immigrants bring in business and investment in more organic ways (he presents many examples of this) that are far more lasting and advantageous to the local population:

The triangle of immigration, investment, and jobs is one of the great untold stories of immigration. But while we all understand that jobs won't arise without investment, somehow the role of immigrants in fostering investment is easy to miss. That link is easy to miss because immigration brings investment slowly and without fanfare....A better model requires a relational and long-term view, rooted in the understanding that investment is a deeply human activity.

In this more realistic model, any effort to attract investment begins with human infrastructure: making a community attractive to people-of all backgrounds-so that they'll want to live and work there. That allows newcomers to do what they do, which includes relying on their cross-border networks to set up the conveyor belt.

The lesson is clear. You can't bring in investments that create jobs while keeping out the humans who make those investments possible.

Part 1 culminates with a discussion on what makes immigrants "complements" to the native labor force rather than perfect replacements, and on the looming issues concerning declining birth rates and a shrinking tax base. As Hernandez shows, at our current rate, entitlements such as medicare and social security will run out of money and we'll be left with no good options if we want to still have access to those benefits: either cut them significantly or increase taxes significantly:

The trillion-dollar question, literally, is who's going to pay for the end-of-life benefits of boomers and those who follow?...Every once in a while, when someone insists that we need to keep immigrants out to save our public budgets, I propose a choice between two options:

A. Immediately cut all immigration. The size of your Social Security check will be determined by the payroll taxes contributed by the resulting future population. Your retirement benefits won't be "contaminated" by immigrants' taxes.

B. Continue to allow immigration. The size of your Social Security check will be determined by the payroll taxes contributed by the resulting future population. Your retirement benefits will be "contaminated" by immigrants' taxes.

Nobody has chosen option A so far.

In part 2, Hernandez dispels some of the myths that immigrants fail to assimilate properly, and shows that immigrants today are integrating with the local population at the same rate or better than in the past, and in ways that are pretty surprising. For instance, people tend to think that immigrants bring their voting patterns with them when they come to a new place, but what the research shows is that immigrants tend to adopt the cultural and political leanings of the receiving community:

Political pundits often oversimplify the role of immigrants as voters by using terms like "the Latino vote" or "the Asian American vote." The impression is that ethnic groups support certain parties and issues as blocs. Which leads to dismaying results in the eyes of those who like simple stories.

Latinos aren't a monolithic group. Cubans differ from Mexicans, who differ from Brazilians. Asians from China differ from Asians of Vietnamese or Korean origin. As do natives from different US states. Nor can the political opinions of immigrants be attributed purely to the cultures and values of their countries of origin. An immigrant isn't representative of the average person in their home country. They often emigrate because they're different, which makes them more amenable to new political views than those who stay behind.

What Hernandez uniquely well is putting a factually rich, exquisitely researched, measured, and non-partisan wedge in the dichotomy that paints immigrants as either victims ("the left") or criminals ("the right"). As he explains, those in favor of immigration can't articulate a strong message going beyond mere sympathy and an appeal to our better angels...while the opponents are much more visceral and cohesive in communicating their discontents:

Those who favor immigration today don't converge on a clear set of issues. It may be human rights, family protection, or labor rights. As I noted in the opening, they also tend to focus on the immigrants themselves by framing them as victims to whom America should open its arms.

That immigrant-centered agenda is full of compassion. But it lacks a positively articulated vision of what newcomers will do for hard-pressed natives who are too worried about their own problems to feel compassion for outsiders. That's why it's an ineffective majority.

The minority, in contrast, is really well organized around a consistent message focused on protecting Americans.

This, he remarks, must change if we want to flip the script on immigration. We need to start framing the issue pf immigration as socially and economically positive if we want to ensure the long-term viability of our institutions:

Accusing a business of being greedy or unpatriotic for hiring a foreign-born worker is off the mark. It's a choice born of the reality of native labor shortages. And it's also born of the realization that immigrants can help businesses do more things than before because foreign-born workers are different from native workers. Those choices help native workers in the long run, by keeping businesses and the jobs they create alive and by allowing natives to sort into occupations that play to their strengths.

That turns the patriotism accusation on its head. It's the restrictionists who are hurting native workers, native businesses, and the national economy. That's a harsh statement. But it matches the evidence.

The book concludes with what is perhaps some of the most common-sensical approach to fixing the system, which ranges from changing the rhetoric as we saw above, to opening up more avenues for immigrants to integrate faster into our economies. This needs to be come hand-in-hand with local efforts to ensure the impact of welcoming immigrants is not unfairly borne by the receiving communities (something the book addresses even-handedly). These could include de-regulation of zoning and building laws to allow for more housing to be developed, better access to federal funds to lessen the financial burden to local communities, and limitations for access to entitlements for a specific time-frame or according to the type of visa/permit (wink-wink Canada).

As an immigrant myself and proud American Citizen, I am cognizant of, and extremely grateful for, the many opportunities afforded to me by this great nation, and would love nothing more than to see it flourish. As this book shows, one of the best avenues to do so is to welcome those that want to work hard to make sure it happens. Heavy-handed approaches to immigration hurt us all in the long term, and perhaps America will be made great again when it once more opens its arms to the industrious and enterprising spirit that made her a superpower. But I don't think that's what that slogan had in mind...

Highly possible recommendation.