The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Spectator (UK) Article on "The (Selfish) Case for Immigration"
The article explains how immigration has major benefits for receiving-country natives, with a focus on Britain.
It was not my plan to publish two media articles on the same day, and certainly not on a day when there are also major Supreme Court decisions. But today, the Spectator, a British publication, posted my new article on why opening doors to immigration is not merely charity for immigrants, but also benefits receiving-country natives. I did not intend for this piece to come out on the same day as my Dispatch article on the somewhat related issue of wokeness and nationalism. But that's how the two publications' timing worked out. Conspiracy-mongers (and not justVolokh Conspiracy-mongers) will, of course, suspect collusion!
Unfortunately, the Spectator does not generally include hyperlinks, which is why there are none in this article. However, the article is based in large part on a longer paper that is scheduled to be published by Institute of Economic Affairs. The IEA paper builds on material from my 2023 Public Affairs Quarterly article, "Immigration and the Economic Freedom of Natives." I will post a link to the IEA paper when it's up. In the meantime, here's an excerpt from the Spectator piece:
The 2024 general election 'should be the immigration election', Nigel Farage has said. The Reform leader's wish has been granted: the topic of immigration is a major focus of debate. It's also a big issue in the United States' presidential election. Much of the debate in both countries depicts immigrants as a burden that receiving countries should accept (if at all) only out of altruism or a sense of obligation. But this is misleading, and ignores the many benefits of migration to Britain and other receiving countries.
Accepting migrants is the right thing to do, in part because it saves many thousands of people from what would otherwise likely be a lifetime of poverty and oppression…. But opening doors to such people also benefits Britain. Immigrants work, start businesses, and contribute to scientific innovation, often at higher rates than native-born citizens. That greatly benefits current UK citizens, as well as migrants themselves….
The United States is often considered the 'nation of immigrants'. But Britain also has a long history of welcoming immigrants and benefiting from their contributions. Huguenot Protestant refugees fleeing repression in 17th and 18th century France played an important role in the early development of Britain's economy, and the beginnings of the industrial revolution. More recently, Jewish and other refugees fleeing Nazi Germany contributed to scientific development, including weapons systems crucial to winning World War II. In the post-war era, British economic growth and scientific research was significantly bolstered by migrants from South Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere….
Today, in Britain, as in the US, immigrants play a disproportionate role starting new businesses. A 2023 study found that 39 per cent of the 100 fastest-growing UK companies have an immigrant founder or co-founder, even though immigrants are only 14.5 per cent of the UK population. UK immigrants are also substantially more likely to start businesses than natives, and engage in other types of entrepreneurship. Such businesses contribute to growth and innovation, and provide valuable job opportunities for both immigrants and natives….
The benefits of immigration can be literally life-saving. The first two successful Covid-19 vaccines were developed in large part thanks to immigrants or the children thereof. Some fear that immigration will overburden the government budget. But most immigrants actually contribute more to the public purse than they take out. The economist Jonathan Portes finds that government data showed that recent increases in migration (which allowed in about 350,000 more migrants than previously expected) could, on net, increase government revenue by about £5 billion per year. The long-term fiscal benefits of higher immigration are likely to be much greater….
Other parts of the article address the issue of illegal migration, and the argument (increasingly prominent in the UK) that migration causes housing shortages.
I am about to depart for a trip to the UK, where I will be giving several lectures and talks, including on migration-related topics.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bitter clingers like Somin want to replace the native populations of all countries in the world. Maybe he should consider opening Israel up to refugees from states frustrating by mass proliferation of firearms like Kentucky or Tennessee? Or perhaps Nepal would be improved by hordes of Germans?
lol love it
Britain was a great country, until it took in large numbers of Third World migrants. Now the Conservative Party is about to be ousted because of the mess created by its appointed prime minister, Rishi Sunak. Immigration has been terrible for Britain.
