As a general rule, I like immigration and I don’t like redistribution.
As such, I share the late Milton Friedman’s concern about the risks of having a welfare state combined with open borders. And based on many conversations all over the country, I think that’s a big reason why many people oppose amnesty (augmented by Republican partisans who fear, probably with some validity, that changing the political landscape of America is the real reason Senator Schumer is a big advocate of amnesty).
So how can we reap the benefits of immigration without the risk of a bigger welfare state?
In part, we should have programs designed to attract people with skills and education.
I’m a big advocate and defender, for instance, of the EB-5 program that gives a preference for foreigners who invest in America’s economy and create jobs.
And if you peruse Mark Perry’s chart, we must be doing something right. Look at all these immigrant groups that are boosting per-capita income for the United States (including people from Lebanon, home of the Princess of the Levant).
I’ve always thought far more Americans would be sympathetic to immigration if they could be convinced that people were coming to America for the right reasons – i.e., to earn money rather than mooch off taxpayers.
With that in mind, Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has a Bloomberg column about Denmark that cites the great work of Nima Sanandaji about how Americans of Nordic descent have much higher incomes than the people remaining in Nordic nations. Tyler’s entire article is worth reading, but I want to focus on a quasi-open-borders proposal that he puts forth in his conclusion.
For all the anti-immigrant sentiment that is circulating at the moment, would it hurt the U.S. to have fully open borders with Denmark? It would boost American gross domestic product and probably also improve American education. History teaches that serious assimilation problems would be unlikely, especially since many Danes already speak English. Open borders wouldn’t attract Danes who want to live off welfare because the benefits are so generous at home. How’s this for a simple rule: Open borders for the residents of any democratic country with more generous transfer payments than Uncle Sam’s.
I can’t think of any reasonable objection to this idea. Everything Tyler says makes sense. People like “Lazy Robert” won’t be lining up to get plane tickets to America. Instead, we’ll get the young and aspirational Danes.
For what it’s worth, I even think he understates the case since the type of people who would migrate to America wouldn’t just boost GDP. They almost surely would do something arguably more important, which is to boost per-capita GDP.
Just think of all the productive entrepreneurs who would take the opportunity to escape over-taxed Denmark and come to the United States. Along with ambitious and skilled people from nations such as Italy, France, and Sweden (though our welfare state is very expensive, so I admit I’m just guessing at nations which would be eligible based on Tyler’s rule about “more generous transfer payments”).
By the way, Denmark apparently has learned a lesson about the risks of being a welfare magnet.
A story from Spiegel Online has the details.
Denmark’s strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. …The extremely strict laws have dramatically reduced the flow of people into Denmark in recent years, and many government figures are delighted with the outcome. “Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark,” the center-right liberal integration minister, Søren Pind, told the Jyllands Postennewspaper. Pind was talking after the ministry’s report — initiated by the right-wing populist Danish People’s Party (DPP) — came to the conclusion that by tightening immigration laws, Denmark has saved €6.7 billion ($10 billion) over the last 10 years, money which otherwise would supposedly have been spent on social benefits or housing. According to the figures, migrants from non-Western countries who did manage to come to Denmark have cost the state €2.3 billion, while those from the West have actually contributed €295 million to government coffers.
Sounds like Danish lawmakers don’t want to add even more passengers to the nation’s already-overburdened “party boat.”
And who can blame them. The nation already has a crippling problem of too many people depending on government.
P.S. If you want to enjoy some immigration-related humor, we have a video about Americans migrating to Peru and a story about American leftists escaping to Canada.
P.P.S. For those interested in the issue of birthright citizenship (a.k.a. anchor babies), I’ve shared some interesting analysis from Will Wilkinson and George Will.
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] The second point doesn’t apply for potential migrants from countries such as Denmark that have overly generous welfare […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] are enormously successful when they emigrate to the United States. And they also do very well when they migrate to Singapore, […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] P.S. It’s much better to have immigration policies such as the ones proposed by former Congressman Jared Polis and current George Mason University Professor Tyler Cowen. […]
[…] I deal with people in category #2, I sometimes ask them about Tyler Cowen’s idea of allowing limitless migration from nations with bigger welfare states. After all, I doubt […]
[…] unfortunate because India should be a rich country. Indian-Americans, for instance, are the most successful immigrant group in […]
[…] I deal with people in category #2, I sometimes ask them about Tyler Cowen’s idea of allowing limitless migration from nations with bigger welfare states. After all, I doubt […]
[…] I deal with people in category #2, I sometimes ask them about Tyler Cowen’s idea of allowing limitless migration from nations with bigger welfare states. After all, I doubt people […]
“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” — Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley.
