American regions with high immigration enjoy persistent, long-term higher incomes and lower unemployment

Originally published at:



The headline is misleading, surely? Are the forces that influenced and enabled migration from the period of 1860 to 1920 not substantially different from what they are today? For instance, what if territories that today enjoy persistent, long-term etc. already had features which were appealing to immigrants at that time?

1 Like

Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.

Why would there be immigrant inflow to depressed regions where there are no jobs?


Huntington (and, you know, racists) would point out that most of the Mass Migration immigrants were nominally white, whereas now they are not. Does it matter? Well, teleologically, yes; because, well, for a racist… How could it not?


Maybe read the paper instead of guessing.


But they weren’t considered “white” at the time. Especially Catholics and Jews.

Also fewer non-white people of wealth were coming to this country (or allowed to come here) back in the day. For example Asian people could not own property in the US in many states until the latter part of the 20th Century.(The film “Snow Falling on Cedars” makes it a key part of the plot). Now Chinese oligarchs park millions of dollars in US real estate to hide it from their government.


Places with lots of jobs attract migration. Rebubbacans are against immigration, so they try to tank the economy every chance they get.

Also, more people make a bigger economy. So either having a bunch of immigrants or babies improves the economy.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.