I recently relistened to the October 4, 2010 episode of Econtalk. Bryan Caplan is the guest, and the topic is immigration. Caplan makes, in my view, an rock solid case for immigration. I revisited this podcast because I've found that immigration is an issue I feel increasingly strongly about. It is also an issue that seems to elicit glaring, painful inconsistency from people of all ideological and political stripes. Many of these inconsistencies center around financial impacts of immigration: Do wages go down? How big an effect to remittances have? Do immigrants contribute more or less in taxes than they receive in benefits? While these are certainly important questions, and I do think that the answers to all of these questions support the case for immigration, they don't get at the reasons why I am a strong supporter of free immigration.
I'm a mongrel - roughly equal parts Norwegian, Welsh, English, and Polish. Though, as I understand it, the area my ancestors came from in Poland has gone back and forth between German and Polish control, so maybe with current boundaries I'm German. The English and Norwegians have always been in the in-crowd. They were the 'good ones' when referring to immigrants. The Welsh and Polish, not so much. If those opposed to immigration had been successful in limiting the movement of Welsh or Polish migrants the United States would be dramatically different. What would Chicago be without the Polish? What would the upper midwest be without the Polish cultural influence? I was a history major in college, and in my senior year wrote my research paper on the history of Colorado mining. Much of western Colorado was dominated by Welsh immigrants because they had skills and experiences that made them particularly well-equipped for the harsh weather, high altitude, and specific technical demands of the region. Think about all of the groups that have made their mark on the United States, and the things their contributions made possible. This extends beyond the USA. Every country is richer in countless ways because of immigrants.
On an individual level, my life would not exist as I know it if the Welsh or Polish had been shut out. Furthermore, my wife is from the Philippines. Her mother was an American citizen at the time of my wife's birth, but my mother-in-law chose to deliver in the Philippines, and my wife didn't move to the USA until she was 5. Much like southern and eastern Europeans, Asians of all nationalities were undesirable immigrants. If my wife's grandfather had not been allowed to migrate (note: he wound up serving in the American military), I wouldn't be able to share my life with my wife. It doesn't end there, though. I met my wife in Cambodia. I was there to teach social studies, and she was there to work as legal advisor for a group that defends property rights in a country where the government can take anything it pleases. If she and I weren't able to move to Cambodia to work we wouldn't have met. She wouldn't have helped Cambodians whose lives were being stolen. From there we moved to Thailand so she could work as counsel to refugees going through the UN process (I taught social studies). The Pakistani, Iranian, Congolese, and Syrian refugees she worked with would have continued to suffer through atrocities and persecution, and quite possibly would have died. This, to me, is a far more important part of the immigration question than any effect on wages or national accounts.
When I encounter someone who wants to limit immigration or deport immigrants I cannot help but think about how ridiculously arbitrary their position is. Why is it a good idea to stop immigration now, but not in the past when their ancestors would have been the targets of anti-immigrant legislation? Why should imaginary political lines drawn in the minds of humans limit the opportunities of individuals? Why are people on one side of the imaginary line more entitled to opportunities than anyone outside of the line? Why should the UN, or any other entity, get to decide who escapes unthinkable suffering and who must persevere? No one can offer anything resembling a reasonable answer to any of these questions.
I'm a mongrel - roughly equal parts Norwegian, Welsh, English, and Polish. Though, as I understand it, the area my ancestors came from in Poland has gone back and forth between German and Polish control, so maybe with current boundaries I'm German. The English and Norwegians have always been in the in-crowd. They were the 'good ones' when referring to immigrants. The Welsh and Polish, not so much. If those opposed to immigration had been successful in limiting the movement of Welsh or Polish migrants the United States would be dramatically different. What would Chicago be without the Polish? What would the upper midwest be without the Polish cultural influence? I was a history major in college, and in my senior year wrote my research paper on the history of Colorado mining. Much of western Colorado was dominated by Welsh immigrants because they had skills and experiences that made them particularly well-equipped for the harsh weather, high altitude, and specific technical demands of the region. Think about all of the groups that have made their mark on the United States, and the things their contributions made possible. This extends beyond the USA. Every country is richer in countless ways because of immigrants.
On an individual level, my life would not exist as I know it if the Welsh or Polish had been shut out. Furthermore, my wife is from the Philippines. Her mother was an American citizen at the time of my wife's birth, but my mother-in-law chose to deliver in the Philippines, and my wife didn't move to the USA until she was 5. Much like southern and eastern Europeans, Asians of all nationalities were undesirable immigrants. If my wife's grandfather had not been allowed to migrate (note: he wound up serving in the American military), I wouldn't be able to share my life with my wife. It doesn't end there, though. I met my wife in Cambodia. I was there to teach social studies, and she was there to work as legal advisor for a group that defends property rights in a country where the government can take anything it pleases. If she and I weren't able to move to Cambodia to work we wouldn't have met. She wouldn't have helped Cambodians whose lives were being stolen. From there we moved to Thailand so she could work as counsel to refugees going through the UN process (I taught social studies). The Pakistani, Iranian, Congolese, and Syrian refugees she worked with would have continued to suffer through atrocities and persecution, and quite possibly would have died. This, to me, is a far more important part of the immigration question than any effect on wages or national accounts.
When I encounter someone who wants to limit immigration or deport immigrants I cannot help but think about how ridiculously arbitrary their position is. Why is it a good idea to stop immigration now, but not in the past when their ancestors would have been the targets of anti-immigrant legislation? Why should imaginary political lines drawn in the minds of humans limit the opportunities of individuals? Why are people on one side of the imaginary line more entitled to opportunities than anyone outside of the line? Why should the UN, or any other entity, get to decide who escapes unthinkable suffering and who must persevere? No one can offer anything resembling a reasonable answer to any of these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment