Intel's Founder on America's Future

Fantastic article from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html

“We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak,” said Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel.

I've sued Intel before, so I don't agree with everything it says or does, but Mr. Barrett knows of what he speaks. The fact that politicians are not heeding intelligent entrepreneurs like Mr. Barrett means our political system is broken. Politicians seem to be incapable of educating their constituents about the benefits of immigration. Part of the problem is that media outlets, which used to have substantive political discussions, such as FDR's fireside chats, have moved away from being an educational tool. In addition, the media's shock-value brand of journalism has diluted America's capacity for intelligent analysis.

When the Internet came on the scene, it seems that traditional media outlets ditched intelligent commentary and analysis in favor of "Do whatever it takes to look at me" journalism. Prior to the Internet, for example, reality television--where a loudmouth or superficial person was vaulted to celebrity status--was a small portion of mainstream media. (MTV's "The Real World" was really the only major reality show for years.) In contrast, today's media items are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (e.g., Octo-mom) to attract readers. In an age of video games, the Internet, text messaging, and numerous other entertainment options, mainstream media resorted to bottom-feeding to get eyeballs. As a result of so much information--most of it devoid of any real analysis--the public gets little news that has any real substance. If you assume that mainstream media is an important pillar in keeping a country on the right path, the media's declining standards should frighten you.

Speaking of pillars, the New York Times has been a beacon of light throughout America's history. It was responsible for the seminal case of NYT vs. Sullivan, which affirmed a newspaper's right to publish controversial new reports without fear of litigation. Here is one of my favorite parts of the opinion:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

Now ask yourself: are Octo-mom, Madonna's adoption efforts, and Lindsey Lohan's romantic exploits what America's founders contemplated when they talked about our duty to have "robust" political discussions? To wit: the top stories on Yahoo's main portal right now are about a ship captain's rescue; Obama's dog; Lohan's hair; and cable TV bills. Go back and re-read Mr. Barrett's comment above.

Oh, the decline of an empire.

Immigrants Add to American Economy

Thomas Friedman echoes my take on immigration here:

According to research by Vivek Wadhwa, a senior research associate at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, more than half of Silicon Valley start-ups were founded by immigrants over the last decade. These immigrant-founded tech companies employed 450,000 workers and had sales of $52 billion in 2005.

Being anti-immigration seems like another case of cutting your nose to spite your face--at the end of the day, you just hurt yourself. The benefits of legal immigration seem obvious in a supply-and-demand economy. Older, educated, and legal immigrants will usually be financial positives for several reasons: one, they are happy to be here, so they usually don't commit crimes; two, they're already educated, so the state doesn't have to subsidize their education or training; and three, being new residents, they cannot inherit anything or rely on family for income or assets; as a result, they must buy rent houses, cars, and other big ticket items, which helps the economy.

I've written about this issue before here.

Clark Winter agrees with Mr. Friedman and me. See here. So does Alan Greenspan. See here.

Clark Winter's The Either/Or Investor

I originally avoided Clark Winter's The Either/Or Investor because the title is uninspiring and brought back visions of Søren Kierkegaard. I am happy I reconsidered. Clark Winter isn't your ordinary Wall Street denizen. He dedicates his book to his "wife and family," which tells you right away he knows his priorities. You can almost imagine him zipping across the landscape in a Pontiac G8. He seems to admire GM and the car business--which is part of the problem, because he wrote his book before March 2008 and the auto industry's current woes. If you can ignore his sanguine predictions about car companies and auto usage (see page xxxiii, where he praises GM over Ford, and says, "Even rising fuel prices will probably not make much a difference, as American habits are extraordinarily ingrained." [p. 147]), the rest of his book is a joy to read. His comments on immigration are particularly timely, given America's increasing protectionist sentiments:

Despite the belief that immigrants don't contribute much to society besides low-level work, they are in fact instrumental in starting businesses that serve other immigrants. In the United States, individuals start more than 550,000 new businesses a month, according to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Latin American immigrants start more business[es] than any other group, following by immigrants in general. [p. 33]

