I consider myself a pro-immigration conservative. The two principles from Catholic social doctrine that form the foundation of my convictions on this matter are the primacy of the family over the state, and the obligation of immigrants to respect and obey the laws of their host country. These principles, and some economic thinking, should be the ethical and economic framework for meaningful immigration policy reform in the United States.
Conservative thinkers are of two minds on immigration. On the one hand, there are those like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, and Laura Engraham who express a kind of quasi-nativist argument for “borders, language, and culture”, to borrow Dr. Savage’s policy preferences. These thinkers usually make nastolgic political and cultural arguments for the good old days and against less restricted immigration. But, in my view, they correctly criticize the incoherence of the last three decades of immigration legislation at the national level. They also point out, again, correctly in my view, that it is bad policy to encourage less restricted immigration to lavish welfare-granting destinations. These thinkers emphasize high crime rates, changing cultural mores, constituent-building by the Democratic party, free rider problems for public services, and diminishment of the English language as reasons to push for more restricted immigration.
On the other hand, there are conservative thinkers like Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal, Julian Simon of Illinois University, and Michael Barone who argue that immigration, in general, has been a positive, economic net gain for the United States, meaning the costs incurred by immigration are smaller overall than the benefits received from immigration. Simon’s research in particular indicates that overall crime rates are lower among immigrant peoples compared to native populations, that educational achievement is higher for immigrants than natives, and that the rate of entrepreneurship is higher among immigrants than among natives.
I believe immigration today is essentially a labor market issue. So cultural and political arguments only go so far in helping us think through meaningful policy reform. Also, stressing cultural and political consistency and homogeneity over more basic economic considerations can lead to inflamed emotions and is not always helpful in working out rational reforms.
Families have the right to improve their material standards of living. Huge wage differentials, the main reason for economic migration, will be eliminated or reduced only through more not less immigration. This is the supply and demand reality of labor market movements. But families also have the obligation to observe, obey, and respect the laws of host countries. What might pro-family immigration policy consist of?
One thing would be to remove as quickly as possible the contentious and politically-caused distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Gary Becker has advocated auctioning off citizenship. That would end the legal/illegal distinction quickly, but is probably not politically feasible at this time.
Another option would be to set up employment offices on the Mexican side of the border with color-coded work passes for a day, month, or year, distributed through post offices in every village and city in Mexico. Employers here could enroll in a bi-national data base and bid for work permits. This would not negate restrictions on permanent residency. Every country has the right to restrict immigration. But setting up markets for work permits would deal more rationally with Mexican workers who are seeking higher wages. The argument by labor unions and some conservatives that this would lower wages and subsidize inefficient employers in the United States is not supported by the facts of positive net benefits of immigration overall.
Additionally, the host country should be the only entity permitted to tax guest worker income. I am not exactly sure if current practice means most Mexican workers pay taxes to both national governments, but my supposition is that typically they do in one form or another. If anyone has information on this please share it with me. This change would remove some of the monetary incentive of the Mexican government to encourage immigration, legal and illegal, to the United States. Approximately one-fourth of the Mexican work force works in the United States, and if the billions of dollars of income earned here are taxed by Mexico and increasingly in the United States (see Tax Foundation information on rising immigrant tax receipts), than this is a free-rider problem involving the Mexican government. Let families keep more of the income they earn.
I believe the United States IS indeed a nation of immigrants, as are all other nations. But I also believe the United States has been exceptionally successful at it economically, in spite of the incoherence of national immigration policy. In fact the United States has been the most successful at building a free society and strong economy with people from all corners of the world. I think this is because of the power of freedom and free markets to channel peoples’ ambitions, creativity, energies, and loyalties.
To build on this success, immigration reform should keep in mind that immigrants are primarily resources, human resources, and not just costs.
“Families over borders; Families respect the laws of their host country” would be my somewhat awkwardly stated but economically rational bumper sticker.
