I don't want this to be a us vs. them discussion (be it Europe vs. US or Asian vs. Hispanic immigrants).
But rather just a theoretical discussion on different models of social policy.
I'm torn on the balance between an open immigration policy and a welfare state. To some extent they are contrasting goals.
On net, welfare states transfer resources from wealthier (generally higher skilled/better connected) to poorer (less skilled/less connected people) individuals. Fair enough, this reduces social tension and ameliorates social ills.
However, given the educational/income gaps between rich and poor nations support for open immigration is also implicitly support for low skilled immigrants. Most low skilled immigrants are incredibly hard working and seeking to improve their life. Can't blame them, I support them in their effort to better there lives.
However, they also tend to be at the bottom of the skill/income distribution. This widens measured inequality within the society. Even if immigrants don't hurt native born workers, just by increasing the number of low skilled workers within an economy, measured inequality and poverty will both increase. Hence, the more low skilled immigration there is, the more inequality and relative poverty a society will have.
Hence, the more low skilled immigration a society has the more of a social safety net a society will need. These seem contrasting goals.
(In 2011, the poverty rate was 24.3% among foreign born non-citizens in the US and 14.4% among native born).
Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau
Immigration and Inequality
Seems long term there are three sustainable models of immigration vs. welfare policies:
1) Open borders, low welfare style- permissive immigration policy,but also big income gaps and little of a social safety net. Immigrants are better off than in their home nations, but society must accept a high level of poverty by developed world standards. The native born poor also have little in the way of a social safety net.
2) Tight borders, generous welfare style- strict immigration restrictions, but a big social safety net for all. Immigration is tightly controlled, but low skilled/income individuals and their families are given lots of social supports.
3) Open immigration for high skilled, tighter immigration for the low skilled and a generous welfare state- immigration is very skill based. The immigrant population is regulated to ensure the overall skill distribution is not below that of the native born labor force. Very easy for college educated immigrants to come, more difficult for less than HS immigrants to come. A generous social safety net for all.
Perhaps, I am wrong about this. Anyone else have any thoughts on how to balance these objectives?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
