The primary reason that immigration reform is consistently avoided is that immigration itself is actually not the issue. What lies beneath are issues that no one wants to have an honest discussion about, so immigrants (both legal and illegal) become an easy scapegoat and a distraction. One of those issues is entitlements. So lets talk about it.
One of the main arguments against immigration is that immigrants come here to take advantage of our generous entitlements, closing our ERs, bankrupting Social Security, collecting welfare benefits, etc. But for the most part, immigrants come here to work and Americans benefit so much from their work that they are reluctant to enforce the laws that exist on immigration for fear that it would stem the tide. In fact, current immigration law is almost completely unenforceable and unworkable, anyway. Total enforcement of current laws (or crafting even more restrictive laws) would result in a significant decrease in civil rights and quality of life for Americans (as Arizona is finding out).
When you actually look at the data, immigrant use of our welfare services mirrors that of Americans, and may even be less. Even Harvard economist George Borjas, who is a prominent advocate for reducing immigration, admits in his book “Heaven’s Door,” that:
there exists the possibility that welfare attracts persons who otherwise would not have migrated to the United States. Although this is the magnetic effect that comes up most often in the immigration debate, it is also the one for which there is no empirical support–and the hardest one to corroborate.”
And yet, the issue of entitlement abuse remains a serious issue, as Borjas goes on to argue. Perhaps Milton Friedman put it most memorably and succinctly when he famously remarked, “it’s obvious, you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” This observation bears itself out in Europe, where we simultaneously see some of the most generous welfare states in the Western world coexisting with some of the most closed borders. Immigrants may be able to enter such countries, but they are generally “consigned to the margins” of society with few, if any paths to citizenship, or even equal status. But while Friedman’s argument is undoubtedly true, most people (including Friedman himself) focus on the wrong side of it. They say, “OK, then we need to close the borders!” *facepalm*
In reality, as the world is quickly learning, the welfare state itself is unsustainable regardless of immigration. Perhaps it could be argued that open immigration would hasten the inevitable collapse of a generous welfare state (such as ours), but what’s the point in making that argument? In the end, would immigrants be responsible for bringing down a system that would eventually have collapsed anyway? The answer is obviously no, immigration is a red herring. The real issue here is an unsustainable welfare state.
Everyone benefits from people coming to the US to work. We should be inviting them here. We should allow as many to live here, work here and become citizens as want to. It is something to be proud of that we have created a society that is so desirable that people are willing to drop everything and start over just to be a part of it. Instead of shutting the door, we should welcome them. We should be actively reforming our institutions so that more people want to come here, because if there is ever a day when people don’t want to come to America to live (or people already here want to emigrate), then we will really be in trouble. Leave it to those who want to create unsustainable entitlements to try to explain why open borders are a bad idea. Let the statists struggle to explain why we need a 1,950 mile replica of the Berlin Wall on our Southern border (the Berlin Wall was only 96 miles long, btw). It is a very awkward position to take. Let them squirm in it. Our energy is better focused on entitlement reform rather than on closing the borders.
Update: Dispelling the myth that immigration causes violent crime.
