Immigration

Shikha Dalmia in the Washington Examiner on America's Future Immigration Problem

|

The most striking thing about the immigration discussion currently underway is that it is stuck in the past rather than looking to the future. All the reform measures that even pro-immigrant lawmakers from both parties are discussing are based on the assumption that foreigners will always keep flocking to America's doorstep. That, however, might not be the case for much longer. The global population deciine means that America's future immigration problem won't be too many — but too few — foreigners. Notes Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia:

[T]he intensifying global demand for young workers will make it far more difficult for America to attract immigrants—especially since economic liberalization has opened many attractive opportunities for them at home.

The rational response under these circumstances would be to market America aggressively abroad, much like the army does at home to boost sagging enrollments. America should be soliciting applications from young foreigners, even offering them "immigration packages."

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to Step Down

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. America should be soliciting applications from young foreigners, even offering them “immigration packages.”

    Section 8 vouchers, EBT and Medicaid?

  2. Oh, please. This insight is fun and surprising, but the US should simply open the borders without promise of citizenship or welfare. It doesn’t need to advertise or artificially induce immigration.

    Being the free kid on the block will be enough to draw a healthy set of immigrants for decades to come.

    1. “Being the free kid on the block”?

      1. If the US were to unilaterally open its borders and give the clear rationale that it is securing the unalienable rights of all and collaterally providing massive economic benefits, then the US would indeed be the free kid on the block. All other countries would be behind on the freedom of movement of persons and labor.

        1. If the state is to provide massive economic benefits, the end will be even sooner.

          Opening borders is good; eliminating them, even better. But no welfare for anybody.

          1. The massive economic benefits come from massively increased labor mobility.

            What makes one think that “massive economic benefits” means “welfare”?

            1. Okay, I misperceived your point.

  3. I don’t understand why the US makes it so difficult to immigrate. Here is one program that works pretty well:

    The Quality Migrant Admission Scheme is quota-based and operated on a points-based system. Applicants are required to fulfill a set of prerequisites before they can be awarded points under either one of the two points-based tests, namely the General Points Test (GPT) and the Achievement-based Points Test (APT), and compete for quota allocation with other applicants. Prerequisites under the Scheme are:
    the applicant must be aged 18 or above when lodging an application under the Scheme;
    the applicant must be able to demonstrate that he/she is capable of supporting and accommodating himself/herself and his/her dependants, if any, on his/her own financial resources without relying on public assistance during his/her stay in Hong Kong;
    the applicant must have no criminal or adverse immigration record in Hong Kong or elsewhere;
    the applicant must be proficient in written and spoken Chinese (Putonghua or Cantonese) or English; and
    the applicant must have a good education background, normally a first degree from a recognized university or a tertiary educational institution. In special circumstances, good technical qualifications, proven professional abilities and/or experience and achievements supported by documentary evidence may be considered.

  4. Air India is ready when you are Dalmia. Go back home and work to ruin your own nation the way you have worked to destroy America.

  5. Mumble mumble 3rd world invaders welfare. Cultural contagion. JOBS!

    /nativist

  6. What is meant by “America” advertising itself and trying to “induce” immigration? Is that a government program? How is that libertarian? And what sort of inducements are libertarian beyond making it easier to immigrate and get a job, buy a house, etc.?

    Also interesting that Dalmia is worried about saving the welfare state.

    1. I think Dalmia is worried about saving the US economy from the insatiable blood-sucking demands of the retired.

      You should be too.

      1. False dichotomy.

    2. Yeah, that is an interesting angle for her to take. No question, though, that having a huge number of very old people to support will strain our society, whether a welfare system exist or not. We’re not talking about able-bodied people, here, but people beyond the age of being fully productive.

      The drop in birth rates in the developing world is one of the biggest unheralded stories out there. It’s going to be problematic in places like Mexico, but disastrous in places like Iran, where they simply do not have the wealth to support a large number of people who are no longer capable of working.

  7. The numbers Ms. Dalmia cites regarding the number of immigrants per 1,000 citizens are DOA.

    She is also way off base in asseverating that “the intensifying global demand for young workers will make it far more difficult for America to attract immigrants”. Her assertion is at odds with reality as the world has sustained a great contraction of wealth in the last five years. Given that we are in the Greater Depression, she should acknowledge that there is no world wide on-going intensifying demand for ANY OLE young worker.

    Moreover, her position suffers from the immigration is the sin qua non of a free and prosperous economy narrative. Time to retire that trope.

    1. She’s not talking about right now, but some years in the future.

      Economic downturns are short-term; population changes are not.

      1. No, not every economic downturn is short-term, particularly where, as here, governments are doing all they can to make things worse and thereby sustain the Greater Depression.

        Reasonoids have this goofy narrative that things always are getting better and that’s that. Rubbish.

        1. Reasonoids have this goofy narrative that things always are getting better and that’s that. Rubbish.

          Not a “reasonoid,” but have you read Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist? Over the long term, things do pretty much get better.

          1. Shun Yu-

            No, but I will. I just perused a review.

            Free markets, unshackled by parasites and social democracies with their totalitarian regulations, do make life better.

            However, I do quarrel with a generalized, undifferentiated asseveration that things do get better over time.

            Why?

            How about travel? Americans are much less free than they were 100 years ago when they did not have to carry licenses and passports.

            As little as 12 years ago, air travel was far less burdensome than it is now. I do not think any person can credibly challenge the assertion.

            1. As little as 12 years ago, air travel was far less burdensome than it is now. I do not think any person can credibly challenge the assertion.

              You are assuredly correct on that account. I was speaking from an economic progression point of view rather than a freedom point of view.

        2. Ten years is “short term” when it comes to changing population trends, but exceptionally long for economic downturns.

          Thirty years from now, the Great Recession of 2008 will be a distant memory, but the population changes we’re currently undergoing now will have had a tremendous effect on the world as it is then.

          I don’t particularly think the solution to the problems associated with population decline is to import more peasants, but I also don’t pretend to have any good answers of my own.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.