Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration
Mr. Lehman is Adjunct Professor of Economics and Western Civilization, Adult and Professional Studies Division, Indiana Wesleyan University, Marion, Indiana.
For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of collectivist economies and authoritarian or totalitarian governments throughout the world. Why then do the American people—descendants of immigrants, beneficiaries of open and unregulated immigration, whose culture, economy, government, and way of life are so deeply tied to open borders—exude such a passion against free immigration? Why do they wish so desperately to deny late twentieth-century immigrants the benefits to which their own eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors were privileged? What do Americans have against open borders?
American immigration policy is a labyrinth of regulations and barriers to free travel and migration. One wishing to enter this country must possess all the legal and “proper” documentation in order to be permitted entry. The poverty-stricken and homeless foreigners who expect to benefit most from immigrating into the American economy rarely possess resources adequate for legal entry. Hence, they are denied. Such immigration policy is based upon a xenophobic confusion regarding economics, the mobility of labor, the American welfare state, and cultural diversity.
Immigration and Labor
Many Americans argue that free immigration would destroy “working class” Americans’ ability to earn a living. They claim that allowing free and open borders to any and all immigrants would put decent, hard-working Americans out of work. Perhaps what these Americans really fear, however, is that someone will emerge from the “immigrant class” who would be willing to work for less than they while producing equal or greater output.
The present immigration policy of the United States amounts to nothing less than a tariff or barrier to entry on the commodity of labor, and harms American consumers in the same manner as tariffs and trade barriers on other capital or consumer goods.
A policy of open immigration would indeed force unskilled American laborers to compete for their jobs at lower wages. However, far from being an evil, this is a desirable outcome, one which should form the basis for a new immigration policy. By inviting competition into the American labor markets, artificially inflated labor costs could be eliminated and a greater level of labor efficiency could be achieved.
As the cost of labor (itself a cost of production) decreased, entrepreneurs and producers could produce more efficiently, enabling them to offer products and services at lower prices as they compete for consumers’ dollars. Lower prices in turn increase the purchasing power of the American consumer, and thus enhance living standards for everyone. This is happening even now as some small business owners use “illegal” immigrant labor to lower their operating costs and thus lower consumer prices: “. . . small-business executives do agree that some of their competitors who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal immigrants use the cheap labor to undercut prices of business owners who play by the rules.”[1]
This is good for both consumers and the economy at large. As immigration makes the American labor market more competitive, costs of production are reduced and prices decline. In the long run, even the domestic laborer who is forced to lower his wage demands is not any worse off, since what he loses in terms of lower nominal wages he may well regain in terms of lower prices on the goods and services he purchases as a consumer. Meanwhile, everyone else benefits, and no one is privileged at the coerced expense of anyone else.[2]
Immigration and Welfare
Another argument used in favor of immigration controls concerns the American welfare system and its potential abuse by immigrants who migrate into America merely to feed at the public trough of social services. The claim is made that the welfare system, not potential economic freedom, is the lure which draws immigrants into the American economy. Immigrants—unproductive, slothful, and indigent—constitute a dead-weight loss on the American economy, and further increase the tax burden on productive Americans. Therefore, we must police our borders and keep out the undesirables.
This argument is statistically and theoretically flawed. Contrary to prevailing public opinion, current immigrants do not “abuse” the public welfare system, even in the areas where immigration (legal or illegal) is most concentrated. In fact, immigrants have little effect on the current system of taxation and wealth redistribution. As Julian Simon relates:
Study after study shows that small proportions of illegals use government services: free medical, 5 percent; unemployment insurance 4; food stamps, 1; welfare payments, 1; child schooling, 4. Illegals are afraid of being caught if they apply for welfare. Practically none receive social security, the costliest service of all, but 77 percent pay social security taxes, and 73 percent have federal taxes withheld. . . . During the first five years in the United States, the average immigrant family receives $1404 (in 1975 dollars) in welfare compared to $2279 received by a native family.[3]
Some may disagree with these statistics. Others would no doubt argue that if immigration controls were eliminated and borders completely unpoliced, a massive number of immigrants would enter the United States and overload the welfare system, causing taxes and the national debt to skyrocket. Certainly this is a possibility. But, even if we grant this argument the benefit of the doubt and concede that unrestricted immigrants would indeed flood the welfare system, the answer to the problem lies not in closing off the borders or “beefing up” border security. The answer lies in eliminating the American welfare state, and prohibiting anyone, native or immigrant, from living at the coerced expense of another.
Immigration and Culture
A final argument against immigration comes surprisingly from those generally supportive of liberty and the philosophy of the limited state. These critics are concerned for the preservation of what they see as a distinct American culture and its traditional heritage of European-style limited government and market economies.[4] Their fear is that this traditional culture is being sabotaged by an influx of immigrants who are unfamiliar with and perhaps even hostile toward its institutional framework. They contend that immigrants of the late-twentieth-century variety do not possess the same ethnic characteristics of earlier immigrants, and therefore do not have an appreciation for the “American way of life.” Such an argument suggests that recent immigrants who hail from Third World nations controlled by regimes of despotism have no understanding of the traditional institutions that have made America great. Allowing these immigrants of vastly different culture and ethnic heritage into the United States will result in a grave polarization of our society into racial enclaves that will run roughshod over our most sacred political and economic institutions.
To political conservatives, and even some libertarians, this argument may appear compelling at first blush. However, it is flawed. First, preserving “tradition” merely for the sake of tradition is pointless. The idea of tradition is meaningless unless we define the essence of that tradition in terms of the ideas that comprise it. Tradition alone is not what has made America great. Rather, it has been the reciprocal relationship between a limited state and economic and social liberty that has made the American way of life so coveted—in other words, the philosophy of liberty underlying the American tradition.
Expanding the power of government in order to preserve tradition is a sure path to the destruction of liberty. Americans ought to be particularly aware of this fact since the American tradition is bound together so tightly with the philosophy of freedom and limited government.
Yet, it is not the first time Americans have been down this road. U.S. public education began as a concerted effort to preserve the Protestant “traditions” of the American culture against the perceived threat of Catholicism. By subjecting the education establishment to the decisions of legislators and bureaucrats in local, state, and eventually national governments, Protestants hoped to stem the tide of Catholicism flowing into America on a nineteenth-century wave of immigration. As Samuel L. Blumenfeld relates,
There was another reason why the Protestant religionists decided to join the secularists [socialists] in promoting the public school movement. They shared a common concern with, if not fear of, the massive Catholic immigration to the United States during that period. . . . [It was] argued that Protestants had to put aside sectarian differences and unite to defend Protestant republican America against the “Romish designs.”[5]
By making schools public rather than private, Protestants sought to use the power of the state to exclude the teachings and influence of Catholicism on their children, thereby preserving the Protestant “tradition” in America by way of majority vote. In retrospect, the bankruptcy of the American public education system ought to serve as a somber reminder that expanding state power to preserve “tradition” is a sure path to statism.
There is another flaw lurking in the argument that open immigration leads to the decline of a nation’s cultural and institutional framework. Contrary to the anti-immigration position, the American traditions of limited government and free market economies are not based upon ethnic or racial origins. They are based upon ideas. Western cultures cannot suppose themselves to have a monopoly on the philosophy of liberty, nor can Americans argue that the political values of the limited state cannot be inculcated in non-American immigrants. The ideas of freedom that have created the American tradition can apply to any ethnic or racial make-up.
But what happens if, over time, America absorbs so many immigrants that, through their influence, the ideas of limited government and the free market economy become diluted? What happens when our political system falls victim to immigrant forces that seek to expand government power? These are good questions. The fact remains, however, that these fears are now being realized, and the foes of liberty in America are largely home-grown. Twentieth-century Americans have turned their backs on the philosophy of the limited state.[6] They have generally refused to acknowledge the advantages of a laissez-faire market economy. It is not the foreign element, but rather the domestic element that we should fear. Before we begin to castigate potential immigrants for the damage they may do to our freedoms, we need to acknowledge the damage we have already done on our own.
The answer is to return once again to a government “of laws and not of men.” In other words, the state must be radically limited in power and scope, with only minimal duties which are explicitly defined. This will put state power beyond the reach of those individuals or voting blocs that would seek to exploit it for personal gain. We then would have no reason to fear immigrants, regardless of their ideological or political persuasion. Their ability to “sabotage” our freedoms would be removed not because we expand state power to keep them out, but because we diminish state power in all areas and allow them in.
Immigration and Freedom
Immigration policy should not be viewed differently than trade policy: free, unregulated, unpoliced, open borders, devoid of taxes, tariffs, or any other barrier to entry. This is the policy of freedom to which America owes her heritage. Unilateral free trade, free immigration, and free emigration, where individuals possess unobstructed and unregulated mobility and trade, is a cornerstone of a free society. In fact, the free movement of peoples is no less important than the freedoms of speech, expression, and association. Liberty is indivisible; the laws of economics apply equally to all peoples.
Americans must begin to accept the fact that free trade and open borders are to their utmost benefit. By embracing the philosophy of free immigration and free labor mobility, we benefit from the productivity, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship not only of those within are borders, but also of those from without. Expanding the division of labor into the international marketplace makes available a vastly enlarged array of resources, thus enhancing the living standards of everyone. []
1. John S. DeMott, “Immigration Policy’s Double Impact,” Nation’s Business, December 1994, p. 28.
2. See the compelling example offered by Jacob G. Hornberger in “The Case for Unilateral Free Trade and Open Immigration,” Freedom Daily, November 1994, p. 6.
3. Julian L. Simon, Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, & Immigration (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1990), p. 265.
4. Perhaps the most developed argument from this position can be found in Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster (New York: Random House, 1995).
5. Samuel L. Blumenfeld, N.E.A.: Trojan Horse in American Education (Phoenix, Ariz.: The Paradigm Company, 1984), p. 27.
6. For those who would argue that the decline in American liberty during the twentieth century is related somehow to immigration and open borders, the reality is otherwise. Twentieth-century America has never practiced open immigration to the extent I am suggesting. Further, twentieth-century Americans have become more nationalistic than their eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ancestors, thus reflecting, at times, an extreme degree of suspicion or even hatred toward foreign peoples.
Comment by Awais on 5 February 2009:
when the open immigration
Comment by robert on 23 April 2009:
This article is just marvelous,if this whole argument framed like this we would have repubs thinking twice a about restrictions and more centralising of power,instead repubs and dems say it is about compassion which is nonesense.This is what Aysn rand would have read and smiled at.I hope some in congress can read this.
Comment by David on 18 June 2009:
I’m glad to see this article – we should move as a race (the human race) towards open immigration for the world. If one individual has a strong desire to be a citizen of a particular country, why not let that happen? I know many people would love to live and work in Ireland while I feel I belong in America but have no real legal avenue to do so.
Comment by Louis on 30 June 2009:
I came up with the idea of “completely open immigration policy” when I was driving home one night and realised that it may solve the world’s problems.
In addition to what you have written, it also occurred to me that it would also reduce problems in poverty stricken countries that are being exploited (warlords, dictators etc). When people leave the country for a better life, knowing they are welcome, warlords will start losing their power because there will be less people to exploit.
I dream of a world where we start looking at different countries as if they were different cities, and different continents as different states.
Comment by Meghan on 5 November 2009:
Well written..however I’m shocked to find an error in such an intelligent article.
“By embracing the philosophy of free immigration and free labor mobility, we benefit from the productivity, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship not only of those within are borders, but also of those from without.”
‘are’ should be ‘our’.
Comment by John Anello on 5 November 2009:
Free immigration and free trade are not necessarily synonomous
Here is an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe highlighting the differences
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-margins.pdf
Comment by Mr Kinxer on 13 January 2010:
A good article on the traditional aspects of America. I’m not totally opposed to the idea of immigration, however, my concern is the newcomers are bringing their traditions with them. They refuse to respect the ideas and way of life of America on which this country was founded. They have no respect for Americas religious values and contributions to the freedom of its people.
We have enjoyed our freedom of religion and been able to choose the doctrines of religion without prejudice. It is becoming apparent from the influx of the European immigration, the Muslim religion has been dedicated to archaic means of defeating the infidels, or anybody who doesn’t believe in Allah.
Our freedom of speech has been tainted under the re-education of political correctness. You can no longer speak out for fear of reprisal from groups who are draining the system, the government that is slowly stealing our privacy, and the predators of the justice system.
Look at California and the 28 billion dollar deficit it has incurred because of the illegal immigration. As has been said before, the government can track down one cow that is diseased out of millions of cows, but they can’t find the 6 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that are draining that state from it’s resources.
Washington wants to force a health care program on us that will deplete the medical system. One of their arguments is to provide health care to all of the children. Then just provide it for the children in school who need it, not everybody who are working to provide for their families. They won’t be affected by this new health care, because they have their own health care system of which the public is not privy.
Washington wants to stamp out terrorism. Look at the places in the world where the least amount of terrorism is located. Russia, South America, and Africa have very little to no terrorism. Why is that? These countries don’t deal with terrorist. The terrorist either know they are going to be put in a hole forever with no hope of ever getting out or they are put to death without justice.
It’s becoming almost ridiculous to think of leaving your homeland in order to get peace, or giving up your citizenship, becoming a citizen in another country and then immigrating into your homeland to get the benefits.
