Immigration often sparks heated debates, especially when discussing its intersection with welfare systems. While many advocate for a free labor market, concerns regarding the financial implications of immigration frequently arise. Notably, economist Milton Friedman famously stated:
“It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
This perspective suggests that while immigration may be acceptable in a completely free market, the current reality—characterized by extensive government benefits—necessitates restrictions to safeguard taxpayers from potential financial burdens associated with immigrant benefit consumption. However, this argument oversimplifies the issue and overlooks the nuances in Friedman’s own stance.
First, it’s important to note that the financial burdens associated with immigration are often exaggerated. In the United States, a significant portion of welfare spending is directed towards the very young and the elderly, while immigrants tend to be predominantly of working age.
Setting aside this complexity, Friedman’s actual stance was not that immigration, in general, is detrimental. Instead, he believed that legal immigration posed challenges, mainly because it granted immigrants access to government benefits. In contrast, he viewed illegal immigration as advantageous, asserting: “It’s a good thing for the 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 so long as it’s illegal.” His reasoning held that illegal immigration fosters mutually beneficial exchanges in the market while restricting immigrants’ access to government aid.
Many fiscal conservatives might resist Friedman’s conclusion—that facilitating illegal immigration could be a solution to managing government resource consumption. While I understand their apprehension, I don’t share it. The morality of an action shouldn’t hinge solely on whether it has official sanction. For instance, it’s illegal to drive on Cape Cod’s National Seashore’s beach without a tire-pressure gauge in the car. Yet, I see no moral issue with someone driving there without one, as it doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights.
Your opinion may differ, but as some others have suggested, it’s possible to align with Friedman’s core idea while still allowing lawful immigration. One could permit immigrants to enter as lawful permanent residents but limit their access to certain government benefits. This approach is often referred to as a “keyhole solution”: if the primary concern is immigrants’ use of benefits, then policies should focus on that issue rather than impose sweeping immigration restrictions.
Critics of this policy typically raise moral objections rather than economic ones. Friedman was once queried on this point and expressed unease at the notion of creating “two classes of citizens” within society. This is a valid concern; it seems inherently unfair for a government to provide benefits to some citizens while denying them to others. Citizens who reside, work, and pay taxes within a country should ideally receive equal treatment, including access to government resources.
However, it’s important to recognize that immigration restrictions also create a disparity between citizens and prospective immigrants. By limiting immigrants’ access to labor markets, educational opportunities, and social associations, such policies inherently treat these two groups unequally. Consequently, the principle of equal treatment can be interpreted as support for more open borders. Given that Friedman dismissed this avenue, we are left with the task of identifying a second-best solution. Furthermore, it’s worth considering whether Friedman’s objection to keyhole solutions is consistent with his endorsement of illegal immigration, which arguably also creates a dual class system within society.
So why might a policy of open immigration with restricted access to benefits be favorable compared to outright exclusion? Simply put, allowing conditional admission is more beneficial for aspiring immigrants than total exclusion. By offering the option to immigrate, even with limited benefits, individuals gain the opportunity for a better life, which is inherently valuable.
To illustrate, consider an analogy: if John is entering the job market and receives one job offer with health insurance and retirement benefits, followed by another offer that offers a higher salary but lacks these benefits, the mere existence of this second option doesn’t harm him. Even if his best choice might be the first offer, having alternatives only serves to enhance his options.
John’s situation mirrors that of a prospective immigrant who believes relocating to a country with limited government benefits will significantly increase her earnings. If she prefers the benefits available in her current home and chooses not to move, she is no worse off for having been presented with the option. Conversely, if she opts for higher earnings with limited benefits, the choice positively enhances her situation. Just as it is beneficial to provide John with more choices, it is likewise appropriate to extend additional options to potential immigrants.
Another significant advantage of allowing lawful permanent residency with limited access to benefits rather than enforcing strict movement restrictions is the reduction of fear related to deportation among immigrants. While one might agree with Friedman that this ‘keyhole solution’ isn’t entirely equitable, it remains far more just than completely denying prospective immigrants the chance to safely relocate.