1) Unskilled workers may not be net positives in the first generation of immigrants, but they are hardly a majority of all immigrants - making immigrants as a whole (even those called “illegal”) a net positive. 2) Most visa infractions are by people who cross borders on planes, suggesting some sort of sophistication above border crossing migrants (for which there is a stronger moral argument). 3) Welfare state is abused more by natives than migrants.
I think Milton got this one wrong on immigration but right on welfare state.
Immigration is not about chasing a welfare state - it’s about opportunity. Immigration existed bf welfare state, why? Because immigration is about opportunity not free riding. As mentioned, given the overall net benefit to society and the potential benefit from second generation and assimilated low skill migrants - there is only upside to open borders (with checks for violent criminals).
"Immigration is not about chasing a welfare state - it’s about opportunity."
As I wrote in response to the first Friedman post, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world for whom simply residing in the USA, Canada or Western Europe would be greatly advantageous to THEIR opportunity. I don't fault these people. If Laguna Beach offered a program where I could live in the town at a price affordable to me, thanks to government assistance, then I would be a fool not to accept the offer!
Since we cannot do away with government and all the ways it interferes with the market, it is necessary to have an immigration policy and regulations on who qualifies to come and how many. Those who cry racism and bigotry at the recognition that there are costs and risks with low skilled immigration, and that society needs to apply common sense to the question, are not helpful. Policy of how to handle low skilled immigrants is extremely important and it demands serious debate, not angry words and verbal epitaphs.
Nine of your points seem to address mine: on the whole immigrants add. The only category that doesn’t is unskilled. If we parse immigration into “unskilled and illegal” it just seems like cherry picking information. Also, it does not reflect the reality that immigration pre- welfare state also took place and led to great enrichment. Not crying racism .
Immigration pre-welfare state did not offer a dependency trap to the immigrant. This has two effects. (1) The immigrant had to earn his own way and (2) Immigrants self-selected on their confidence that they could make their own way.
We must appreciate that welfare is much more than an cost item on the government budget. Welfare is an attractive nuisance that invites a person to become a dependent on society. I do not believe a person decides on day one they want to be a dependent. The reality is, as economists are fully aware, welfare invites dependency and then once a person becomes dependent on government assistance it is extremely difficult for the person to give it up.
It is a fact that low income immigrants impose a massive cost on American society that the immigrant can never repay. Again, I do not blame the immigrant. But this reality of allowing and even encouraging people to come into the country knowing they will impose a massive cost on the country and on the communities they reside must be addressed. To hide or avoid the price tag is a form of fraud. It is dishonest.
One facet of this dishonesty is to compare illegal immigrants to low-income Americans. Yes, low-income Americans cost more than they produce. This does not justify bringing more poor people into the country! It should mean the opposite. Americans should want more people able to provide for themselves and to create an economic surplus. So let's do that. Let's invite into the country those people who will not require public assistance and who will produce an economic benefit.
"At a town hall meeting in September last year, Mayor Eric Adams stated that the huge influx of illegal immigrants “will destroy New York City” due to the costs the city is incurring to provide for them.11 The city expects to spend $12 billion over the next three years on housing, food, health care and other services for recently arrived illegal immigrants.12 In order to come up with the money to cover these new costs, the city plans to cut the budget by 5 percent across a range of services, including sanitation, public education, and the police department. Obviously, the fiscal drain from illegal immigration must ultimately result in either fewer services or higher taxes for American citizens."
Recent data that shows 32% of Hispanics are on food stamps, compared to only 11% of Whites And Hispanic EBT recipients receive greater benefits on average. This wide discrepancy has been grossly underestimated for decades, and it applies to multiple forms of welfare
Surely any calculus on open borders should include the performance of the 2nd/3rd generation.
1) Unskilled workers may not be net positives in the first generation of immigrants, but they are hardly a majority of all immigrants - making immigrants as a whole (even those called “illegal”) a net positive. 2) Most visa infractions are by people who cross borders on planes, suggesting some sort of sophistication above border crossing migrants (for which there is a stronger moral argument). 3) Welfare state is abused more by natives than migrants.
I think Milton got this one wrong on immigration but right on welfare state.
Immigration is not about chasing a welfare state - it’s about opportunity. Immigration existed bf welfare state, why? Because immigration is about opportunity not free riding. As mentioned, given the overall net benefit to society and the potential benefit from second generation and assimilated low skill migrants - there is only upside to open borders (with checks for violent criminals).
"Immigration is not about chasing a welfare state - it’s about opportunity."
As I wrote in response to the first Friedman post, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world for whom simply residing in the USA, Canada or Western Europe would be greatly advantageous to THEIR opportunity. I don't fault these people. If Laguna Beach offered a program where I could live in the town at a price affordable to me, thanks to government assistance, then I would be a fool not to accept the offer!
Since we cannot do away with government and all the ways it interferes with the market, it is necessary to have an immigration policy and regulations on who qualifies to come and how many. Those who cry racism and bigotry at the recognition that there are costs and risks with low skilled immigration, and that society needs to apply common sense to the question, are not helpful. Policy of how to handle low skilled immigrants is extremely important and it demands serious debate, not angry words and verbal epitaphs.
Nine of your points seem to address mine: on the whole immigrants add. The only category that doesn’t is unskilled. If we parse immigration into “unskilled and illegal” it just seems like cherry picking information. Also, it does not reflect the reality that immigration pre- welfare state also took place and led to great enrichment. Not crying racism .
Immigration pre-welfare state did not offer a dependency trap to the immigrant. This has two effects. (1) The immigrant had to earn his own way and (2) Immigrants self-selected on their confidence that they could make their own way.
We must appreciate that welfare is much more than an cost item on the government budget. Welfare is an attractive nuisance that invites a person to become a dependent on society. I do not believe a person decides on day one they want to be a dependent. The reality is, as economists are fully aware, welfare invites dependency and then once a person becomes dependent on government assistance it is extremely difficult for the person to give it up.
It is a fact that low income immigrants impose a massive cost on American society that the immigrant can never repay. Again, I do not blame the immigrant. But this reality of allowing and even encouraging people to come into the country knowing they will impose a massive cost on the country and on the communities they reside must be addressed. To hide or avoid the price tag is a form of fraud. It is dishonest.
One facet of this dishonesty is to compare illegal immigrants to low-income Americans. Yes, low-income Americans cost more than they produce. This does not justify bringing more poor people into the country! It should mean the opposite. Americans should want more people able to provide for themselves and to create an economic surplus. So let's do that. Let's invite into the country those people who will not require public assistance and who will produce an economic benefit.
"At a town hall meeting in September last year, Mayor Eric Adams stated that the huge influx of illegal immigrants “will destroy New York City” due to the costs the city is incurring to provide for them.11 The city expects to spend $12 billion over the next three years on housing, food, health care and other services for recently arrived illegal immigrants.12 In order to come up with the money to cover these new costs, the city plans to cut the budget by 5 percent across a range of services, including sanitation, public education, and the police department. Obviously, the fiscal drain from illegal immigration must ultimately result in either fewer services or higher taxes for American citizens."
https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf
Recent data that shows 32% of Hispanics are on food stamps, compared to only 11% of Whites And Hispanic EBT recipients receive greater benefits on average. This wide discrepancy has been grossly underestimated for decades, and it applies to multiple forms of welfare
Surely any calculus on open borders should include the performance of the 2nd/3rd generation.
Source:
https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/race-ethnicity-and-economic-statistics-21st-century/race-ethnicity-and-measurement-error