Immigration reform is something that has already surfaced in the recent GOP debates and will certainly receive more attention in the coming months as we make our way further into another presidential election year. The Cato Institute recently released a special edition of the Cato Journal titled “Is Immigration Good for America” in order to influence this debate and help individuals better understand the possibilities for reform.
Each of the 13 articles in this edition of the journal provides a unique insight into a wide variety of issues concerning current immigration policy. Here are a few summaries of some of the arguments I found particularly interesting.
In his article titled “Why Should We Restrict Immigration?” Bryan Caplan explores many of the prominent objectives to the liberalization of immigration policy through a moral lens. He concludes his argument with the following:
there are cheaper and more humane solutions for each and every complaint [against liberalization]. If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers. If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make immigrants ineligible for benefits. If immigrants hurt American culture, we can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy. If immigrants hurt American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote. Whatever your complaint happens to be, immigration restrictions are a needlessly draconian remedy.
In his article titled “Immigration and the Welfare State” Daniel T. Griswold, the editor of this edition of the journal, provides an interesting argument concerning the assertion that immigrants impose extreme long term fiscal burdens on U.S. taxpayers. He concludes with the following:
For those concerned about the fiscal impact of immigration, the goal should be to wall off the welfare state, not our country. As far as constitutionally possible, Congress and the states should deny welfare payments to non-citizen immigrants. This would be good for the immigrants because they could more easily avoid the disincentives to work and family formation caused by welfare payments. It would be good for U.S. taxpayers because it would reduce demand for welfare spending. And it would be good for the U.S. economy because it would remove one of the more potent political arguments against expanded legal immigration.
In our article titled “U.S. Immigration Policy in the 21st Century: A Market-Based Approach,” Joshua Hall, Richard Vedder, and I argue that visas should not be allocated based on arbitrary political criteria but instead through the price system. Our proposal has several components but consists largely of creating an NASDAQ-style international market for visas. From our paper:
The United States is the light of the world, a beacon of freedom and opportunity. Immigration is both a cause and a consequence of this reality. It is obvious that high volumes of immigration can lead to cultural clashes and can challenge our infrastructure. Thus realistically the body politic will insist that limits be placed on it. Let’s allocate access to our great country on the basis of supply and demand, reflecting the intensity of preferences of immigrants themselves and potential employers, rather than on a political process that is simply not as good as the market in allocating resources.
I think these articles, along with the other articles in this edition of the Cato Journal, are definitely worth a read and hopefully we will see these ideas influence the coming debates.