1) I don't think immigration from Latin America is particularly good for the USA, but its a thousand times better then the African and Middle Eastern immigration that Europe is getting. What's going on in Europe is truly a disaster. It's one thing to assimilate a 93 IQ Mestizo with the same religion and some genetic links in them. It's a disaster to try and integrate some 80 something IQ inbred Muslim.
2) "Similarly, if the Italian government keeps migrants on welfare indefinitely, it’s hardly surprising if they’re slow to learn Italian and land a low-skill job."
---
Poor immigrants and their sympathizers are pro-welfare and vote for welfare state parties, so we should blame them for the welfare state.
I believe that poor immigrants largely come to the west for the welfare. Note that things like free education and infrastructure, which the immigrants meager wages could never pay for, count as welfare as well.
3) “What exactly did Americans think was so bad about Italians?”
---
Especially with the Sicilians they were heavily involved in organized crime, something that took many decades to break.
They also were a part of urban political spoils machines that were notorious for their corruption.
4). “The U.S. excluded southern and eastern Europeans because they believed they were inferior. But the subsequent performance of these groups in the U.S. has been average or even above average.” I made this point several times in my class, but how telling is it really? On reflection, quite telling, because the best predictor of future performance is past performance - and that naturally holds for the reliability of judgment. If most native-born Americans a hundred years ago assumed that southern and eastern Europeans - even Jews! - would become a permanent underclass, their judgment must have been very poor. And there’s little reason to deem the judgment of modern native-born Americans on such questions any better."
---
The Bell Curve covers the Ellis Island immigration in its very introduction. Rather than copy paste it in I suggest you just go read it. The topic has been elaborate on by many other sources. Your premise is in question.
There is little correlation between modern third world immigration to the first world and 1900 immigration from Europe to America.
For Italians in particular even if we assumed that Southern Italy has an AVG IQ of 95 we still have to deal with the problem that:
1) Not every Italian immigrant was from the south
2) Immigrants were people who could afford to immigrate (very expensive in 1900 dollars, selection effect)
3) A huge % of immigrants of that era couldn't hack it in America and went back (selection effect)
4) 95 IQ isn't that off from 100 IQ (its basically the same as old stock Scotts Irish).
5) Italians had less cultural, religious, and genetic distance from natives compared to people from another continent
Overall, the 1924 immigration restrictions were a good thing. The US was at the limit of what it could assimilate after a 75 year stretch of ever higher immigration rates of relatively close genetic and cultural cousins. It probably needed a cooling off period to facilitate assimilation, which it did.
----
P.S. You're nonsense about restaurants is nonsense. The whole idea behind Hive Mind is that low skill workers can't substitute for high skill workers in O-Ring sectors. At any price! No comparative advantage. You overcook the fish and it doesn't ruin the restaurant. Meanwhile you make one mistake and you have to throw out 60 million doses of COVID vaccine.
You also misunderstand what a high trust society means. In a low trust society you can only rely on people to do the right thing when its small scale, concrete, everyone is watching, and you will be held accountable. Like a restaurant! In a high trust society you can rely on people to do the right thing at scale, even when it's abstract, even when nobody is watching and its hard to measure, and even when you are the only one holding yourself accountable.
If you want to engage in any activity more complicated than a a restaurant you need a high trust society. That means high trust people. High trust people are only a subset of the world population and nearly all of them already live in the first world.
1-Are you really saying that africans and middle eastern inhabitants have lower average IQs? Please present the evidence behind this claim.
2-Immigrants don't come for welfare. I think it's much more reasonable to assume that they, like everyone, just want to try to have better life prospects, which are more available in the developed world. They're not even getting welfare in Italy: as Bryan says, most illegal immigrants end up in the streets. The most welfare they'll get is a place to sleep at night at best, or a slave-like job in the rural south. Lots of african immigrants face extremely dangerous routes in the sahara and in the mediterranean to get to europe. I don't think they're risking their lives for this little welfare they're getting.
2) "I don't think they're risking their lives for this little welfare they're getting."
Then why are they here?
There is basically no immigration flow from the first world to the first world. Statistically its all poor third worlders coming to the first world.
If you don't think they are getting welfare, I don't know what to tell you. Go to a public school or a hospital and it should be obvious to you. Even in instances where they don't qualify, their kids usually do.
It appears to correlate very closely with general development. The numbers given by forumposter123 are correct.
If you are going to advocate for immigration, you should probably understand who the immigrants are. It seems unlikely that a typical citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, with an IQ around 65, is going to amount to much after arriving in Europe.
