Self-recommending, although I could raise many objections to his conclusion. Some excerpts:
There is reason to believe that many recent migrants to both the United States and Europe will have a much more difficult time than their predecessors. Meanwhile, the countries in which they settle are less likely to see the benefits of immigration as they experience heightened social tensions and widening social inequality. Policymakers would be wise to take those risks into account. Rather than focus on policies for integrating new immigrants, they should concentrate on avoiding selection policies that threaten to create near–permanent ethnic or religious underclasses.
…countries that selected elite immigrants to begin with now have high-performing immigrant classes. For example, the United Kingdom selects immigrants based more on education and skills. As a result, African, Chinese, and Indian immigrants outperform their British counterparts; although children of white British parents born between 1963 and 1975 attained on average 12.6 years of education, children of African migrants stayed in school for 15.2 years, those of Indian migrants for 14.2 years, and those of Chinese migrants for 15.1 years.
Pointer from Reihan Salam.
UPDATE: Also self-recommending is this Greg Clark podcast. Pointer from Jason Collins.
Florida seems to get many upper class/educated immigrants from Latin America.
That last paragraph blithely assumes that high-performing is the same as going to school a lot. One does not have to be Bryan Caplan to strongly disagree with that.
We probably have enough telephone sanitizers, account executives, marketing analysts, and non-profit administrators.
Actually, since Caplan views schooling as mostly a sorting/signaling mechanism, I would think he’d view years of schooling as a decent if imperfect proxy for overall economic potential.