Even people who are otherwise enthusiastic about a free labor market can get cold feet about immigration when redistribution comes into the picture. Some like to quote Milton Friedman, who famously (or infamously) said:
“It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and welfare.”
In this view, immigration is good under free market institutions, but in the real world it is abundant benefits provided by the government, immigration restrictions are justified to protect taxpayers from additional costs that may arise if immigrants consume these benefits. But this conclusion is too quick, and even Friedman’s situation is more different than people on both sides of the immigration debate often realize.
The first point, however: concerns about the financial costs of immigration reinforced. For one thing, in the United States, most of the money spent on welfare goes to the very young or the very old. Immigrants, in contrast, have different working years.
That point aside, Friedman’s own view was not that immigration is dangerous. He objected to that legal Immigration is a problem, because it allows immigrants to receive government benefits. On the contrary, he thought that illegal immigration was profitable. As he puts it: “It’s a good thing for illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But it’s only good as long as it’s not illegal. Friedman’s thinking was that illegal immigration allows for beneficial market trade while reducing immigrants’ access to government benefits.
Now, many conservatives reject Friedman’s recommendation—that is, if the overuse of government resources is the problem with legal immigration, the solution is to encourage people to break the law. I understand this reaction, but I admit that I do not share it. In my opinion whether it is right for someone to do something does not depend on the law enforcement giving them written permission. For example, you knew that it is against the law driving on Cape Cod’s National Seashore without a tire pressure gauge on your car? However, I have no moral objections if you drive on the beach flawlessly. Regardless of whether government officials allow it, this is a peaceful activity that does not violate anyone’s rights.
Maybe you don’t agree with me. However, as others have suggestedthere is another way to accept Friedman’s general view: to accept immigrants as legal permanent residents but restrict their access to certain government services. Economists sometimes call this a “keyhole solution”-if the problem is immigrants’ use of benefits, then design a policy that partially addresses that problem rather than restricting their freedom to immigrate.
The main objection to this type of policy seems to be moral rather than economic. Indeed, Friedman himself was he asked about it and he replied that he found the proposal unattractive in part because “it is not desirable to have two classes of citizens in society.” That’s a good pointt. It is wrong for the government to give some citizens benefits paid for by taxpayers but not others. If two people live, work, and pay taxes in a certain country, government officials must treat them equally, including giving them equal access to government services.
However, note that the immigration ban policy again it treats citizens and would-be immigrants differently—it gives citizens, but not immigrants, access to local labor markets, private organizations, educational opportunities, and more. As a result, the principle of equal treatment seems to imply open borders. Since Friedman rejects this option, the task becomes to identify the second best solution. (Also, it is not clear that Friedman can justify his opposition to keyhole solutions by his endorsement of illegal immigration, which would also create a two-tier society.)
Why do you think an immigration policy with limited access to benefits is better than outright deportation? The reason, in short, is that conditional admission treats potential immigrants better than exclusion. Limited benefit immigration policys at least gives people the option to move, and it’s hard to see how giving someone a new option would make them worse.
Here is an analogy. Let’s say John enters the job market. Another employer offers him a job with health insurance and a retirement plan. The next day, he gets another offer—this one with no benefits, but a much higher salary. Even if you think he should take the first job, it seems perfectly acceptable to give him the second one. John is not too bad to find another option. If he doesn’t want to take it, he can just refuse it. And if he likes higher pay without benefits, it’s obviously better for him to choose.
John’s story is similar to the story of a prospective immigrant waiting to do so make the most of moving to the country where his access to government benefits is limited. If he would rather receive a wide range of government benefits in his current country than have a high salary but few benefits in a new country, he may refuse to move; In this case, he’s not too bad for having a choice. But if he likes higher wages with fewer benefits, the option makes him better. Just as it is permissible—indeed, perhaps good—to give John more choice, so it is also permissible to give potential immigrants more choice.
It is also worth highlighting another important aspect of limiting immigrants’ access to benefits rather than restricting their mobility altogether. Accepting immigrants as legal permanent residents removes the threat of deportation, among other consequences, associated with entering the country without documents. Even if you agree with Friedman (as I do) that the keyhole solution of accepting immigrants with reduced access to benefits is fundamentally wrong, it’s still right. More better than denying would-be immigrants the option of safe travel at all.