The estimates are Lynn’s: or in other words, junk. They used shoddy sampling, and culturally biased measurements. (As an aside - yes, the claim that cultural bias is responsible for african american/white deficit is bad and wrong. However, it is very much true for sub-saharan Africa). Sources below. :)
I will note my gripe is not even so much with the sources being bad, but with the arrogance to demand we do the research for him. He’s making a big claim - sources, please!
Bro, you're supposed to academic economist? But you haven't seriously dealt with IQ, the absolute single most important economic, social, and political metric for understanding the world today?
I feel like if we are going to have a discussion about third world immigration, basic knowledge of big facts like the IQ of the immigrants and the research surrounding national IQ on societal functioning are necessary. One ought to have read The Bell Curve and Hive Mind amongst many other sources. If one has not, one at least should not make a bunch of demands on others.
If a low-skilled immigrant is a drain on society primarily because they receive welfare, then isn't the same true of a low-skilled native? In that case, the root issue isn't immigration but a deleterious welfare system. Isn't that just an argument against the welfare state, rather than an argument against immigration?
I've read it all. Including stuff Bryan would never link to.
"cuts hair, can have a much higher standard of living in Fort Worth, TX than they can in, Abuja, Nigeria."
Sure. They can get to work on roads paid by people that make more money than her. Using electricity from a grid people like her could never maintain. Can receive healthcare paid for by Medicaid that she could never afford. And send her kids to public school that I have to pay for. I'm absolutely sure she can attain a higher standard of living on my dime.
Meanwhile, I would rather pay fewer taxes and pay a little more for a haircut.
"then isn't the same true of a low-skilled native?"
Yes. Thank god we don't have too many. Let's not make the situation worse.
"Isn't that just an argument against the welfare state, rather than an argument against immigration?"
Immigrants vote for the welfare state. I personally blame them for anything leftists do, since without them no leftist would ever win an election.
Most eugenically blessed countries have some kind of *social insurance* system, but that's very different than a welfare state. It's mostly productive middle class people paying taxes to themselves. Whether it looks like Sweden or Singapore. You can take or leave that if you want, but its fundamentally different than the permanent underclass we have. The constant essentially multi-generational transfer of resources from the productive to the unproductive is a *welfare state*.
It seems like you're suggesting that people whose skill sets are such that cutting hair is their most productive activity are incapable of producing more social benefit than they consume. To me, that seems implausible on its face. Would our society be better off if the bottom 99% of income earners disappeared? Now that I think about it, that's basically the plot of Altas Shrugged, so perhaps you're an Objectivist and that's exactly what you think.
But this view ignores some really core ideas of economics -- gains from trade, comparative advantage, specialization. A very small society with only brilliant people would still be far poorer than the big, diverse ones we actually have (dumb people notwithstanding!). Perhaps you reject those economic concepts, or maybe you just think that empirically they're outweighed by the massive bloat of the welfare state.
I'm sure I can't convince you, but the vast preponderance of social science disagrees with you and would maintain that poor people moving to rich countries produces net gains in wealth. That's in every Econ 101 textbook.
The criteria I use is that they roughly pay in what they take out, and they don't cause a lot of disruption or externalities on others. I think the average person in the first world meets that criteria. I'm not convinced the average person in the third world does. I think this is due to genetic difference.
According to the US Army, anyone with an IQ lower than 83 is essentially useless. They wouldn't even allow them to volunteer, because their very existence would be more trouble then it was worth. They aren't even worthy as canon fodder. That sounds about right.
For a society with an average IQ of 100 that's a little under 13% of the population (not 99% as you say). That isn't the end of the world. I guess we need a few janitors, and as long as they don't concentrate in one area or influence politics its the kind of deadweight loss society can just get along with.
But for the third world that probably close to half the population. And the Smart Fraction (the kind of people that could handle traditional college material), the ones really holding society together and driving it forward, are a very very small proportion of the third world.
"but the vast preponderance of social science disagrees with you and would maintain that poor people moving to rich countries produces net gains in wealth. That's in every Econ 101 textbook."
And if anyone published anything different, they would be cancelled as a racist.
There is a paper out there trying to analyze the whole "trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk" calculation that immigration is supposed to represent. The author makes the simple observation that if instead of third worlders being able to immigrate to good institutions, third world immigration destroys the good institutions of the first world, that rather then creating trillions of dollars in value it would actually destroy trillions of dollars in value. That's my own view. I think third world immigration may be the single worst policy anyone could advocate in the entire world. Any other candidates, mostly leftist political programs, are themselves made more likely to be implemented by third world immigrant voters and so there are no competitors for worst idea ever.
1) Hopefully Lega and their coalition can eventually halt the migration from Africa and even send some of them back.
2) Russian/Polish Jews were heavily Communist in the 1910s/1920s, so that was a big reason their immigration to the U.S. was restricted. And they were also involved in organized crime.
1-If you're so eager to send migrants back, i suggest you to first look at Italy's demographics. Italy is ageing rapidly, land ow-skill labor is becoming increasingly scarcer. Italy, like every other developed country, needs much more immigration to cope with this trend.
2-Migration from Africa is negligible at the present time. In recent years, figures have been around the tens of thousands, perfectly manageable for a country of 60 million. Migration from Africa is extremely spectacularized by Lega's propaganda.
These immigrants will never add to Italy. They are a net drain and make the situation worse. Only having children can save Italy. I fiscal and cultural strain of immigrants actually makes this harder.
Taxing childless adults? Have you ever heard of individual freedom? Do you want Europe to become China? I could get subsidizing babies like they do in Finland wit birth-friendly policies, but taxing childess adults is autocratic and absurd.
What are you basing your comments on? The majority of Muslims in Europe just as most Latin American Catholics in the USA are integrated and law-abiding individuals. Also, there are social differences such as in cases of socially skilled Cubans and Iranians as in Texas and Sweden.
I taught English in Italy many years ago and was amazed at how weak my pupils' English was. They would claim five years of classroom instruction but could barely manage more than a few hundred words, used very simple phrases, and could not understand anything unfamiliar
I've since travelled and worked a lot in Europe and (controlling for overall education level) Italians' English is easily the worst across the continent.
I don't know what's wrong with how it's taught, but there is huge room for improvement.
It's a big impediment to FDI, and of course successful migration to other countries.
If you were a STEM graduate (let's say IT/SE/CS), with native proficiency in English, from a country where English is not the native language, how would you go about breaking into things like private remote tutoring at or below the college level?
I'm guessing things to help there would include something like the IELTS general or academic certification (to prove English proficiency), published work of some kind (books, articles, etc.) to prove subject matter expertise, and knowing the native language of your students at a conversational level?
I found that Italian students preferred when I *didn't* know their own language, but living in Italy without Italian is very difficult so I picked up the basics fast.
Otherwise I am out of the game a long time so don't know how it works now. A heavy social media presence is probably helpful these days.
I think an underrated case against open borders is that some limited migration restrictions could act as a hedge against the erosion of free speech, given heterogeneity in cultural preferences. For instance, the largest minority population in Britain are Muslims from the South Asian subcontinent - primarily consisting of second generation immigrants. The Batley Grammar School scandal highlights the threat of looming censorship stemming from high immigration from the Islamic world. Ditto the Charlie Hebdo incident in France.
As you said many times, it’s always a matter of numbers if immigration is an improvement for a population where a welfare state in present, and with a welfare state as big as ours i’d be really curious to see the numbers for Italy (given by some expert since i probably cannot do a good job by myself)… I wouldn’t be surprise if it turns out to still be a positive even with our gigantic welfare state but i haven’t seen any good and reliable work on the topic yet…
That said I’m still grossed out by the Italian-American cousine, that is a point that i’ll never concede to you!!
Yes it was above average . My father came after ww 2 with $12 in his pocket . When he died 1983 he had become a citizen, manufacturer and owned a 3 bedroom house .His 3 children were all educated and employed.
1) I don't think immigration from Latin America is particularly good for the USA, but its a thousand times better then the African and Middle Eastern immigration that Europe is getting. What's going on in Europe is truly a disaster. It's one thing to assimilate a 93 IQ Mestizo with the same religion and some genetic links in them. It's a disaster to try and integrate some 80 something IQ inbred Muslim.
2) "Similarly, if the Italian government keeps migrants on welfare indefinitely, it’s hardly surprising if they’re slow to learn Italian and land a low-skill job."
---
Poor immigrants and their sympathizers are pro-welfare and vote for welfare state parties, so we should blame them for the welfare state.
I believe that poor immigrants largely come to the west for the welfare. Note that things like free education and infrastructure, which the immigrants meager wages could never pay for, count as welfare as well.
3) “What exactly did Americans think was so bad about Italians?”
---
Especially with the Sicilians they were heavily involved in organized crime, something that took many decades to break.
They also were a part of urban political spoils machines that were notorious for their corruption.
4). “The U.S. excluded southern and eastern Europeans because they believed they were inferior. But the subsequent performance of these groups in the U.S. has been average or even above average.” I made this point several times in my class, but how telling is it really? On reflection, quite telling, because the best predictor of future performance is past performance - and that naturally holds for the reliability of judgment. If most native-born Americans a hundred years ago assumed that southern and eastern Europeans - even Jews! - would become a permanent underclass, their judgment must have been very poor. And there’s little reason to deem the judgment of modern native-born Americans on such questions any better."
---
The Bell Curve covers the Ellis Island immigration in its very introduction. Rather than copy paste it in I suggest you just go read it. The topic has been elaborate on by many other sources. Your premise is in question.
There is little correlation between modern third world immigration to the first world and 1900 immigration from Europe to America.
For Italians in particular even if we assumed that Southern Italy has an AVG IQ of 95 we still have to deal with the problem that:
1) Not every Italian immigrant was from the south
2) Immigrants were people who could afford to immigrate (very expensive in 1900 dollars, selection effect)
3) A huge % of immigrants of that era couldn't hack it in America and went back (selection effect)
4) 95 IQ isn't that off from 100 IQ (its basically the same as old stock Scotts Irish).
5) Italians had less cultural, religious, and genetic distance from natives compared to people from another continent
Overall, the 1924 immigration restrictions were a good thing. The US was at the limit of what it could assimilate after a 75 year stretch of ever higher immigration rates of relatively close genetic and cultural cousins. It probably needed a cooling off period to facilitate assimilation, which it did.
----
P.S. You're nonsense about restaurants is nonsense. The whole idea behind Hive Mind is that low skill workers can't substitute for high skill workers in O-Ring sectors. At any price! No comparative advantage. You overcook the fish and it doesn't ruin the restaurant. Meanwhile you make one mistake and you have to throw out 60 million doses of COVID vaccine.
You also misunderstand what a high trust society means. In a low trust society you can only rely on people to do the right thing when its small scale, concrete, everyone is watching, and you will be held accountable. Like a restaurant! In a high trust society you can rely on people to do the right thing at scale, even when it's abstract, even when nobody is watching and its hard to measure, and even when you are the only one holding yourself accountable.
If you want to engage in any activity more complicated than a a restaurant you need a high trust society. That means high trust people. High trust people are only a subset of the world population and nearly all of them already live in the first world.
1-Are you really saying that africans and middle eastern inhabitants have lower average IQs? Please present the evidence behind this claim.
2-Immigrants don't come for welfare. I think it's much more reasonable to assume that they, like everyone, just want to try to have better life prospects, which are more available in the developed world. They're not even getting welfare in Italy: as Bryan says, most illegal immigrants end up in the streets. The most welfare they'll get is a place to sleep at night at best, or a slave-like job in the rural south. Lots of african immigrants face extremely dangerous routes in the sahara and in the mediterranean to get to europe. I don't think they're risking their lives for this little welfare they're getting.
1) Yes. Evidence is a google search away.
2) "I don't think they're risking their lives for this little welfare they're getting."
Then why are they here?
There is basically no immigration flow from the first world to the first world. Statistically its all poor third worlders coming to the first world.
If you don't think they are getting welfare, I don't know what to tell you. Go to a public school or a hospital and it should be obvious to you. Even in instances where they don't qualify, their kids usually do.
No. You do not simply get to claim “google it”. *You* are making the claim, *you* back it up.
I don't think I agree with forumposter123 about much, but if you want to know about mean IQ in different countries, you can find the information here:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country
It appears to correlate very closely with general development. The numbers given by forumposter123 are correct.
If you are going to advocate for immigration, you should probably understand who the immigrants are. It seems unlikely that a typical citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, with an IQ around 65, is going to amount to much after arriving in Europe.
The estimates are Lynn’s: or in other words, junk. They used shoddy sampling, and culturally biased measurements. (As an aside - yes, the claim that cultural bias is responsible for african american/white deficit is bad and wrong. However, it is very much true for sub-saharan Africa). Sources below. :)
https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1525123900077744130?s=20&t=rEbIal9CRmbwFwx4yAUSHQ
https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1526658886064869376?s=20&t=rEbIal9CRmbwFwx4yAUSHQ
https://twitter.com/PaoloShirasi/status/1525123900077744130?s=20&t=rEbIal9CRmbwFwx4yAUSHQ
I will note my gripe is not even so much with the sources being bad, but with the arrogance to demand we do the research for him. He’s making a big claim - sources, please!
Bro, you're supposed to academic economist? But you haven't seriously dealt with IQ, the absolute single most important economic, social, and political metric for understanding the world today?
I feel like if we are going to have a discussion about third world immigration, basic knowledge of big facts like the IQ of the immigrants and the research surrounding national IQ on societal functioning are necessary. One ought to have read The Bell Curve and Hive Mind amongst many other sources. If one has not, one at least should not make a bunch of demands on others.
That website is a bullshit source. It claims that Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Nepal have average IQs below 60. There is no way that is true.
So the only reason you can imagine for people to go from a poor country to a rich one is to take advantage of welfare? It doens't seem like you've read anything Bryan has written on immigration, or indeed any economist. It seems obvious to me, just thinking about it for a minute, that someone who, say, cuts hair, can have a much higher standard of living in Fort Worth, TX than they can in, Abuja, Nigeria. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease. Also, Tyler Cowen explains it in a few minutes here: https://mru.org/courses/development-economics/wage-gains-immigration. Or if you prefer Alex: https://mru.org/courses/development-economics/india-haircut-balassa-samuelson
If a low-skilled immigrant is a drain on society primarily because they receive welfare, then isn't the same true of a low-skilled native? In that case, the root issue isn't immigration but a deleterious welfare system. Isn't that just an argument against the welfare state, rather than an argument against immigration?
I've read it all. Including stuff Bryan would never link to.
"cuts hair, can have a much higher standard of living in Fort Worth, TX than they can in, Abuja, Nigeria."
Sure. They can get to work on roads paid by people that make more money than her. Using electricity from a grid people like her could never maintain. Can receive healthcare paid for by Medicaid that she could never afford. And send her kids to public school that I have to pay for. I'm absolutely sure she can attain a higher standard of living on my dime.
Meanwhile, I would rather pay fewer taxes and pay a little more for a haircut.
"then isn't the same true of a low-skilled native?"
Yes. Thank god we don't have too many. Let's not make the situation worse.
"Isn't that just an argument against the welfare state, rather than an argument against immigration?"
Immigrants vote for the welfare state. I personally blame them for anything leftists do, since without them no leftist would ever win an election.
Most eugenically blessed countries have some kind of *social insurance* system, but that's very different than a welfare state. It's mostly productive middle class people paying taxes to themselves. Whether it looks like Sweden or Singapore. You can take or leave that if you want, but its fundamentally different than the permanent underclass we have. The constant essentially multi-generational transfer of resources from the productive to the unproductive is a *welfare state*.
It seems like you're suggesting that people whose skill sets are such that cutting hair is their most productive activity are incapable of producing more social benefit than they consume. To me, that seems implausible on its face. Would our society be better off if the bottom 99% of income earners disappeared? Now that I think about it, that's basically the plot of Altas Shrugged, so perhaps you're an Objectivist and that's exactly what you think.
But this view ignores some really core ideas of economics -- gains from trade, comparative advantage, specialization. A very small society with only brilliant people would still be far poorer than the big, diverse ones we actually have (dumb people notwithstanding!). Perhaps you reject those economic concepts, or maybe you just think that empirically they're outweighed by the massive bloat of the welfare state.
I'm sure I can't convince you, but the vast preponderance of social science disagrees with you and would maintain that poor people moving to rich countries produces net gains in wealth. That's in every Econ 101 textbook.
The criteria I use is that they roughly pay in what they take out, and they don't cause a lot of disruption or externalities on others. I think the average person in the first world meets that criteria. I'm not convinced the average person in the third world does. I think this is due to genetic difference.
According to the US Army, anyone with an IQ lower than 83 is essentially useless. They wouldn't even allow them to volunteer, because their very existence would be more trouble then it was worth. They aren't even worthy as canon fodder. That sounds about right.
For a society with an average IQ of 100 that's a little under 13% of the population (not 99% as you say). That isn't the end of the world. I guess we need a few janitors, and as long as they don't concentrate in one area or influence politics its the kind of deadweight loss society can just get along with.
But for the third world that probably close to half the population. And the Smart Fraction (the kind of people that could handle traditional college material), the ones really holding society together and driving it forward, are a very very small proportion of the third world.
"but the vast preponderance of social science disagrees with you and would maintain that poor people moving to rich countries produces net gains in wealth. That's in every Econ 101 textbook."
And if anyone published anything different, they would be cancelled as a racist.
