Despite the backlash against free trade, exemplified most prominently by US President Donald Trump’s protectionist “America first” agenda, the economic case for easing the movement of goods and services across borders is strong and straightforward. The case for immigration — that is, the movement of labor across borders — is no less compelling, although it is far more complicated.
For a libertarian like me, the benefits of free trade are obvious: Transactions between willing buyers and sellers, within an economy and across borders, almost always benefit both sides. While restrictions might be worthwhile to ensure, for example, the safety of goods entering a market, barriers should be kept to a minimum.
On the other hand, it is not worth limiting trade to punish countries that supposedly unfairly subsidize their exports, or allow employers to exploit their workers. Limiting imports from countries with low wages and poor working conditions might seem justified, but, in reality, it deprives these countries’ low-wage workers of what little they can earn. At the same time, it imposes an unwarranted and frequently regressive tax on consumers.
At first glance, immigration appears to be little different from free trade: Instead of importing the goods that labor produced elsewhere, countries are simply importing the labor itself. In some ways, the potential gains of immigration might be even greater than those of free trade.
The immigrants themselves benefit from higher wages, as well as greater safety and individual freedom. The native-born population wins, too, because the new labor performs menial and unpleasant tasks, broadens the tax base and expands domestic markets. More important, immigrants can bring considerable entrepreneurial energy and enrich the local community with their culture, food and traditions.
Supporting immigration also has an added moral appeal. Hard-nosed free traders can find it difficult to persuade tenderhearted skeptics that allowing faraway sweatshops to operate is kinder than eliminating the low-wage jobs they provide. Sheltering immigrants who would face torture and starvation in their homelands aligns more easily with our humanitarian instincts.
There is no better illustration of the benefits of immigration than the US. Successive generations of immigrants turned the young country, with its industrially backward agrarian economy, into the world’s leading technological and military power. Immigrants made New York City a cultural mecca and Los Angeles a center of the global film industry. Welcoming the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” long gave the country an uplifting purpose.
However, not even an immigrant like me can ignore the risks that immigration carries. Unlike free trade, immigration is often a unilateral choice, rather than a voluntary, two-sided exchange. Moreover, while immigration can bring advantages to the native-born, that is not guaranteed.
An extreme example of this is colonization. The “New World” that European explorers “discovered” was not new to those already living there. European immigrants, often escaping persecution and hunger, usurped the indigenous peoples’ lands and hunting grounds, forced them to sign treaties that would not be honored, corralled them into reservations and slaughtered those who resisted.
Similarly, Europeans settlers in Australia declared the continent terra nullius, or free for the taking, butchered Aborigines and forced their children into foster care to advance their cultural assimilation.
Of course, today’s immigrants are not going to ransack and usurp the US, or destination countries in Europe, but that does not mean that welcoming them is cost-free. While many find productive employment and pay taxes, some do not, straining social safety nets at a time of large public debts and rapid population aging. These risks are compounded when large numbers of migrants and refugees arrive unexpectedly, overwhelming education and healthcare systems, and exceeding housing capacity.
Security risks must also be considered. To be sure, nativist and populist political forces grossly exaggerate the links between immigration and crime, including terrorism, but that does not mean that no such links exist.
It is entirely possible, for example, that some members of the criminal gangs whose activities drove a “caravan” of thousands of Central American migrants to walk to the US-Mexico border to apply for asylum would try to slip into the US with that caravan. Likewise, an Islamic State warrior could well try to get into Europe amid the hordes of desperate asylum seekers from Syria.
Moreover, illegal immigrants might remain connected to, or even controlled by, the criminal organizations that smuggled and resettled them. As for legal immigrants, ethnic enclaves insulated from effective policing in the US have historically created space for the local expansion of home-country mafias.
The risks extend beyond new arrivals. In the past few years, terrorist attacks have been carried out by second-generation immigrants who reject the menial jobs their immigrant parents were forced to take, but lack the education and social acceptance needed to ascend the economic ladder.
Salman Abedi, the British-born son of Libyan immigrants who carried out a suicide bombing following a concert by singer Ariana Grande in Manchester in May 2017, is a case in point.
Such cases are rare, and yet the increasing frequency of such events over the past few years underscores the importance of managing immigration effectively — including investing the relevant resources — in the short and long term.
Some argue that, to mitigate the risks of immigration, countries should use a kind of point system, based on credentials such as education, because the highly educated are presumably less likely to be unemployed, or commit crimes.
However, a person does not need an advanced degree to make invaluable entrepreneurial, technological and artistic contributions, and it would be unjust to reject asylum seekers for not having doctorates. Race-based selection is of course also unconscionable.
A better approach would begin with an assessment of everything from public infrastructure (how many immigrants can it reasonably support?) to the efficacy of background checks (what happens to immigrants whose histories cannot be reliably confirmed?).
Nativism should have no place in such discussions, but nor should unrealistic idealism. The key to mutually beneficial immigration is clear-eyed pragmatism. The best way to minimize fear is to manage risks.
Amar Bhide is a professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs