I also don’t buy the cultural critiques. I do have a concern about voting patterns and general border security. We do currently live in a social democracy where the only restraint is a general aversion, based on history and self interest, to Euro-style big government. An aversion typically not shared by those with lower income…which make up the bulk of current immigrants.

On immigration if I had my way a decent political compromise could be a flat “entry fee” for a green card to deter free loaders and capture part of the “coyote” black market as a source of revenue (with a larger cuts in other taxes of course). Also strict enforcement of the various resident alien clauses i.e. commit a felony…get deported. And passing an English citizenship test for voting privileges.

Not perfect but a decent compromise without a whole lot of micromanagement.

I haven’t finished _The Case for Big Government_ yet but had already thought to myself “I have a feeling I’m going to have to use the phrase _post hoc ergo propter hoc_.” Gordon has beaten me to it — and if people really took his review to heart, support for government would evaporate, along with most colleges’ econ departments and the career of Paul Krugman, the NYT psychohistorian.

While it crosses my mind, though, on matters not as easily amenable to econ theorizing, such as the social side effects of immigration, some of the Mises Institute crowd (prone to oppose immigration for paleo reasons) might want to at least delve into stats long enough to mull over observations like this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709606468215025.html