On the whole, immigration is good for investors. It brings new customers, new incentives to innovate, new markets, new competitors, and new capital into the market. The savings rates of immigrants are higher than those of the native born, which adds to capital formation. What immigrants, legal or otherwise, take out of the system in terms of municipal services, they probably make in sales taxes on the goods they purchase. Immigrants start new businesses--and therefore are a greater source of new employment--than their native-born counterparts. Additionally, these new companies add to the capital stock of the community in another way. They bring their talents, hopes, dreams, and skills to countries that are increasingly postindustrial and therefore less inclined to do the jobs that those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder are willing to take on. All in all, there are few reasons to oppose immigration from an investment perspective, much less a cultural one. [p. 35]

Most investing books have insightful or funny anecdotes and facts, and Mr. Winter's book is no exception. He talks about teaching his son economics while driving to grandma's house [p. 54]; Singapore's rise [p. 66]; the economic concepts of alpha and beta [p. 106]; sentiment's role in the markets [p. 70]; and the role of "expensive beef" in Argentina's rise and fall [p. 73]:

Poverty doubled from 27 percent to 54 percent, and millions of Argentines had their life savings wiped out...During all that time, the diet never changed. If it had, Argentines would have brought down their government. [p. 70]

Mr. Winter's main point is that ordinary investors can invest better simply by paying attention. He calls this "thematic investing," or concentrating on a subject whose outcome might be reasonably predictable [p. 72]. Although he doesn't explicitly say it, he favors momentum trading, because buy-and-hold investors are subject to the vagaries of geopolitical events and other events beyond their control:

You could always be a buy-and-hold investor, but that isn't likely to work, either, as you could lose a lot of money in the process. Markets can and do go to sleep for years, as they wait for geopolitical events to sort themselves out. [p. 72]

Going back to Argentina, if an investor understood or learned how important beef was in Argentina's traditional diet, s/he may have been able to profit. For instance, Mr. Winter's "reality-based" investor could have done well by trading beef/cattle futures, or perhaps by stockpiling beef before the Argentine peso collapsed. However, Mr. Winter supplies his own counterargument when he describes Macao as a good investment opportunity:

If Macao is a good enough investment for Steve Wynn or Sheldon Adelson, two of the most successful investors in Las Vegas real estate, it may be a safe bet for individual investors as well. [p. 77]

Unfortunately, Steve Wynn's Wynn Resorts (WYNN) and Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Sands (LVS) have been two of the worst-performing stocks this year. Both invested heavily in Macao. What's the lesson? Even if you know which direction the wind is blowing, it doesn't necessarily mean a beneficial storm will occur at the spot you predict. (Somewhere, John Bogle, an ardent buy-and-hold advocate, is smiling.)

Despite these "oops" moments, I learned a lot from Either/Or. Mr. Winter can explain complex ideas without sounding as if he's speaking down to his readers. On page 94, he explains why companies go public, despite the higher scrutiny (they want liquidity and access to more sources of funding). On pages 95-96, he discusses derivatives (you can almost hear the foreboding music in the background as you read):

[T]he variety of futures contracts available has increased dramatically and the number of contracts has increased exponentially. There are now many more futures contracts in oil traded than actual barrels of oil to be delivered...While futures are supposed to create more orderly markets, sometimes they can add disorder in the marketplace.

I also learned some more interesting facts. For example, Brazil is an oligarchy: "In Brazil, for example, twenty thousand families control 80% of the wealth." [p. 123] Also, the bottom of an oil barrel contains the most valuable liquid:

[W]hen the oil is refined, the lightest components become gasoline and kerosene and jet fuel, which sell for a couple of dollars per gallon. The next heaviest component becomes heating oil, which also sells for a dollar or two a gallon. What is left at the bottom of the barrel is the heavy, tarlike residue that is turned into thousands of different organic chemicals and pharmaceutical compounds...[these can] sell for anywhere from a few dollars a gallon to thousands of dollars a pound.