To be fair the Conservative party there did a lot of damage through immigration prior to Rishi.
"Immigrants work, start businesses, and contribute to scientific innovation, often at higher rates than native-born citizens."
Ok, but which immigrants? Is an immigrant with no understanding of the English language and no formal education going to be contributing to scientific innovation in the UK? Probably not. What businesses can he realistically start?
Is there any difference between post-immigration performance based upon country or region of origin or age, or do immigrants outperform native born in all the ways Somin mentions regardless of where they come from or how old they are? Are certain barriers to assimilation more significant to specific groups of immigrants?
If you acknowledge that immigrants are not a monolithic group, then you have to acknowledge that immigration, in some forms at least, will be less beneficial than others and may even be detrimental. Yet we've read the same post from Somin for years about how all immigration, in every permutation, is an unqualified good.
Laken Riley could not be reached for comment.
Her parents probably have some thoughts on the matter.
I’m not against immigration, my Mom came from E. Germany for crying out loud, (Maiden name of Rosenberg, how popular was that name in 1960?) I get it, Ping Pong Pang from Chyna! to do IT on our Nuke-ular Missiles, fine, Ingrid Bust-a-nut, to do Bikini Commercials for Hot Topic, great, Patel Patel to be an Internal Medicine Subspecialist of course, One of those African guys who’s name sounds like an old dial up modem to play Soccer, who cares? Great young shortstop from Curacao?, come right in, but maybe the guy with MS-13 tattoos on his Neck (that literally tell you his criminal history) who can’t remember where he was for the last 5-10 years?…
Frank
I'm not too sure where your comment is headed to:
1. Nobody's said "let's let known gang members in en masse". Most migrants, however, aren't violent criminals. Ironically, their first contact with a criminal gang may well be the human traffickers they contacted to get themselves into the US/UK/other Western country in the first place.
2. Gang members have other channels to get in anyway - given the way that organised criminal groups work, they aren't dependent on trying to swim across the Rio Grande to get to America if they want to.
Isn't this a bit like writing an essay advocating outlawing locks on doors and windows, and legalizing squatting, and titling it "The case for having guests over"?
Only a negligible fraction of the population are flatly opposed to immigration, or deny that SOME immigrants are beneficial. The real debate is between selective immigration and indiscriminate, wide open immigration.
With you representing that latter, highly unpopular position, and pretending you're battling your mirror opposite, rather than the reasonable mainstream.
I'd argue having to constantly write pieces on the benefits of immigration indicates that the benefits are not apparent to many folks.
No, the benefits of selective immigration are quite apparent, the problem is that Ilya doesn't WANT selective immigration. He wants wide open borders. So he makes the case for "immigration", unqualified, being a benefit, in the context of his pretending that any restrictions on immigration AT ALL are slamming the door completely shut.
Because he can easily prove that some immigration is better than none, but proving that endless immigration is better than selective immigration is really tough, he fights against a straw man: Completely closed borders.
The irony here is that the current regime of effectively wide open borders caused by the refusal to to enforce immigration laws might just get us those doors slammed shut, by way of backlash. That's how it happened back in the 1920's, I believe.
Let’s follow this analysis, certain countries offer more opportunities for multifold reasons. Agreed. Without any doubt. Why should these certain countries not offer their benefits to all? Agreed. The most effective and efficient means is not immigration. Poor reasoning, does not benefit the least able, leaves the vast majority in their hell. Conquest and Annexation is so much more encompassing, benefits all. Opportunity for Everyone, including the bottom dwellers. Same saintly motivation, eliminates the rooted ‘deep in the ground ’causes. No disturbance to population of vastly superior country.
Encouraging immigration encourages escape, fear, abandonment of poorest. Is that your goal Professor, leave the poorest with no assistance from most skilled, scientific, educated, best able to help the most people in their home country. Very shallow thinking, very selfish, benefit rich nations, abandon the helpless. Professor, may you someday write for the truly needy, not yourself, not your country, not the wealthy.