“The Cost of Illegal Immigration”
by Ruthie Blum
February 5, 2018 at 5:30 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11829/illegal-immigration-cost
[…] première observation est que les Indiens ont énormément de succès lorsqu'ils émigrent aux États-Unis. Et ils s'en sortent très bien lorsqu'ils migrent […]
[…] first observation is that Indians are enormously successful when they emigrate to the United States. And they also do very well when they migrate to Singapore, […]
[…] first observation is that Indians are enormously successful when they emigrate to the United States. And they also do very well when they migrate to Singapore, […]
[…] is very unfortunate because India should be a rich country. Indian-Americans, for instance, are the most successful immigrant group in […]
[…] P.P.P.S. Here’s a very powerful factoid. America has many immigrant populations that earn above-average incomes. But, by far, Indian-Americans are the most successful. […]
[…] Let’s close with a very powerful factoid. America has many immigrant populations that earn above-average incomes. But, by far, Indian-Americans are the most successful. […]
[…] the chart, is that a modest bit of reform in India and China has paid big dividends (and, given the success of Indian-Americans and Chinese-Americans, I imagine those nations could become much richer with additional market-friendly […]
[…] Here’s another pro-immigration policy that would have universal support in a sensible […]
[…] positive comments about skilled immigrants, his overall tone was very anti-immigration. Given that so many immigrant groups from all over the world prosper enormously in the United States (and thus generate benefits for the rest of us), it would have been better if […]
[…] A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support – It would boost American gross domestic product and probably also improve American education. History teaches that serious assimilation problems would be unlikely, especially since many Danes already speak English. Open borders wouldn’t … […]
[…] to the United States for the wrong reason, Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University has a very intriguing proposal to have open immigration with nations such as Denmark that have bigger welfare states than […]
[…] A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support […]
Jay- I don’t think you can have open borders and police them at the same time. It’s one or the other. I basically agree with you- but what you want is controlled immigration for the best interest of America- NOT open borders.
I have a simple proposal: Have open borders, but put a sharp limit on government benefits that immigrants are allowed to receive. Perhaps “an immigrant cannot receive more in benefits than he has paid in taxes”. If the record-keeping for that is too hard to manage, fine, the details of the rule could be worked out.
And I’d add that OF COURSE we don’t admit spies and terrorists. And while we should certainly try to be fair, we err on the side of caution: there is no constitutional right to immigrate here, the standard should not be innocent until proven guilty.
[…] A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support […]
the emigration situation in Europe and America is unprecedented… and the progressive political class has largely capitulated to the open borders movement… personified by George Soros and his Open Society Foundations… their objective is to destroy national sovereignty… and create some quasi Utopian social structure based on uncontrolled immigration… the destruction of national borders… and the total surrender of national identities… and global governance… it’s crap… and it’s not consistent with American values or the tenets of our constitutional republic… DC leaks… {probably the Russians} hacked Soros’s open society foundation and published some of their confidential documents… they give insight into the true nature of the foundation… and it’s objectives…. I might mention Soros {a billionaire…} is a major contributor to the black lives matter movement… the democrat party… and old granny clinton … ……………..and Soros is a former Nazi collaborator……
the last time I looked we were over 19 trillion dollars in debt… the idea that we have the resources to absorb millions of economic migrants… or victims of international conflict is nonsense… it’s time for us to get our house in order… economically… socially… and spiritually… at that time we can move forward… into this new century… with confidence and the strength to re-define our place in the world…
Click to access imi_governance-enforcement-prd-5.12.2016.pdf
I can very much relate to the opinion expressed by jsolbakken, as my experiences with European immigrants are the same — though I’m one of them.
Amongst my cluster of European friends I typically stand out alone in having betrayed the values of Welfare Europe for Cowboy Capitalism.
The typical attitude of my European immigrant friends is : “America. Great country, great wealth. Sure can afford more government welfare”.
In that respect they are no different than Silicon Valley useful idiots who essentially aspire to destroy the very environment that propelled them into the world’s top half percent.
What these European immigrants and their American limousine bigger government progressive counterparts have in common is failure to understand the pivotal importance of relative national competitiveness, its strong impact on economic growth, and the exponential compounding nature of growth.
