Ideas and Consequences: The Immigration Problem
A rising tide of anti-immigrant feeling is washing over America, leaving in its wake a misinformed public and the potential for harmful new laws. Many Americans seem to be thinking, “I’m glad my grandparents made it over from the old country, but now that we’re here, let’s shut the door to any more of those foreigners.”
People opting to come to our shores is a generally positive development; in fact, it’s what made it possible to carve this great country from a wilderness in the first place. The lessons of free immigration may be drowned out by a host of current concerns, but they are as real and vital as ever.
In a widely acclaimed 1989 book entitled The Economic Consequences of Immigration, University of Maryland Professor Julian Simon demolished virtually every fallacy of the seal-the- borders mentality. He proved that immigrants do not subtract from the total number of available jobs, are net contributors to the public treasury, do not commit more crimes than natives, and generally work harder, save more, and are more likely to create businesses than native Americans. All things considered, newcomers add wealth, culture, and human capital to the economy.
Simon has demonstrated that immigrants are really not the huddled masses, helpless and dependent, that many people think. Instead, they are usually young and vigorous adults with excellent earnings potential. His detailed studies show that on balance, even accounting for all public welfare and other government “social service” costs imposed by our homegrown nanny state, each immigrant still contributes far more than he “takes” by being here.
In a 1990 Wall Street Journal article, Simon made another point worth repeating. The foreign- born population in the United States today is only about 6 percent—less than the proportion in such countries as Britain, France, and West Germany, and “vastly lower” than in Australia and Canada. We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of the descendants of immigrants.
People are only economic problems in systems which deny them the ability to be enterprising, to use their talents and ambitions to produce more wealth than they consume. Systems that encourage sloth and idleness with generous public welfare transform people—natives as well as immigrants—into dependents who subtract more than they add to the economy and society. What often is perceived as a crisis of immigration is really a crisis of our own politicized and half- socialized economy, which attracts some foreigners because of the subsidies it grants rather than with the opportunities for self-reliance it offers.
Sometimes, American foreign policy has generated the very waves of immigration that so many in our government lament. In recent months, far more Haitians fled their country for our shores because of an American trade embargo against Haiti than fled because the military dictatorship targeted them for persecution. (After all, Haiti has almost always had a military dictatorship but when its people starve because of embargoes, they have to go somewhere.)
In any event, it seems self-evident to me that of the many pressing problems facing America these days, none are caused by immigration or immigrants. Foreigners didn’t impose on us an expensive state education monopoly that doesn’t educate; red-blooded Americans did. A Congress that can’t balance its own budget at the same time it attempts to micromanage every aspect of other people’s businesses is not made up of Haitian boat people. It wasn’t Korean-born shopkeepers who set fire to downtown Los Angeles in 1992.
The case for free immigration today is strongest when it is coupled with the general argument for a free society, private property, and individual rights. I can think of no better way to illustrate this than by a personal example.
A Model Citizen
While visiting the Soviet Union in 1985, I met and befriended a young man named Constantin. In subsequent correspondence and during later visits I made to his country, he expressed to me an intense desire to make America his home. A naturally enterprising, optimistic, and self-reliant individual, he chafed at the endless inhibitions of the socialist system. Wanting to help him, I assisted in his eventual journey to America in 1991. He arrived on my doorstep with his wife and five-year-old son and within weeks requested permanent asylum.
Constantin’s values precluded the acceptance of any government benefits. He even enrolled his son in a private, Christian school. A local church helped him get off to a good start with donations of clothing and food. As his sponsor, I did all I could to help as well. Though it wasn’t easy for him—he bounced from one low-paying job to the next—he never let a productive opportunity pass without seizing it. While we waited to hear if his request to stay would be granted, he managed to earn enough to buy a house and became a highly regarded model citizen.
Only a few months ago, the bureaucrats in Washington notified him that yes, he could stay in America and eventually even become a citizen of this country. He was grateful, but I was angry. The same government that gave us the permission we all hoped for, I thought, could just as easily have denied it. Frankly, I didn’t think it should have been any of the government’s business.
Keep in mind that Constantin was not a burden on anyone. He never put in a claim for something at someone else’s expense. He acquired nothing except by his own efforts or by voluntary charity. He or I or the church or others interested in his welfare made sure he had what he needed. He trespassed on no one’s property, posed no threat or danger to anyone, even paid taxes to support a school system he didn’t patronize. He was an obvious net contributor to our community and no one who knew him thought he should be held hostage to the whims of some bureaucrat or to any legislated immigration quota.
What rightful claim over the disposition of his life could the U.S. government possibly have? That anyone could force him to vacate the country and get away with it was, to me, an unthinkable invasion of his individual rights and of my freedom of association. Fortunately, that didn’t happen, but it could have, and it does happen to others all the time.
Most Americans think that freedom means the government gets to tell us who can come here and live with us. Even many Americans who believe strongly in free trade in goods can’t quite bring themselves to embrace free movement of people.
De-socialize society and the immigration “problem” resolves itself into a great blessing for us all. Foreigners will come—the best and hardiest of them—because of the abundance of opportunity a free society represents.
