I generally regard arguments against immigration - illegal or otherwise - to be basically economically ignorant. This is because, despite being an introvert and a bit of a hermit and a homebody, I think people are a net good. The more, the merrier. There is also overwhelming economic evidence and theory supporting open borders. Finally, preventing human migration across "public land" is a clear violation of basic human rights.
Nonetheless, I had a thought today...
Many arguments against immigration revolve around the idea that immigrants enter the country and then become welfare cases, costing "our" society a lot of money at the expense of the "foreign" residents.
Hold that thought for a moment.
Now, consider the nearly universal understanding that one of the major threats to the US welfare state is the fact that the Baby Boomers - a huge blob in the population graph - have started to retire and are going to place a high burden on the welfare systems we have in place. The idea here is that there will be too many non-working recipients of government assistance, and too few working non-recipients, tipping the system over into bankruptcy.
As an economist, when considering both ideas simultaneously, the following idea pops into my head instantly: Why not allow more immigrants into the country so that they can start working, produce tax revenue, and "save Social Security?"
The conservatives have this one all topsy-turvy. If they wish to oppose immigration, their argument should not be that immigration costs the state money. On the contrary, the conservative case against immigration should be that an open-borders policy further enables the welfare state to survive.
But what does that say about me, who favors both open borders and the dismantling of the welfare state?
Nonetheless, I had a thought today...
Many arguments against immigration revolve around the idea that immigrants enter the country and then become welfare cases, costing "our" society a lot of money at the expense of the "foreign" residents.
Hold that thought for a moment.
Now, consider the nearly universal understanding that one of the major threats to the US welfare state is the fact that the Baby Boomers - a huge blob in the population graph - have started to retire and are going to place a high burden on the welfare systems we have in place. The idea here is that there will be too many non-working recipients of government assistance, and too few working non-recipients, tipping the system over into bankruptcy.
As an economist, when considering both ideas simultaneously, the following idea pops into my head instantly: Why not allow more immigrants into the country so that they can start working, produce tax revenue, and "save Social Security?"
The conservatives have this one all topsy-turvy. If they wish to oppose immigration, their argument should not be that immigration costs the state money. On the contrary, the conservative case against immigration should be that an open-borders policy further enables the welfare state to survive.
But what does that say about me, who favors both open borders and the dismantling of the welfare state?
Instant Loans for Students with Bad Credit - This form of student loan is provided to students who
ReplyDeletehave a low credit score rating, history, and score http://helpn.us company news; bank of america will sell a subprime loan unit.