St. Jude the Apostle is the patron saint of desperate causes. For many immigrants these days, legal difficulties and economic challenges could qualify as the subject of many prayers of petition to St. Jude. Let us consider a recent suggestion for improving immigration policy.
Nobel laureate Gary Becker posted on immigration in February of 2008 at the Becker-Posner Blog.
Mr. Becker put forth the idea of selling the right to immigrate, that is, auctioning off citizenship. An economic advantage of this solution is that it presents a uniform policy and would quickly dissolve the legal distinction between “illegal” and legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants could pay to change their legal status. For those who lack financial means to do this Becker suggests a federal loan program comparable to the current college student loan program. Another advantage is the swift elimination of the illegal immigration issue.
Becker asserts that buying citizenship avoids policy solution extremes embraced by the right (mass round ups and deportations, detention centers, fences, etc.) and the left (amnesty). “Under this proposed system, illegal residents would not get free amnesty since they would have to pay for the right to stay. Neither would they be forced to return to the countries they came from since they could buy the right to stay. Illegal residents should be required to pay more than those coming legally to punish them for having come illegally,” writes Becker.
Posner agrees with Becker’s idea but states further that conditional amnesty is inevitable for any reasonable solution. Conditional amnesty, according to Posner, could include a requirement to pay a fine and learn English.
How does Becker’s proposed solution (selling citizenship) and the Posner policy recommendation (conditional amnesty) square with Catholic social doctrine?
214 in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church asserts that the principle of the priority of the family over the State must be affirmed. In the context of immigration policy reform, this in part means that policy priorities should place family benefits before those of the government. There is probably much anxiety within extended Mexican families in the United States over some members’ legal and other members’ illegal status. The Becker recommendation could be viewed as addressing this source of family fracture. Dissolving the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants by selling citizenship or offering conditional amnesty may not necessarily remove all legal obstacles to family unity, but it would certainly be a step in this direction.
297 of the Compendium acknowledges the potential economic benefits of immigration for people “looking for a better life.” 298 also urges host countries to prevent exploitation of immigrants and to make it possible for their human dignity to be “integrated” and become part of “societal life.” Multilingual skills may be valued as additions to human capital, but Posner’s suggestion that illegal immigrants be required to learn English as a condition of amnesty makes some sense. English, for whatever reason it is acquired, seems to offer a path to linguistic and social connection with the host country of the United States.
On the one hand, the Becker-Posner proposal addresses the dilemma of legal/illegal status. On the other hand, it seems to avoid the problem of immigrant pressure on social services experienced in many American cities. Milton Friedman advocated open immigration but only if no welfare services were available to immigrants.
The net social benefit of immigration according to many studies is mainly positive, suggesting immigrants add more value to the host country than they consume. See for example, Julian Simon’s The Economic Consequences of Immigration, or Gregory Mankiw’s blog post on immigration.
Some argue that immigration policy ought to be more selective on the basis of what the domestic economy needs, say for example, letting in more engineers. There is a certain superficial economic appeal in this position. The family dimension, however, so concisely expressed in Mr. Mankiw’s blog, referencing as it does those four Ukrainian immigrants to the United States who became his grandparents, should not be dismissed.
The Church’s stress on the priority of family in immigration is important to consider on economic as well as moral grounds. Families are social networks that frequently promote the values of hard work, sacrafice, and achievement. This is a big part of the American story. It should be considered an important element in economic and moral discussions about immigration reform.