They fail to understand that American prosperity is exactly due to comparatively steeper effort-reward curves. A prosperity that will be swiftly lost under the flatter effort-reward curves and dismal growth rates of the welfare state they aspire to.
They fail to understand that the prosperity of their home countries across the Atlantic (ever less exceptional by the day as dismal European growth rates swiftly reabsorb European per capita income into the middle-income country group) was built over many centuries when European effort-reward curves were much steeper than the rest of the world — and that current European welfare effort-reward curves and their associated dismal growth rates will squander this advantage very quickly.
They fail to understand the fact that a developed world country that is growing at one quarter the average world growth rate will be a middle-income country by the middle of THIS century.
I support immigration, especially immigration of exceptional people, but I have no solution to the conundrum of importing welfare minded voters.
That being said, there is a large proportion of American anti-immigrant sentiment that is propelled by the fixed number of jobs pizza theory. The theory that views the number of jobs as a rather inelastic quantity whereby immigrants displace American workers. They fail to understand that in aggregate each immigrant capable of earning over 100k will create many more jobs and maintain American middle class prosperity in the world’s top three percent. I have half a dozen projects at work that would likely turn profitable if I could find workers for less than around one hundred twenty thousand dollars per year to pursue them. The problem is, the people with that kind of competence are already employed by other companies, who pay them more. Every day I face a scarcity of people rather than a scarcity of jobs. These jobs were created by motivated people past. American people who had steeper effort-reward curves than the rest of the world and thus obliterated their international competition. This dynamic is now being destroyed as a new American mentality takes hold. A mentality whereby more will be taken from the exceptional to shield the voting majority from the consequences of mediocrity. A majority that is trying to hang on into belonging in the top three percent of this world…through redistribution. It won’t work. It is the twilight of American top prosperity rankings in this world — and a new structural growth rate of two percent, half the world average trendline, should be testament that this decline is well under way.
The inconvenient truth is that there is no prosperity in a system that rewards American people with American salaries and an American standard of living for doing middle income country jobs. Whether it’s Hillary and her welfare or Trump and his “bring back middle income country jobs at American salaries” approach, the American efford-reward curve will flatten and become uncompetitive relative to the top performing nations of this world. America will get further and further down its European trajectory.
And at a growth rate that is one quarter the average world growth trendline nothing is sustainable — nothing! And what cannot go on, will not go on.
Rethinking Immigration
The present immigration issue is as big an issue as was the decision to invade Iraq. It divides rather than unites the country. Rather than continue fueling it with the heated rhetoric of politics and the impending elections, we need a breather. Step back and let “our better angels” work on a solution. The problem needs to be parsed into separate actionable pieces and analyzed.
Begin with the economic. The demand for labor here in the U.S., and the price industries are willing to pay for it, defies the control systems presently installed. The magnet of economic opportunity here is just too strong to hold back the foreign workforce yearning for opportunity. U.S. industries want what these foreign workers offer – labor at prices that allow them to profit, compete economically, survive, and grow. The present trade in illegal drugs mirrors the immigrant industry. Many want it, and get it, despite massive expenditures by government to save U.S. consumers from following their “evil angels.”
A few facts. To cross the border, traffickers in illegal workers, “coyotes” to the cognoscenti, are charging $7,500 to $10,000 per passage. For that, an “illegal” needs to travel perhaps a month to the border, cross rivers in rafts when most do not know how to swim, suffer trailer rides of packed humanity for days without food or facilities, walk across deserts, and risk their entire enterprise only to be frustrated by a diligent border patrol. That kind of a motivated worker is to die for.
On the other hand, U.S. industries present a demand for workers not readily available in sufficient numbers at the wages they are offering to U.S. citizens. An unemployed American is not prepared to give up his leisure, poor and substandard as the “safety net” assures, for the pay illegals are accepting. It isn’t much, but $10 to $15 an hour is a lot better than the $3 to $5 a day back home. Recognize also that, in addition, the 4 to 8 percent of the U.S. workforce defined as unemployed just don’t have the motivation to do the hard work that immigrants are willing to accept at the risk of losing their lives and meager fortune. Put another way, if you build a barrier, the “illegals” and an enterprising American industry will beat it.
What to do. First, re-frame the question. How do we meet the demand for labor here without increasing unemployment or a reduction in wages? A simple answer is to limit supply (immigrants) as unemployment increases, say, above 6 percent. There are multiple markets with different demands and wage rates for workers with skills. The system for authorizing the number of immigrant visas can respond by authorizing visas by skill and wage rate.