I'll leave you with Mr. Winter's investing rules:

1. Don't lose money
2. Don't invest where the big investors invest
3. Find a waterfall and put your bucket under it
4. Open your mind

Mr. Winter is obviously a man with both feet planted firmly on the ground. If you're skeptical of buy-and-hold investing, or if you just want to learn more about a different investment style, you may enjoy his book.

Immigrants Add Jobs

Ah, the perennial debate about whether immigrants take away jobs: The Guardian

For the last time, the answer is "No." But no matter how many numbers are publicized or gathered, the human being is a visual animal. That means if some different-looking fella is mowing your neighbor's lawn, he's going to be noticed much more than anyone else, even if three more natives are hired at the local hardware store down the street.

The more interesting question is whether immigrants drive down wages in certain industries. I think generally speaking, they would, only because of the simple fact that more people entering any industry create more competition, which leads to lower prices. In ordinary times, people like more competition, because it led to lower prices. Now, it's a problem because people see increasing unemployment and need to find a scapegoat. Of course, they don't blame out-of-control government spending, ill-advised international adventures, or underfunded entitlement programs. Nah, it's much easier to blame that different-looking fella who talks funny.

I'm not sure this visual bias will ever change, but perhaps schools should be more effective in teaching students how the Irish, Germans, Italians, and Chinese were treated when they first arrived in America, and how they were all blamed each time an economic crisis arose.

Dept of Homeland Security's Incompetence

Yet another reason Homeland Security is America's most incompetent government agency:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/21/60minutes/main4625729_page3.shtml

The American government is spending our taxpayer dollars trying to deport wives of Americans, including dead soldiers, solely because their interview did not occur before the unexpected death of the husband. In the 60 Minutes segment, called "Immigrant Widows Left In Limbo," one mother-in-law tearfully says, "This is America." It's heartbreaking to learn just how incompetent the Department Homeland Security is. I am writing my Congresspersons in both the House and Senate.

And here I thought the federal government couldn't top its previous pinnacle of incompetence, which was improperly jailing an innocent man for seven years. Mr. Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian of Algerian descent, was recently released by a judge--who was appointed by none other than George W. Bush himself. For the legal eagles, there's more about the Boumediene Supreme Court case here: The Most Significant Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case.

For even more on Mr. Boumediene, see WSJ, November 21, 2008, A6. The government jailed him for seven years on the basis of a "single, 'unnamed source.'" Basically, our United States government used secret evidence to jail a man on American-controlled soil for seven years, all the while insisting the man was not entitled to a trial. I'm with the mother-in-law featured on 60 Minutes, but I phrase her sentiment differently: "Is this the America we want, where the Department of Homeland Security appears to have no substantive checks on its powers and very little transparency?"

Dick Armey's Conservatism

In today's WSJ (11/7/08, A17), Richard "Dick" Armey correctly pinpoints the problem with McCain's campaign--a failure to communicate convincing pride in individualism and small government:

The modern Republican Party has risen above its insecurities to achieve political success [in the past]. [We] understood that big government was cruel and uncaring of individual aspirations. Small government conservatism was, by definition, compassionate--offering every American a way up to self-determination and economic prosperity. Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity...The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business.

The last line is pure poetry. Unfortunately, Dick Armey has the fatal flaw of many Republicans--cultural myopia, which has led him to make insensitive statements against minorities. Cultural insularity was a major problem in McCain's campaign and especially in its VP choice, because unless Republicans convince Americans they stand for more than just quota-type diversity, their ranks will not grow. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Arizona audience for McCain's concession speech, and compare its diversity with the people in Grant Park and worldwide who supported Obama. The United States has changed demographically, but the Republicans seem oblivious.

