Taking The Emotion Out Of The Immigration Debate

Immigration rally in Wisconsin, Resized/Cropped, CC BY 2.0
The reality of the immigration debate is often swamped by emotion. The biggest problem, it seems to me, is that the topic is treated like one clear-cut, monolithic pronouncement: you are either for it or against it. That creates confusion by conflating multiple complex facets into one, with people talking past each other, using the same words but understanding different things. It has many faces and implications for society.
The economic component attempts to determine whether the existing citizens or residents of any country are hurt or helped or are not affected by an inflow of people from other countries. The human rights aspect discusses the rights of people to freedom of movement and association, regardless of the economic consequences. The cultural and political themes argue whether change to the fundamental cultures and political structures are acceptable and beneficial or not. Immigration from different places has different effects because of the varied nature of those foreign countries and their customs, traditions, and politics. These are important discussions, but they are different discussions. The political ramifications, for instance, might mitigate some economic consequences. There is more nuance than for or against.
The economic case in favor of immigration is pretty solid. Many countries, including the United States, advanced to prosperity at a time of significant immigration, and looking at the underlying logic and theory, that makes sense. Over the course of a lifetime in any civilized society, the average individual produces more than he or she consumes, leaving more for the next generation to start with. Societies develop because individuals accumulate some type of wealth. This fact holds just as true for immigrants as for the natives. Yes, an immigrant family has mouths to feed, but such household, given the proper incentives provided by a market society, also has hands to produce, the same as native families. Given those proper incentives, immigrants will produce more than they consume, both in the short run and the long run, benefiting society as a whole. Of course any native who loses a job to an immigrant will suffer to some extent, but that same person would suffer by losing a job to someone who immigrates from, say, New York to North Carolina. In either case, improved economic outcomes increase available options.
The other aspects of the discussion are not as straightforward. The politics of welfare might skew the incentives to produce, but the same goes for all people, immigrant or not. It is a problem of the welfare system and not inherently an immigration problem. Culture and tradition can thrive with infusions from other areas of the world, but a key element in the present discussions is how much is beneficial. While some new ideas and productive bodies and minds can improve economic results, wholesale infusion of people with foreign ideas is bound to cause significant upheaval. Even though the long term effects might be positive, a great upheaval can destabilize a country.
A corollary to that threat is that leaders in particular regions promote immigration into enemy countries to purposely destabilize and undermine the political system and the culture. As one radical Islamic immigrant emphatically asserted, “ We are having babies and you aren’t.” He has a valid point, which is that the country will soon be overwhelmed and there would be no turning back in a free and open democratic nation. Immigration as a tool of political warfare defies any and all of the logic underlying the benefits of immigration, as countries like Sweden are finding.
Immigration is not a straightforward yes or no. It is a complex issue with positives and negatives. Is the border wall good or bad? That depends on which face of immigration you are talking about.
This article originally appeared on Townhall Finance.
Daniel J. McLaughlin is the author of “Compassion and Truth-Why Good Intentions Don’t Equal Good Results.” Formerly a finance executive, he is now focused primarily on writing on economics, business, and politics. You can find him at daniel-mclaughlin.com.
Trending Now on Affluent Christian Investor
Sorry. No data so far.
The Affluent Mix
Biden Oblivious To Illegal Immigration Issues... August 2, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Rob Arnott On Bubbles, Inflation, And Once-In-A-Generation Investment Opportunit... August 2, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

The Federal Reserve’s Massive Theft Of Stability... August 2, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

What To Do About This Difficult Market? August 2, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Letter On The Politicization Of Corporations... July 26, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Peak Of The Fake Bull Market July 26, 2021 | Michael Pento

Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative State vs. Gold... July 26, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Dividends, Energy, And Crypto July 26, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Whose Side Are You On? July 26, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Media, Left Ignore These Dangers July 19, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Mark Skousen On FreedomFest And How To Measure The Whole Economy... July 19, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Quantifying The Quantitative, Or Making Easy The Easing... July 19, 2021 | David Bahnsen

The Gold Standard Means A Rising Standard Of Living... July 19, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

Book Review: Brian Domitrovic Reveals The Monetary Genius Of Arthur Laffer... July 19, 2021 | John Tamny

Steve Forbes: Time To Worry About Inflation, Not Hyperinflation... July 12, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

UFOs Rescue Biden July 12, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

Read This Classical Economist’s 200 Year Old Warning About Paper Money... July 12, 2021 | Jim Huntzinger

How Central Banks Murdered The Markets July 12, 2021 | Michael Pento

Everything There Is To Know About The Stock Market... July 12, 2021 | David Bahnsen

AT&T CEO: We’re Ill Equipped For Politics, And We’re Spending A Lot Of ... July 6, 2021 | Jerry Bowyer

Internet Bias Distorts National Conversation... July 6, 2021 | Frank Vernuccio

The Halfway Point Of 2021 July 6, 2021 | David Bahnsen

Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.