I actually prefer more of a "franchise" approach.
But, yes, he really doesn't seem to care about what happens to the poor countries stripped of their best. Now, I'm openly an advocate of "cream skimming", and think that our government's policies should be directed towards the best interests of our country only, with the welfare of other countries at most a side constraint. So it's understandable that I'm OK with that effect.
But it's surprising that Ilya, a universalist, is.
Ilya is a libertarian, so it's not the least bit surprising. He's considered about the welfare of individuals, not countries. This "cream" owes nothing to their former countries.
Except you know as well as anyone that Ilya is not actually arguing for the best foreigners but ALL foreigners. That plus his silence on the costs associated with importing hordes of low skill, barely integratable foreigners shows he really doesn't care about anything beyond cheap labor for himself regardless of the consequences.
Another couple of articles in right-wing publications, complementing your longstanding gig at a white, male, faux libertarian, bigotry-embracing, movement conservative blog.
Sentient audiences are likely to discount, if not dismiss, your efforts to disclaim wingnut status, Prof. Somin. Federalist Society-style wingnut status. Heritage Foundation-style wingnut status. Cato Institution-level wingnut status.
That's no way to go through life, professor. I sense you could be substantially better than this.
But you are not.
How well did immigration help Rotherham? 1400 young children sexually abused by mostly Pakistani immigrants.
Rochdale had 111 more by mostly Pakistani immigrants.
Hundreds more cases of sex abuse almost entirely by Pakistani immigrants have occurred in other English towns.
So Mr. Somin tell me how those immigrants helped England.
Similarly, can anyone tell us how a group of on-the-spectrum, un-American, conservative Russian immigrants has helped America in general or our legal academy in particular?
who do you think delivers the crates of KY you go through? They aren't getting to your cell by Carrier Pigeon
Frank
If you are referring to Somin, he has mostly used his position to argue for destroying America with open borders.
"...Russian immigrants..."
Whoa! What happened to your often-proclaimed aversion to "bigotry"? Or don't "Russian immigrants" count (i.e., bigotry against them is A-OK)?
Seriously, I have some experience arguing for unpopular positions.
How effective do you think the argument for drug (re)legalization would be, if we started out by pretending that everybody who didn't want crack sold out of vending machines in elementary schools was out to outlaw aspirin?
Because that's more or less what you do, on a regular basis, when it comes to immigration.
One point about immigration - a lot of complaints about migrants (mostly those who do not come from majority-white historically Christian countries) here in Europe at least is heavily premisced upon the idea that they aren't properly integrated into society. That they live in what become foreigner enclaves, live according to their foreign culture, don't engage/dilute the local culture and so on. In countries going through a (real or perceived) "law and order crisis", migrants are often disproportionately blamed for violent crime (there's even a response to this blog that's like that).
But all of those problems are at least exacerbated, if not caused outright, by social exclusion of migrants. If the migrant is treated as "other", denied access to basic public services like healthcare or schools, and refused the right to work legally, then they are naturally being prevented from well...including themselves in society. Consequently, they are inherently more likely to seek out people from similar foreign cultural backgrounds (who do not reject them), and are more likely to fall into the social/socio-economic categories of people who are more liable to commit crime or become radicalised (poverty, poor education etc.).
On the other hand, incentivising integration, and promoting people's ability to become a member of the destination society (whilst teaching and promoting its values of course) is much more likely to my mind to promote well...positive, productive outcomes.
I remember suggesting to Professor Somin that he consider making a pragmatic case for why it might be in the interests of Western countries to have more liberal immigration policies, suggesting examples like Prussia and the United States, whose liberal immigration policies early in their history are thought by historians to have had a lot to do with their rise as major powers, and Japan, whose restrictive immigration policy and aging population have had a lot to do with its relative decline more recently.
Perhaps he reads his comments.