A reasonable assessment of the evidence of the previous chapters, stripped of the near-overwhelming desire to see it in the light best suited to whatever are one’s moral prejudices, is that moderate immigration has predominantly favorable economic effects on the indigenous population, and ambiguous social effects. There is a gain from greater cultural variety, offset by the adverse effect of diversity on mutual regard, and the potential weakening of a functional social model by diasporas attached to dysfunctional social models. Sustained rapid migration would be an entirely different matter: both the economic and the social effects would most probably be adverse for host populations. The fundamental economic forces of the simple models would kick in: wages would be bid down and public capital spread more thinly. The social benefits to increased variety are most likely subject to diminishing returns, while the social costs of diversity and dysfunctional social models are likely increasing. To think concretely, consider immigration from a low-income country in which the social model is manifestly highly dysfunctional, namely Somalia. For any host society the first ten thousand Somali immigrants are likely to provide a pleasing gain in cultural variety and little else. But immigration that increases a culturally separate Somali diaspora from one million to two million would bring little additional gain in variety, while weakening mutual regard and giving significant weight to a bad social model.
I think this professor is speaking the god honest truth. Somali immigration to the West needs to be shut down. I know many secretly agree.