Randolph 1
Kevin Randolph
Randy Koch
English 101.35
14 April 2013
How Strong is Philippe Legrain’s Case for Immigration?
When I first read Philippe Legrain’s article The Case for Immigration: The Secret to
Economic Vibrancy, his arguments seemed very convincing. He presented a variety of different
reasons for his pro-immigration stance that “removing immigration controls could more than
double the size of the world economy” and that “even a small relaxation would yield
disproportionately big gains” (45). He supported his reasons with various types of evidence. As I
read deeper into the article, though, I realized that the evidence lacked certain aspects and details
that make evidence more convincing. Philippe Legrain uses primarily ineffective evidence in his
article The Case for Immigration: The Secret to Economic Vibrancy.
Statistics act as Legrain’s strongest type of evidence in his essay, although some of his
uses of them are still not entirely effective. His use of a study by Gianmarco Ottaviano and
Giovanni Peri of the National Bureau of Economic Research provides some of his strongest
evidence. It comes from a credible source, and Legrain gives us details, such as when the
information was gathered: 1990 to 2004, which is relatively recent. The study says “the influx of
foreign workers… raised the average wage of U.S.-born workers by 2 percent. Nine in ten
American workers gained; only one in ten, high school dropouts, lost slightly, by 1 percent.”
(47). The study is used as evidence against an argument of the opposing side: the claim that
“immigrants harm American workers” (47). Legrain uses statistics to support some of his own
reasons too, such as his reason “individuals who come up with brilliant ideas [often] happen to
Randolph 2
be immigrants” (46). He backs this up with the statistic, “twenty-one of Britain’s Nobel Prize
winners arrived in the country as refugees” (46). This information is persuasive because it can be
considered common knowledge and could be easily verified. He backs up his reason with even
more statistics later in the essay. He writes, “nearly half of America’s venture capital-backed
start-ups have immigrant founders” (46). The number “nearly half” is rather arbitrary; it could be
49%, 40%, or a multitude of other numbers. No real numbers are provided. Legrain also gives no
source for this information. Because of this, we do not know when the data was collected or who
collected it. While this statistic relates directly to the reason, it is missing a lot of information.
This lack of details makes it less convincing. Consequently, most statistics used worked well for
Legrain’s argument, but some were weak and ineffective.
Real life examples used in Legrain’s essay require additional details to make them fully
convincing. Legrain uses London as a real life example to support his claim that “diversity acts
as magnet for talent.” Legrain writes, “three in ten Londoners [are] born abroad… People are
drawn there because it is an exciting, cosmopolitan place.” He claims this is because of the
diversity that London now possesses. This real life example lacks specific details. He uses words
like “people” and does not say whom specifically this diversity attracts. He also does not say
what specifically in London attracts these people. Legrain also employs a real life example as
evidence when he cites Intel, Yahoo!, Google, and eBay as companies that were “cofounded by
immigrants” (46). This detail supports the claim that immigrants “often come up with new ideas”
(46). The problem with this evidence is that it is not one specific event. It is presented instead as
a list and lacks details to back it up. That makes the evidence less convincing. The example is
followed by a statistic, which increases its effectiveness, but as a real life example it lacks the
details needed, such as who was involved and when the event occurred. Legrain uses the fact that
Randolph 3
“Africa’s first internet cafes were started by migrants returning from Europe” (48) to support his
reason that immigrants returning home help their home country economically. While this is a
good piece of evidence and is very interesting, more details would make it more convincing. It
does not mention the specifics of when or where this took place or who was involved. We do not
know what happened with the cafes; we only know they were started. As these examples show,
Legrain’s real life examples require more details to be effective.
Legrain’s hypothetical situations lack details and, therefore, act ineffectively as evidence.
“If [people] all think differently, then by bouncing ideas off each other they can solve problems
better and faster” (46). This hypothetical situation is easy to understand and relates back to the
reason that immigrants often offer new ideas and the fact that their different perspectives lead to
new ideas. It lacks, however, specific details. It does not identify who, when, where, or what
specifically happened in the situation. Legrain supports his idea that “migration is increasingly
temporary when people are allowed to move freely across borders” (48) with another
hypothetical situation. “If [Mexican migrants] could come and go freely, most would move only
temporarily.” Because the U.S. borders are not open, Legrain can only speculate about this. The
evidence also does not contain any specific details about who would be involved, when the
situation would occur, or where it would occur. Therefore, Legrain’s use of hypotheticals is not
convincing.
Legrain uses some persuasive arguments in his essay, The Case for Immigration: The
Secret to Economic Vibrancy, and it seems very convincing at first. Upon reading further into his
argument, however, one can see that his evidence lacks some important information and is,
therefore, primarily ineffective. This exemplifies why readers should always look closely at
Randolph 4
arguments and evidence that supports them before trusting the writer and accepting their opinion
as the truth. At a second glance, the argument may not be as convincing as it first seemed.
Randolph 5
Works Cited
Legrain, Philippe. “The Case for Immigration: The Secret to Economic Vibrancy.” The
International Economy 21.3 (2007): 26+. Print. Rpt. in The Ideal Reader. Ed. Randy
Koch. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 45-49. Print.