Degrees of Equality: Abolitionist Colleges and the Politics of Race by John Frederick Bell

and macroeconomic levels of analysis. His microeconomic perspective on immigration suggests that the local impact of immigration on the job market is mixed and not nearly as disruptive to less privileged Americans as some critics, such as Borjas, have sometimes claimed. He finds the macroeconomic effect of immigration even more positive because in an open economy immigration contributes to efficiency and productivity. Kane also addresses critics who charge that newcomers from abroad pose a threat to the culture of the American people. Nativists see in the nation’s increasing cultural diversity a threat best neutralized by exclusion. Kane, however, sees cultural diversity as an American strength that was present from the earliest days of the country’s history. He deplores the contemporary conflating of immigration and racial-identity politics, focusing instead upon “the common unity of ideas embodied in [the United States’] founding documents,” such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (13). At times, Kane’s pro-immigration argument seems unrelentingly positive. His focus on the long-term benefits of immigration causes him to pay scant attention to its short-term burdens on local communities. Therefore, he does not adequately address immigration reform from the perspective of redistributing the immediate costs of settling newcomers into homes, jobs, and schools. Kane’s abundant evidence in support of immigration’s importance in shaping America’s strength and prosperity throughout its history fuels a persuasive argument that will engage scholars in think tanks and classrooms. It will also stoke the fire of an already heated contemporary debate about current policies.