Say that there is a market value for permission to immigrate to the U.S. (There is, witness what illegals are willing to pay already.) Say further that a market for buying and selling visas to the U.S. is legally recognized and monitored.. A potential immigrant or employer could bid for a worker visa(s). The supply of visas would be based on the demand by skill for workers manifested by U.S. industries without triggering wage reductions or increased unemployment. This needs elaboration, but you get the idea.
Interestingly, were a market for visas to exist, those already in line for visas could be compensated by giving them a priority claim for a visa under the market system. They could have the option of selling their position in line to late arrivals. Those presently illegal in the U.S.could bid for a visa to become legal entries from those in the front of the line.
Let’s take on the security issue. Of all the misdirected issues and proposed legislation, this one takes the cake. Here we have the government defending the ramparts of the border(s) while any terrorist with an I.Q. of 50 can circumvent it. Come as a tourist. Come as a student. Those types of visas can be had. Remember that all of the terrorist that acted out their fervor on both World Trade Center attacks got into the country legally.
And what about all those terrorist already in the country, many of them home grown? There are those like the domestic Kansas City terrorists, the environmental terrorist of today, the anarchy terrorist of the 60’s, even criminal “terrorist” working the streets selling killer drugs, and violent sex. Our response to these types of terrorist groups is to look away and wait for them to act before we harness our domestic protective services to seek them out.
More to the point, we actually seek to disarm our security systems in key ways by making it difficult or impossible for them to seek out such cells using profiling systems that work on existing data mining technology to scan for groups or individuals that have behavior patterns of criminal terrorists. Our paranoia over the protection of privacy is such that we will not let government do what private industry already does on their own with impunity.
Think of it. We distrust our government which we own and can mandate, but give a free hand to all other organizations. You think this isn’t’ true? Well check out the information that marketing organizations have on your consumer behavior. Check out the financial records credit organizations and your bank have on your economic value. Check out what political operatives have on your voting behavior, registration, and past record of contributions. Hell, go to the internet and google your name. You’d be “surprised” how public your life is. But allow government to pursue terrorist using these existing data bases, and you, the media, and politicians go bonkers. Our paranoia over privacy is not only illusory, it is crippling our efforts to protect us from terrorist and the common criminal.
For a moment, think of the information the government holds and retains in its files on you as an individual. It has your income and tax statements from the time you began working. It knows where you worked and where you lived. It has your criminal record if you have one. Under Medicaid and Medicare, it knows who your doctor is, what treatments you’ve received, and the medicines you take. But this data cannot be accessed legally for purposes other than for the service it was set up to serve. Actually, there are specific exceptions authorized by law. Tracking on fathers defaulting on child support is one of them. There should be more.
Why we won’t use these data for identifying and tracking criminals and terrorists is a monument to our exaggerated paranoia. I mean, come on! Those charged with keeping publicly maintained files have a remarkable record of successfully limiting their access. They have developed systems for identifying when they are accessed illegally and by whom. And the law allows the government to come down hard on violators with jail sentences and fines. So effective have been such safeguards that the private sector has had to develop entire systems that duplicate that which public systems had already. Your credit report is an example, .
What we need is to “get over it.” Information on Individuals isn’t and never was private. What we need to do is to authorize government to access and expand their use of existing machine readable data for the purpose of searching out terrorist and criminal elements, among other uses. We need to go further. To facilitate these authorized uses, it is critical that a national identification system be established.
The need for a national identification system is needed not just for purposes of security. Other uses become possible and could be authorized. Obviously the system could allow for the registration of permanent or temporary immigrants, and could provide the system for employers to validate the identification of individuals eligible for employment. In addition, the system could be an accurate system for maintaining eligible voter registers. It could be the basis for an efficient drivers license system for the states. It could be the locus for individual medical records with an ability to cut costs for administration and medical care resulting from unnecessary repetitive services, over medication, and errors in diagnosis.. Should individuals wish to limit access to their records, access could be restricted subject to the approval by individuals or the courts. Violations could be subjected to heavy fines and jail sentences. Such safeguards already exist and are being used to protect your data stored, for example, by the Social Security Administration. And think of the budgetary savings through the elimination of duplicate data bases, systems, and bureaucracies. That, like the stars, are “billions and billions.”
