I approach the issue of immigration reform (theoretical reform—neither Becker nor I are considering the political obstacles to radical changes in immigration law) somewhat differently. I begin by asking: why restrict immigration at all? The only answer I consider fully compatible with a market-oriented approach to social issues is that the immigrant might reduce the net social welfare of the United States, if for example he was unemployable or on the verge of retirement, or was a criminal, or was likely to require highly expensive medical treatment, or if he would impose greater costs in congestion or pollution than he would confer benefits, with benefits measured (crudely) by his income before taxes and by any consumer surplus that he might create. I assume that the welfare of foreigners as such does not enter into the U.S. social welfare function; but immigrants who create net benefits in the sense just indicated contribute to the strength and prosperity of the nation.
The problem of the “undesirable” immigrant—the immigrant who wants to free ride on the services and amenities that the United States provides its citizens—could be solved by means of a two-stage process. In the first stage, the prospective immigrant would be screened for age, health, IQ, criminal record, English language capability, etc.; the screening need not be elaborate. If the would-be immigrant “passed” in the sense that he seemed likely to add more to U.S. welfare than he would take out, he would be admitted without charge. If he flunked the screening test, an estimate would be made of the net cost (discounted to present value) that he would be likely to impose on the U.S. if he lived here and he would be charged that amount for permission to immigrate.
An alternative, less revolutionary, approach to screening out free-rider immigrants would be, first, to deny immigrants access to Medicaid and other welfare programs until they had lived in the United States for a significant period of time, and, second, to auction off a certain number of immigrant visas to the highest bidders. Immigrants willing to take their chances without access to welfare programs (not that all access could be denied—no one could be refused emergency medical treatment on a charity basis), and immigrants willing to bid high prices in an immigration auction, would be likely to be productive citizens, in the first case, and to cover any costs they would impose on the nation’s health or other welfare systems, in the second case.
Either the more or the less revolutionary alternative would impose significant transition costs, but that would be true of any radical change in immigration policy. The obvious cost (though not really a cost, rather a redistribution of income) would be that by increasing the supply of labor, an immigration policy that made it easy for employable workers to enter the U.S. labor force would reduce wages in the labor markets that the immigrants entered. A closely related but subtler consequence is that the downward effect of large-scale immigration on wages (a short-run effect, in all likelihood) would complicate the process of determining the correct fee to prevent free riding: an immigrant who might be able to pay his way at the existing wage level might be unable to do so if the wage level fell as a result of massive immigration. Similarly, congestion and pollution externalities might increase at an increasing rate with massive immigration, requiring a further adjustment in the fee charged the “undesirables.”
Either approach seems to me preferable to a flat fee for all would-be immigrants. A flat fee would not do away with the need to screen, since some would-be immigrants might impose net costs on the U.S. that were greater than the fee; that is why Becker’s approach includes screening. The flat fee would exclude two types of immigrant that should, in a market-oriented approach, be admitted. One type would be “undesirables” willing and able to compensate the United States for the expected costs that they would impose--and so they would not be free riders after all; a very wealthy person on the verge of retirement would be an example of such an “undesirable.” The second type would be highly promising would-be immigrants (for example, persons with a high IQ) who for some reason—perhaps because they reside in extremely poor countries—simply could not pay the down payment on the fee.
The fee would, it is true, increase government revenues, which may seem a plus. But it would do so at the usual cost of distorting the allocation of resources, in this case by excluding immigrants in the second class.
I note two complications. First, it may be desirable to adhere to the current policy of granting asylum to foreigners who are escaping persecution, even if they do not seem likely to be able to pay or to earn enough to cover the costs they’ll impose on this country. My reason is not sentiment, but the fact that people who are persecuted tend to be either nonconformists or members of particularly successful minorities, and in either case they, or at least their children, are likely to be productive citizens even if their U.S. employment prospects are dim. Second, the United States in formulating immigration policy may have to worry about “brain drain,” and, what may be more important, “leadership drain,” from poor or unstable countries. For example, it would be highly unfortunate if all the Iraqis who have the ability and motivation to build a democratic, free-market society fled to the United States. Thus it may sometimes be in our national interest to exclude persons who would otherwise be highly desirable immigrants, in order to shore up forces or tendencies in their own countries that promote U.S. interests. However, I do not know how to mesh this concern with either my or Becker’s proposals.
thanks to tell me that,i think thats so usefully----
tiffanys
links of london
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/27/2009 at 04:41 AM
a great post,thanks for shareing-----
ed hardy
tiffany uk
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/27/2009 at 04:55 AM
دردشة الشلة
دردشة الرياض
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/29/2009 at 03:53 PM
دردشة برق
دردشة الخليج
Posted by: Anonymous | 07/29/2009 at 05:48 PM
Good afternoon. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.
I am from Darussalam and now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "And you can barley taste the baking soda in the paste."
Thanks 8-). Professional teeth whitening trays.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/13/2009 at 05:54 AM
شات الشلة
دردشة تعب قلبي
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/16/2009 at 06:59 PM
Hi, I have been here for several times now and thought to sign your guestbook. Very nice! Keep up the good work.
I am from Togo and also now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Usually whenever we plans a holiday or business trip all our spare time gets indulged with other issues."
Best regards :D, Very low airfares.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/16/2009 at 07:54 PM
شات ØØ¨ÙŠ
شات Ø§Ù„ØØ¨
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/18/2009 at 12:34 PM
شات دلع
شات الود
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/18/2009 at 12:35 PM
very thanks for article sesli sohbet
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/19/2009 at 06:25 PM
tiffany jewellery
ed hardy
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/24/2009 at 02:33 AM
links of london
abercrombie and fitch
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/24/2009 at 02:34 AM
links of london
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/24/2009 at 03:16 AM
ed hardy
tiffany jewelry
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/25/2009 at 03:14 AM
tiffany jewellery
tiffany jewellery
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/25/2009 at 03:15 AM
very thanks for article
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/25/2009 at 10:44 AM
buy Avodart
buy Acomplia
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/27/2009 at 10:58 AM
شات
شات صوتى
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/28/2009 at 05:36 PM
Thanks very much for the compilation!links london
tiffany jewellery
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/31/2009 at 03:05 AM
Pervert! Let's get out of here. There are so many perverts here.So what? You are such a bad person Who's gonna like you? Tiffany Jewelry Don't mind him. Don't mind him. He's just playing. Forget him. He saw me steal the diamond. Tiffany Jewelry You're dreaming! In your dreams. Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer l Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer look.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late. ook.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late.
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/04/2009 at 04:40 AM
بنت الكويت
شات بنت الكويت
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/15/2009 at 07:18 AM
Just love tiffany and ugg boots,thanks!!
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/18/2009 at 01:18 AM
I know that your article makes sense, but because of the livelihood of release I had to come here to spam, I hope you can forgive me. thank you. Expect you to write better articles..maybe you will like this if you are fashion.
UGGS
ugg boots
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/22/2009 at 01:22 AM
Inmigraciones a USA, referencias sobre abogados de inmigraciones, visas de trabajo, visas por familia inmigrante, visas para estudiantes, Green Card, cuotas y fechas de prioridad, todos los tipos de visa.
Posted by: Abogado de Inmigraciones | 03/11/2011 at 03:31 PM
If wow power leveling(http://www.gamegoldfast.com/wow/buy-wow-power-leveling.php) is just another prestigious, private club that one can buy into, what happens to our moral authority in the world?
Posted by: Sexy girl! | 05/30/2011 at 10:59 PM