Cultural insularity is the main reason Sarah Palin was such a controversial choice. Picking her meant the Republican Party consciously closed itself to independents who didn't favor a robust Christianity or who valued intellectualism. Palin famously refused to specify what she read (see Couric interview) and admitted she hadn't traveled much outside of North America before her VP nomination (see Gibson Interview, 9/13/08). But Palin aside, the Republicans desperately need a plan that will make them more attractive to people in larger cities, who tend to be less religious and more diverse. The solution is simple: if Republicans want to beat the Democrats, they must agree to advocate smaller government, lower taxes, and more legal immigration.

The failure to have a coherent immigration policy doomed the Republicans and will continue to doom them as long as they are viewed as a white, Christian party. This is because the electoral college system favors states that attract the most immigrants (or whose residents have the most children). For instance, despite winning only 53% of the popular vote, Obama won around 70% of the vote that matters, the electoral college vote. He won by focusing on diverse, larger cities, and he prevailed even though he received only 30% of working-class white votes. In short, Obama won because he understood that a vote in California is worth more than a vote in Alabama.

Assuming the electoral college system continues, sensitivity to legalized immigration and ethnic and religious diversity will be necessary to win the White House. Every single state with more than 19 electoral votes has either a large immigrant population or is not majority white. Meanwhile, many Republican strongholds, like Alabama and Kentucky, are experiencing depopulation or are sustaining population levels mainly because of foreign immigration. In fact, without immigrants and their children, America would have a negative population growth rate. Assuming naturalized citizens favor legal immigration and do not agree that Christianity is the only path to morality, any continued attempt to support Sarah Palin or persons like her as representative of the Republican Party will exclude immigrants and residents in mega-cities.

Still Pro-Palin? Look at a sample of mega-cities, like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, San Jose, San Francisco, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia--in all those cities, the white, presumably Christian population is a plurality, not a majority. Outside of Texas, guess how many cities with over a million residents are majority white? Only one--Phoenix, Arizona--and the Republicans already tried winning with that hometown hero.

If you continue to disagree that a pro-immigration, non-religious platform is necessary for the Republicans to recapture the White House, you should study Santa Clara County and North Carolina. Both are microcosms of America in terms of changing demographics.

In Santa Clara County, more than 40% of the residents were born outside the country. An astounding 69% voted for Obama, and only 28% voted for McCain. Those numbers demonstrate how out of touch the Republican Party has become with non-Caucasians and non-Christians. Republicans should be more popular in California--after all, Californians recently elected a Republican governor, and the Republican Party's platform of less spending and lower taxation should appeal to high-earners and people concerned with the state's budget crisis. Yet, Republicans cannot gain a reliable foothold in any county where immigration has exploded. This failure to do better in diverse counties, even in states that badly need fiscal discipline, shows that the Republicans' strategy of focusing on whites, Christians, and senior citizens at the expense of other groups is not viable. This is not to say that Republicans should exclude their core groups of support and suddenly focus on minorities. That strategy shift won't work, either. For example, despite having consistent support from Florida's Cuban population, Republicans lost Florida. In addition, foreign-born Americans are only 12% of the national population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2004 survey.

What's the solution? Again, it's surprisingly simple: Republicans need to focus more on fiscal responsibility, advocate more legal immigration to appear progressive, and excise the fundamentalist religious right from their ranks. To do this, Republicans must cast out Sarah Palin and expressly affirm the separation of church and state. Indeed, despite being accused of practicing fundamentalist Christianity, Sarah Palin never delivered her version of JFK's "Catholic speech" or an Obama/Jeremiah Wright rebuttal. By failing to publicly and openly address concerns that her religious beliefs would interfere with her ability to govern the nation impartially, she hurt the Republican Party in all major urban areas. She also lost an opportunity to show that she understood American values, an opportunity a previous Democratic candidate did not forsake. Historians now agree that JFK won in no small part because of his stand against the commingling of church and state:

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end...

And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office...

I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion.

If the Grand Old Party wants true reformation, it will condemn in the strongest possible language any Republican who believes that a particular religion is required to gain God's favor. Ironically, this shift will probably cause the Christian right to create the first viable third party in America, which will gain Senate seats from the Midwest and allow them a firmer, more consistent voice in politics. Thus, my proposed solution would create a win-win-win situation.

Still unconvinced? Take a hard look at the evolution of North Carolina. Less than ten years ago, North Carolina voted for a senator, Jesse Helms, who was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who filibustered the idea of having a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. (as you can see, minorities and immigrants have legitimate reasons for not voting Republican). North Carolina voted for Jesse Helms from 1973 to 2003--twenty long years. Recently, however, North Carolina voted out Helms' successor, Elizabeth Dole, in favor of a Democrat, and previously, it elected one of the most liberal Democrats, John Edwards.

The story gets worse for the Republicans. North Carolina voted Republican in every presidential election from 1968 to 2004--until Obama. That's quite a shift from Senator Jesse "Anti-Civil-Rights-Act" Helms in the last ten to twenty years--and the children of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, haven't even hit voting age yet. North Carolina shows that if Republicans do not disavow themselves of their Palin/Helms strain of right-wing religion and cultural insularity, they will lose America. Not just "real America," but America, period. After all, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States say nothing about Christianity, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Also, in 1797, George Washington signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Demographics are destiny, as the saying goes. For now and the immediate future, the demographics are decidedly in favor of a party that respects and favors legal immigration, diversity, and separation of church and state. That's good news for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bobby Jindal, and others prescient enough to see the future of American politics.

_________

Blog Post on Immigration Policies of Obama and McCain:

http://claresays.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/mccain-obama-and-immigration/

Update on April 2, 2009: not that it's conclusive evidence of anything, but Newt Gingrich agrees with me.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/02/gingrich-warns-of-third-party-in-2012/

Update on April 2012: for better or worse, urbanization is happening world-wide, not just in the United States: "In the hundred years between 1950 and 2050, the global population is undergoing an irreversible structural transition in the way we live.  Drawn by the economic, lifestyle and social opportunities of urban dwelling, the world's population is migrating from rural areas--accounting for 70% of global population in 1950--to cities--accounting for 70% of of global population by 2050 based on United Nations projections.  In 2009, the percentage of the planet's population living in urban areas crossed the 50% threshold and by 2037 cities in developing nations will contain half the world's total population." (from Credit Suisse, April 2012)

Update on March 2017: "Hillary Clinton, more than others, has a worldview problem because the vast majority of the electorate has already told itself a story about her... I believe there isn't enough money in circulation to persuade those voters that have already made up their minds to change them." -- from Seth Godin's All Marketers are Liars (2005), pp. 81, hardcover.

Update on December 2017: the Republicans won the 2016 election through a twice-divorced candidate who married a legal immigrant, presumably employs numerous immigrants in his businesses, and who has no religious piety or knowledge. Unfortunately--or fortunately--I was wrong about Bobby Jindal's potential. 

Greenspan Wants More Educated Immigrants

According to yesterday's WSJ (8/14/08, David Wessel, A1), Greenspan agrees with my pro-immigration views, at least with respect to educated immigrants:

"The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said...

"Perhaps 150,000 of [new households] are loosely classified as skilled...A doubling or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale--and hence stabilize prices."

So far, so good; however, the Journal makes a mistake when it tries to do its own analysis:

The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes would accomplish that...

The Journal doesn't seem to understand that skilled immigrants mainly come to the States by way of H1-B visas and would settle in already-strong economic areas, such as San Jose, San Francisco, Chicago, and other large, diverse cities.

The housing crisis is mainly in places where mortgage brokers and lenders granted credit to low-income employees or workers with unsteady incomes.

Las Vegas, NV is a prime example. Although Vegas is a strong union town, too many uneducated people entered the market with hopes of making it to the middle-class. The city simply couldn't absorb all of its new entrants. As for attracting educated foreigners, how many M.A.s in Physics does a casino need?