Comment by ALI KHARRAZ on 6 April 2010:
Greetings in Peace
nice meeting You, Mr Direcor of
I Got Your Contact from http://www.interaction.org
Object: I need for a help to my Large Cultural Program for Children
i m verry happy to contact you, .
I m verry happy to tell you; about me ,
as i m the President of الجمعية المغربية للطفولة المبدعة و تنمية المهارات
(association marocaine pour l’enfance innovatrice et de developpement des apptitudes)
i m moroccan man 34 years old from a good family.
i m moroccan writer, 34 i have my large cultural projects, more then 13, which contains new pedagogical technics in teaching children, with methods that follows our future necesaries,
i have in each project:plays, theories, and practical exercises.. i need any sponsors, T.V, centers linked to schools, or any buisinesman who want to invest in culture
ABOUT MY PROJECT:
*My Project:
i want to realise my large cultural project that contains new pedagogical methods in teaching by different intelligences, in which can’t teach at school, with nationalism system such as:(qualification, integration, exchangement, opportunity…)by teaching in clear system.
the methods in which we can create a producer child, for my question, i m looking to center ,school..for children that are interest at my program (to work with them),
about to realise it:
-i want to realise my projects since now, if there is any possibilities
-i want to proceed with all thing that form personality, with:theories, plays, exercises…of each project, (it’s a school of innovation and invention for child)with scientific researches, added to his formation
and in the 2nd, if there is possibility to enlarge it,
i need any buisinessman supporter, who want to invest in culture, in any part of the world,
my project legalised, and i have experience in school.
i need: congratulation, freedom, interaction, sponsorin
-in 1my first: i m looking to work with someone who interest at my program
-in 2nd:if there is any supporter, wellcomed
about my project:
present:technics, methods, systems…and add the principle basic structure to form, orientate, integrate, consultate…to have the enriched and the developped informations in the science, by open system that reply to our future necessaries, any initiative of developpement
*The Qualitate:
present the necessary ideology to developpe the orientation and guidance of eacheone, and gives the mecanism to manage the position of the information, indifferent fields…science, culture, technology, economy…and the important possibilities, basicaly scientific, to simplify the learning of the science, by following functional structure of decision, that accross mind and spirit
*The Objectifs:
enlarge the basic of the competence, by gives a lot of opportunity:plays, exercises, anlyses, improvisations, innovations, inventions, discovers..to form the structure of the own and new personality, and the compatible system of qualification, that function with the developpement of international system
*The Repercussions:
the project have a good resultats in the competence of personality, towards: culture, social, education, competence…and the great affairs in which the personality can attain . it have also the added value, in the plan of developpment qualitate in open system that will bring us:
(the good education reputation, the finance)
i have all my project, and books that are legalised i will tell you more when you contact me pls: 00 (212) 679 90 05 17
Ali Kharraz
Bloc4N°105Cité Sidi Mohammed (ihchach)
Agadir-80.000 Morocco
Pingback by I have to get this off my chest. « a life well loved on 7 July 2010:
[...] aside arguments about immigration. Leaving aside arguments about whether the borders should even be closed or not. All things being equal (which they most definitely aren’t), all that stuff aside, before you [...]
Comment by Chandelir on 10 November 2010:
Nice article on basis and basics. Very well occupied and structured and frenzy. To what is now “Well.”
Comment by Child on 28 November 2010:
I like turtles
Comment by Child 2 on 7 December 2010:
I like Turtles
Comment by John Lado on 21 January 2011:
Who is an American, and Who is not? In my own believe,we all came from diffrent nations settle here,seeking for better life. Why now some people clime these land as their own. The only human being I do not like in any society is the criminal people, and this is not only in Ameria but all over the world Nobody like death. We should deal with the criminal one and every body to enjoy what so call Amerian dream.
Pingback by U.S. to let illegal immigrants seek work permit - Page 3 - Webmaster Forum on 30 September 2011:
[...] receives $1404 (in 1975 dollars) in welfare compared to $2279 received by a native family." http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat…n-immigration/ .post_btns {margin-top: 10px;} .btns_left {float:left;} .btns_right {float:right;} Share [...]
Pingback by JazmineM2015 - My topic and subtopics on 19 March 2012:
[...] come with immigrating to the US . Also what are the push and pull factors for many immigrants ? http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/coming-to-america-the-benefits-of-open-immigration/ [...]
Pingback by Is it really "illegal?" - Page 4 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum on 13 May 2012:
[...] argument. Let me: Read the thesis written by professor Julian Simon, University of Maryland: Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration For centuries, the American culture has been a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of [...]