Comment by Iva Bothova on 28 January 2010:
Dear Mr Reed,
I would like to ask your consent on possible citing this article in a friend’s diploma thesis.
Best regards
Iva Bothova
Comment by Ryan Turner on 28 January 2010:
I do, too, believe that the socialized government is the problem and should be fixed first. However, have you ever studied the fall of the Roman Empire? A key factor to the decline was an influx of immigrants. The freebie government we currently have only enhances/rewards the less competitive. Shouldn’t the solution be resolved based on what is currently happening and then let us focus on getting back to a free market society?
Pingback by Arizona’s Latinos Worried about New Law | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 28 May 2010:
[...] Timely Classic “The Immigration Problem” by Lawrence W. [...]
Comment by Kelton Baker on 28 May 2010:
The Roman Empire fell because it was an unsustainable system, as all empires are. Immigration had nothing to do with it, though Rome did try to limit immigration to preserve the privileges to those bestowed citizenship. The hoardes of barbarians that threatened the empire were either reacting to being conquered or lining-up for free bread and circuses, similarities to today: freedom to immigrate does not destroy a nation.
Comment by Drik on 28 May 2010:
This is defining the wrong problem. There is no immigration problem. The problem is the welfare state problem, that anyone who sneaks into the country becoames entitled to tap into a vast network of “free” services and stuff, courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Our founders did not mention this in the Constitution because it would never have occurred to them that “provide for the general welfare” would be construed as putting everyone on welfare. Welfare is a coined word and had no meaning in terms of a payout of cash and benefits from the government. That definition was invented by the government.
Without the anchor babies, another alien concept, the health and wealthcare, there is no immigration problem and we would be able to welcome workers from anywhere all the time. But not automatic citizens and entitled recipients.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 28 May 2010:
While I understand this was written in 1994, I do not understand the inability of Mr. Reed, Ms. Akers, Mr. Boudreaux and others that write for the Freeman to understand the difference between “immigrants” and “illegal aliens?” At some point it would be nice if one of these authors could take the time to explain this disability because it appears to be an intentional effort to confuse and elude.
I appreciate that Mr. Reed thinks that Professor Simon’s is the definitive work on immigration but cherry picking a single author and declaring the opposition’s stance a demolished fallacy using an all inclusive “Appeal to Authority” fallacy only reinforces the sense of deception. At some point it would be nice to read a pro-illegal-alien manifesto that didn’t default to these kinds of tactics.
Offering that any immigration is good immigration is as absurd as offering that any house guest is a good house guest. Mr. Reed laments that the “government” could have declined Constantine’s appeal to become a citizen but seems to forget that in a Democratic Republic that “We the People” are the government. I find it every bit as offensive that he thinks people should be able to enter this country uninvited as he does that someone he invites might be asked to leave. What if Constantine had been Jeffrey Dahmer revisited rather than the well adjusted citizen he turned out to be?
I would point out that Mr. Reed was able to spend time with Constantine before he invited him into his home rather than allowing Constantine to stay after he walked in uninvited. I am curious how long Mr. Reed would have allowed his well valued friend to stay if his first contact with Constantine was coming home to find him standing in his living room rather than spending time with him and being given the chance to evaluate his guest prior to giving him access to his property and family? If Mr. Reed expects the right to determine who enters his home why should he expect anything less when it comes to our right to determine who enters the country? It seems like the height of arrogance to suggest his rights trump everyone else’s. Of course the purpose of law is to determine where his rights end and mine begin, but he doesn’t like those partiulcar laws ergo his indignation at the potential that his friend might not have been granted citizenship.
We are mutual owners of a shared property called “The United States of America.” Just as in any shared property I have as much right to determine who occupies the land as he does. If we shared a home and he tried to rent a bedroom to some guy I found unsavory I have the legal authority as co-owner to veto the rental.
In the case of his anecdote about Constantine, I might initially agree to have him as a house guest but reserve the right to evict him any time I saw fit as is my right as co-owner. I am under no obligation whatsoever to allow him to stay just because I initially agreed to a temporary occupancy.
The failure of Randian/Objectivist thinking is that it deifies personal property while dismissing national property when the two concepts are inseparable. The original acquisition of land in 49 of the 50 states was made by the government in the form of money and/or blood (the exception being Hawaii which was annexed by request). The land was divided into parcels that were purchased and developed over time. Any deed is valid based on the authority of the USA. An usurping government is under no objective obligation to recognize these claim. In other words your rights are only as strong as the government that protects them.
As proof I would point out that Mexico seized hundred of homes in Baja and other areas after they passed an ex post facto law that retroactively made it illegal for non-citizens to own property within 20 miles of the coast. Hundreds of US citizens found themselves sans property with the stroke of a pen.
It would be refreshing if, at some point, one of these authors could address the topic objectively. This constant appeal to emotion is exhausting.
Pingback by Bill Would Encourage Foreigners To Buy U.S. Homes | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 21 October 2011:
[...] “The Immigration Problem” by Lawrence W. Reed [...]
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 7 February 2012:
Website we think you should visit…
[...]we had trouble with massive spamy links on our website. now we use stop spam plugin. once again our website is clean[...]……