There is a paper out there trying to analyze the whole "trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk" calculation that immigration is supposed to represent. The author makes the simple observation that if instead of third worlders being able to immigrate to good institutions, third world immigration destroys the good institutions of the first world, that rather then creating trillions of dollars in value it would actually destroy trillions of dollars in value. That's my own view. I think third world immigration may be the single worst policy anyone could advocate in the entire world. Any other candidates, mostly leftist political programs, are themselves made more likely to be implemented by third world immigrant voters and so there are no competitors for worst idea ever.
1) Hopefully Lega and their coalition can eventually halt the migration from Africa and even send some of them back.
2) Russian/Polish Jews were heavily Communist in the 1910s/1920s, so that was a big reason their immigration to the U.S. was restricted. And they were also involved in organized crime.
1-If you're so eager to send migrants back, i suggest you to first look at Italy's demographics. Italy is ageing rapidly, land ow-skill labor is becoming increasingly scarcer. Italy, like every other developed country, needs much more immigration to cope with this trend.
2-Migration from Africa is negligible at the present time. In recent years, figures have been around the tens of thousands, perfectly manageable for a country of 60 million. Migration from Africa is extremely spectacularized by Lega's propaganda.
These immigrants will never add to Italy. They are a net drain and make the situation worse. Only having children can save Italy. I fiscal and cultural strain of immigrants actually makes this harder.
Instead of immigration, you could tax childless adults to encourage them to have more children.
Taxing childless adults? Have you ever heard of individual freedom? Do you want Europe to become China? I could get subsidizing babies like they do in Finland wit birth-friendly policies, but taxing childess adults is autocratic and absurd.
The childless are anti-social free riders. They should pay their fair share to create the next generation.
This one was funny, even for you, but alright I'll bite, how are childless people "anti-social" and how are they free riders.
Your whole worldview honestly is based on a category mistake. You think Darwinism is prescriptive, when in fact it's merely descriptive.
What are you basing your comments on? The majority of Muslims in Europe just as most Latin American Catholics in the USA are integrated and law-abiding individuals. Also, there are social differences such as in cases of socially skilled Cubans and Iranians as in Texas and Sweden.
From what you are writing here, it sounds that your own IQ is low or :P?
Incomes are worse, crime is worse, etc. These are easy to find statistics.
How and where?
I taught English in Italy many years ago and was amazed at how weak my pupils' English was. They would claim five years of classroom instruction but could barely manage more than a few hundred words, used very simple phrases, and could not understand anything unfamiliar
I've since travelled and worked a lot in Europe and (controlling for overall education level) Italians' English is easily the worst across the continent.
I don't know what's wrong with how it's taught, but there is huge room for improvement.
It's a big impediment to FDI, and of course successful migration to other countries.
If you were a STEM graduate (let's say IT/SE/CS), with native proficiency in English, from a country where English is not the native language, how would you go about breaking into things like private remote tutoring at or below the college level?
I'm guessing things to help there would include something like the IELTS general or academic certification (to prove English proficiency), published work of some kind (books, articles, etc.) to prove subject matter expertise, and knowing the native language of your students at a conversational level?
I found that Italian students preferred when I *didn't* know their own language, but living in Italy without Italian is very difficult so I picked up the basics fast.
Otherwise I am out of the game a long time so don't know how it works now. A heavy social media presence is probably helpful these days.
Got it. More reasons to keep your social media presence both active and PG-13 then.
I think an underrated case against open borders is that some limited migration restrictions could act as a hedge against the erosion of free speech, given heterogeneity in cultural preferences. For instance, the largest minority population in Britain are Muslims from the South Asian subcontinent - primarily consisting of second generation immigrants. The Batley Grammar School scandal highlights the threat of looming censorship stemming from high immigration from the Islamic world. Ditto the Charlie Hebdo incident in France.
As you said many times, it’s always a matter of numbers if immigration is an improvement for a population where a welfare state in present, and with a welfare state as big as ours i’d be really curious to see the numbers for Italy (given by some expert since i probably cannot do a good job by myself)… I wouldn’t be surprise if it turns out to still be a positive even with our gigantic welfare state but i haven’t seen any good and reliable work on the topic yet…
That said I’m still grossed out by the Italian-American cousine, that is a point that i’ll never concede to you!!
Viva Chicken Parmigiana!
Yes it was above average . My father came after ww 2 with $12 in his pocket . When he died 1983 he had become a citizen, manufacturer and owned a 3 bedroom house .His 3 children were all educated and employed.
The best thing would be global free movement based on common citizenship with freedom and rights, digital identity and community memberships .
As in Breaking Bad - I blame the government