Let’s now focus on the politics of immigration. What is at play is the additional cost that immigrants allegedly represent to our expenditures for public education, health, and other safety net services,. What is also at play is the country’s ability to absorb and indoctrinate newly arriving immigrants to American values and systems. What is at play is the right to vote.
Let’s take on the additional budgetary expenditures. Recent articles have claimed that immigrant worker represents an annual cost to the government of about $20,000. Let’s accept that estimate. At the same time let’s also recognize that these workers probably earn about $20,000 to $30,000 annually. If they are on a payroll, they would be paying federal and state taxes, and may even be paying contributions to the Social Security system. If they don’t file an annual income tax report, they get no refund. If they are using a false Social Security number, they are contributing to a benefit system they may never receive. That contribution alone could amount to about 15 percent of their wages, split between them and their employer. They are paying sales taxes imposed by the states. They are paying the gasoline tax should they be running a car. All this suggests that they are not having a totally free ride on the economy.
We also might recognize that an able bodied worker isn’t costless. Growing up for 18 years costs. We pay at least $10,000 annually per individual from public and private sources for each of our 18 year olds. More likely it is double that. That means that $180,000 to $360,000 has been invested per able bodied American. We pay nothing for the immigrant. At least ten years would have to pass before the “capital” costs for a migrant would be “re-paid.”
Now, if a worker is educated, say, with a BA, that probably represents an additional expenditure minimally of roughly $20,000 a year for four years, e.g., $80,000 more per U.S. BA. The immigrant with a BA is free. Take it a step further. A physician requires four to eight years of additional training that probably costs more than $40,000 a year. Add $160,000 to $320,000. And then there are all those biochemist, computer scientist, nurses, engineers…… Suffice to say, immigrants at these levels of training are a steal.
But can we risk the mutation of our culture by letting all these non-Americans to enter the country? Well, let’s think about it. Is the absorption of 12 million “illegals” too big a bite to take in one fell swoop? First off, recognize that we already had that meal and seem not to be suffering from indigestion. These “illegals”are 1 out of 25 people in the country, and many of them do not stay. Looking back three generations, most of what we now call Americans came from similar immigrant roots. The country’s ability to shape past immigrants and their children into citizens is the American phenomena. Those “illegals” who will decide to stay have already put a lot of their working lives into getting along in this country. Many have learned to speak English. Some have raised families, and have paid taxes for years. In a generation or two, their children won’t speak their native language, and probably won’t want to. They would resemble bedrock of Americans going to work, going to Church, buying houses, eating, sleeping and having kids. You won’t be able to tell the difference between them and your neighbor. They already are.
What “illegals” – and we – need is a way to mend a mistake they – and we – made years ago. They will have to pay a price to become “legal.” We, on the other hand, have to recognize that we turned a blind eye to their existence and let them in to serve us. Both of us need to make amends by defining an acceptable the path to “legality.” The overwhelming majority of “illegals” will likely salute and take it.
Finally, there is the matter of citizenship and the right to vote. This privileges for a time may play a part of the price of atonement for illegal entry into the country. But, once the debt has been paid for illegal entry, a workable procedure can be fashioned for them to earn legal immigrant status, Citizenship for these working residents in time, and under the right conditions, may ultimately be justified. As willing workers, they are the “salt of earth.”. Many already are “Americans.” They ought to have the opportunity to earn the right to be citizens.
Jaime L. Manzano
Federal Senior Executive and Foreign Service Officer (Retired)
– Deputy Associate Commissioner, Social Security Administration
– Career Counselor, Department of State
– Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services
7904 Park Overlook Drive,
Bethesda, MD 20817
301 365 4781
[…] via A Plan for Open Borders that Anti-Amnesty Folks Can Support — International Liberty […]
Sorry, but there is a LOT more to being an American than just wanting to make money. Of course being willing to work is a good start, but the problem with foreigners is they generally do not appreciate the crucial importance of minimalist “libertarian” government. I live around lots of hard working immigrants, and they generally lack an appreciation for what stupid “libertarians” seem to take for granted, that limited government is essential to being a truly free American. Yes, I’m saying that hard working immigrants strongly tend towards being fascistic and authoritarian and don’t understand or respect freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and especially they don’t seem to get the right to keep and bear arms. They are dangerous and I’m disappointed that so many libertarians are toofa king stupid to see this and figure out the implications. For me, being a “libertarian” does not require me or allow me to just assume that everyone else in the world wants to be or understand what it means to be a lover of liberty.
Reblogged this on Give Me Liberty.