Stockton, CA and Merced, CA have become notorious for their high rate of foreclosures. Their residents are mainly non-college-educated workers. While that situation may change because of the new UC in Merced, for now, if you have a PhD in engineering, would you end up in Merced, CA or San Jose, CA? (And yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

When residents bought homes outside but near Boulder and Denver, Colorado, they forgot the law of supply and demand. When you live near cities with only 1/2 million (Denver) and 100,000 (Boulder) residents, there's not enough demand to justify a large, immediate increase in supply. While Denver does have Qwest and ProLogis, there aren't enough companies there to sustain an inflow of high tech talent. In contrast, in Santa Clara County, I get lost driving in Sunnyvale because there are so many little streets that lead to massive warehouses filled with tech companies I've never heard of.

Greenspan is still correct in his pro-immigration view, but there's a missing step. We need companies to open new branches outside of the major cities. Perhaps if the government changed the H1B program to increase the cap on companies willing to place educated workers in mid-sized or smaller cities, educated immigrants could be a boon to overlooked cities suffering from the economic downturn.

Greenspan has recovered some of his credibility--he said this in November 2002:

It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future.

Then again, this is the same person who said this in October 2004:

[Home price declines] "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications... (2004)

And this gem comes from October 2006:

I think the worst of this [housing price decline] may well be over. (2006)

At the end of the day, we need more skilled immigrants or immigrants willing to work hard, but the question is where should they go? State governments and smaller to mid-sized cities should be more active in working with national and local corporations to set up the infrastructure necessary to attract foreign talent. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Local residents and businesses would benefit from higher prices due to increased demand. Foreign talent gets to come to America and make more here than they would elsewhere. I hope the local governments of Merced and Stockton are reading and thinking outside the box--if they don't follow the Rafat Rule ("being pro-immigration necessarily means being pro-capitalism"), more Southern cities like Louisville, KY, will beat them to the punch.

Immigrants and Entrepreneurship

An Oklahoma newspaper has an interesting article on immigrants and entrepreneurship:

http://newsok.com/diverse-entrepreneurs-are-changing-face-of-states-small-business/article/3269257/

"The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation [http://www.kauffman.org/], a Kansas City, Mo.-based entrepreneurial think tank, says 0.35 percent of immigrants are entrepreneurs compared with 0.28 percent for the native born."

"We are a nation built on immigrants. But there was always a path to the middle class. And that's not so much the case anymore. That's why more immigrants are turning to entrepreneurship. A lot of immigrants see it as the best, if not only, ticket to the American dream."

American Anti-Immigration Fervor as Old as Benjamin Franklin

Some people view America's immigration scenario with trepidation; others with resigned acceptance; and others with open arms and optimism. While it is easy to write off the Minutemen and others as ignorant rednecks, none other than Benjamin Franklin expressed unease at immigration into America. Mr. Franklin was concerned about Germans. My point in sharing his letter and concern is to show that every single wave of new immigration brings fear, even to educated people, but years later, such fear is always forgotten. America's ability to incorporate all manners of people has been absolutely stunning and most likely the key to our success. 

  "Inconveniences may one day arise among us. Those [immigrants] who come hither are generally of the most ignorant, stupid sort of their own Nation... [F]ew of the English understand the German language; and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit... Few of their children in the country learn English...they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have, will not, in my opinion, be able to preserve our Language and even our Government will become precarious." 

Mr. Franklin shows some humanity at the end of his letter when he says, "I say I am not against the admission of Germans in general for they have their Virtues; their Industry, and Frugality is exemplary." Do those traits remind anyone of the current crop of immigrants? 

I still say Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase was the single greatest achievement in American history--for what good is the Constitution without a large canvas for its implementation? America's vast landscape has allowed and will continue to allow more immigration for many more decades. The major issue is not whether America needs more immigrants--it has always had them--but how we can incorporate new immigrants and minimize wage losses in the industries they impact.

© Matthew Rafat (July 2008)