Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	Post Comments Below © 2007 Daniel J. McLaughlin Immigration Arguments Immigration is a lightening rod topic. It is an emotional issue and both sides seem to raise valid arguments in support of their views. It is also a case where cloudy thinking underlies many of the assumptions which are the source of the conflict. There is a distinction between legal versus illegal immigration, and it is an important ethical matter of fairness to those who go through the legal process. The ethics, however, must be separated from the economic and social consequences, which are the same for both. A legal immigrant or native born citizen who is a drain on the economy hurts society as much as an illegal immigrant who is a drain. An illegal immigrant who is productive helps the economy as much as a legal immigrant who is productive, and even more so than a native born citizen who is not productive. In any society that is growing and prospering, the average person produces more than he or she consumes. That is necessarily so or the society would not be prospering, but rather, declining. That being the case, if an immigrant from any country comes to America and produces more than he or she consumes, that person produces wealth for our society, and thus contributes. Poor, uneducated people also contribute to our economy if they consume less than they produce. Even if they send money back to their families in their old country, they are merely doing what is praised as a worthy activity by charitable citizens, something that only productive people in a free society are able to do. The net effect can, at worst, be neutral, unless the money they send comes from someone else’s pocket. The immigration argument is often confused with welfare, education, health care and other subsidized service issues. The problems typically linked with immigration are, more realistically, the problems of the welfare state. The negative incentives and conflicts inherent in the complex maze of social programs have the same ill effects on citizens as on immigrants. They are arguments against the welfare state, not against immigration. The elimination of the negative incentives would help society by encouraging everyone, immigrants and natural born citizens, to be more productive. If free or subsidized services were not available to them, the only immigrants coming to America would be those who were productive and self sufficient, the kind of people every society needs more of. Some people worry that immigrants use limited resources that are no longer available for the people already here. In a very real sense, all resources are the product of creative minds. It may seem that supplies of things like steel, lumber and oil are fixed, and that the more people using them, the quicker they will be used up. As the population increases, however, the supply of every type of resource also increases, and the long run price decreases. The entire history of free society bears witness to the process. With economic freedom, when an item becomes scarce, the price increases. The quantity demanded decreases. Higher profits provide incentive for more people to get into the business, to find new sources, to find alternative ways to satisfy the need, and to develop more efficient processes, to get the same benefit from less of the resource. In the end, we are all better off. Needs are satisfied for a lower price, which helps everyone, especially the poorest of society. Progress comes from adequate incentives to satisfy needs. Jobs are a related issue. The argument is that an immigrant is willing to work for lower wages and will take jobs away from Americans. That might be the case for a particular job, but it is not the case for the economy as a whole over time. Whenever a need can be supplied at a lower cost, whether it is a physical item or a service, money that would have been spent for that item now stays in the consumer’s bank account. That money will be used to satisfy other needs or invested in some way. Not only are the individuals who saved the money better off, but also society. More money left over means more money to invest in other businesses or to spend in other places, both of which create more jobs and opportunity. Immigration is an important topic and is worth discussing. In order to find a solution in the long term, it is necessary to identify the source of problems. Immigration is not the source. The welfare state is.
Contact us Privacy Policy Comments
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2007 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 01/31/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Post Comments Below

Immigration Arguments

Immigration is a lightening rod topic. It is an emotional issue and both sides seem to raise valid arguments in support of their views. It is also a case where cloudy thinking underlies many of the assumptions which are the source of the conflict.

There is a distinction between legal versus illegal immigration, and it is an important ethical matter of fairness to those who go through the legal process. The ethics, however, must be separated from the economic and social consequences, which are the same for both. A legal immigrant or native born citizen who is a drain on the economy hurts society as much as an illegal immigrant who is a drain. An illegal immigrant who is productive helps the economy as much as a legal immigrant who is productive, and even more so than a native born citizen who is not productive.

In any society that is growing and prospering, the average person produces more than he or she consumes. That is necessarily so or the society would not be prospering, but rather, declining. That being the case, if an immigrant from any country comes to America and produces more than he or she consumes, that person produces wealth for our society, and thus contributes. Poor, uneducated people also contribute to our economy if they consume less than they produce. Even if they send money back to their families in their old country, they are merely doing what is praised as a worthy activity by charitable citizens, something that only productive people in a free society are able to do. The net effect can, at worst, be neutral, unless the money they send comes from someone else’s pocket.

The immigration argument is often confused with welfare, education, health care and other subsidized service issues. The problems typically linked with immigration are, more realistically, the problems of the welfare state. The negative incentives and conflicts inherent in the complex maze of social programs have the same ill effects on citizens as on immigrants. They are arguments against the welfare state, not against immigration. The elimination of the negative incentives would help society by encouraging everyone, immigrants and natural born citizens, to be more productive. If free or subsidized services were not available to them, the only immigrants coming to America would be those who were productive and self sufficient, the kind of people every society needs more of.

Some people worry that immigrants use limited resources that are no longer available for the people already here. In a very real sense, all resources are the product of creative minds. It may seem that supplies of things like steel, lumber and oil are fixed, and that the more people using them, the quicker they will be used up. As the population increases, however, the supply of every type of resource also increases, and the long run price decreases. The entire history of free society bears witness to the process. With economic freedom, when an item becomes scarce, the price increases. The quantity demanded decreases. Higher profits provide incentive for more people to get into the business, to find new sources, to find alternative ways to satisfy the need, and to develop more efficient processes, to get the same benefit from less of the resource. In the end, we are all better off. Needs are satisfied for a lower price, which helps everyone, especially the poorest of society. Progress comes from adequate incentives to satisfy needs.

Jobs are a related issue. The argument is that an immigrant is willing to work for lower wages and will take jobs away from Americans. That might be the case for a particular job, but it is not the case for the economy as a whole over time. Whenever a need can be supplied at a lower cost, whether it is a physical item or a service, money that would have been spent for that item now stays in the consumer’s bank account. That money will be used to satisfy other needs or invested in some way. Not only are the individuals who saved the money better off, but also society. More money left over means more money to invest in other businesses or to spend in other places, both of which create more jobs and opportunity.

Immigration is an important topic and is worth discussing. In order to find a solution in the long term, it is necessary to identify the source of problems. Immigration is not the source. The welfare state is.

Hit Counter