In her most recent Tribune Media column, former Fox News pundit Rachel Marsden, a Canadian who now lives in France, purports to advise U.S. lawmakers on what is the best “recipe” to be competitive in the global economy. She advises them to “focus on importing top talent and limiting low-level immigration,” which she says would also better reflect their constituents' supposed views. But as it turns out, Marsden has no idea what she's talking about.

In a column brazen for its naked racism, Marsden laments the “white guilt overkill” that has seen the United States welcome “more Third World immigrants” in the past 40 years than “from Western European democracies and Canada.” She then cites an Ipsos Global poll that found that “nearly one half (45%) of global citizens believe 'immigration has generally had a negative impact on their country' ” -- including 56 percent of Americans -- and suggests that should be justification for halting immigration from Latin America and Asia. Indeed, she complains that following revised immigration laws to correct the system's historically racially biased structure, “Latin America and Asia dominated, while European immigration was reduced from 86% to a mere sliver of 13%.”

Predictably, the column was hyped by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) President Dan Stein, who linked to the column using the headline, “Public Isn't Buying Mass-Immigration.”

But Marsden is just plain wrong. According to the Ipsos poll she mentions, Americans are split on the question of whether “priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications who can fill shortages among certain professions” in the United States. In fact, among all countries polled, the United States had the lowest number of respondents who agreed with that statement, with just 33 percent saying that high-skilled immigrants should be given priority. An equal number disagreed, with 30 percent being neutral.

Moreover, if Marsden had an inkling of Americans' views on immigration, she would know that a majority has consistently believed immigration is a good thing; has repeatedly maintained that America should always welcome immigrants; and believes immigrants do contribute to this country. Indeed, this fits in with the fact that most Americans would prefer that immigrants here illegally be given a way to stay here legally.

Additionally, a recent report by the Brookings Institution found that high-skilled immigrants, those with at least a Bachelor's degree, outnumber low-skilled immigrants without a high school diploma by at least 25 percent in 44 major metro areas across the country. Brookings reported: “In 1980, just 19 percent of immigrants aged 25 to 64 held a bachelor's degree, and nearly 40 percent had not completed high school. By 2010, 30 percent of working-age immigrants had at least a college degree and 28 percent lacked a high school diploma.”

Marsden blamed the “mass Third World immigration” on the American left's introduction of “the concept of Third World multiculturalism to America,” claiming that the “idea of any and all legal immigration being a net positive is something that has been deeply planted in the public conscience through leftist brainwashing and diversity promotion initiatives, typically starting in the public education system.” She adds:

Top-educated Canadians have the most positive view of immigration of anyone in the world. As a product of that system, I can personally vouch for the amount of multicultural and diversity peddling to which the average student is subjected in the absence of any counterpoint.

And yet, the feeling in Europe is that the United States, along with Canada and Australia, are the “most promising” models for multiculturalism. As Le Figaro editor Michael Cosgrove wrote on Digital Journal:

Multiculturalism in Europe has been a disastrous failure, period.

[...]

Europe, including well-meaning Liberals and Socialists, still talks about immigrants from its “ex-colonies” in condescending terms as if they were “imported labor” and not an integral part of the continent, whereas America sees immigration as being an essential part of its continuing capacity as a major world player, despite the inevitable hiccups that occur.

[...]

[I]f Europe doesn't find inspiration which will reduce the spiraling increase in racism and discrimination which is beginning to cause serious problems in all sectors of society, there will be big trouble just around the corner.

Instead of dismissing the American model outright, Europe should begin to look at it and adapt what is suitable within it to the European mindset. Europe has nothing to lose and everything to gain by considering the few options it has left open to it, of which the American model is the most promising.

A recent Atlantic story highlighted how France is losing a growing number of immigrants from French-speaking African countries to the U.S. because of its “embrace of talented immigrants” and “racial equality.” Another factor African immigrants cited for favoring America over France and Europe was the “pragmatism and openness of American capital” in contrast to “France's more closed, status-oriented managerial culture.”

The facts also show that there are tremendous benefits to legal immigration. As the Associated Press reported: “Foreign-born entrepreneurs were behind one in four U.S. technology startups over the past decade.” The AP added: “Immigrant entrepreneurs' companies employed 450,000 workers and generated $52 billion in sales in 2005,” according to a 2007 Duke University survey. In April 2010, The New York Times reported:

Yet while visa bottlenecks persist for high-skilled immigrants, on the whole, the census data show, the current system has brought a range of foreign workers across skill and income levels. The analysis suggests, moreover, that the immigrants played a central role in the cycle of the economic growth of cities over the last two decades.

Cities with thriving immigrant populations -- with high-earning and lower-wage workers -- tended to be those that prospered the most.

“Economic growth in urban areas has been clearly connected with an increase in immigrants' share of the local labor force,” Mr. Kallick said.

Surprisingly, the analysis showed, the growing cities were not the ones, like St. Louis, that drew primarily high-earning foreigners. In fact, the St. Louis area had one of the slowest growing economies.

Rather, the fastest economic growth between 1990 and 2008 was in cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix that received large influxes of immigrants with a mix of occupations -- including many in lower-paid service and blue-collar jobs.

Incidentally, according to 2010 government figures, most newly legalized immigrants in America were from Asia, the bulk from China and India. (In Canada, the majority of immigrants come from Asia, as well.) And as Marsden notes, most new American immigrants were legalized “on the basis of 'family reunification' rather than skill” -- which is yet another fact she has trouble with.