(1) The *average* gain to taxpayers, if any, is not dispositive, even if we are considering this in narrowly economic terms. It all depends on the distribution of gains and losses. If the majority of taxpayers lose, then why should they support more immigrant labor, just because relatively large gains to a minority of taxpayers (i.e., the immigrants themselves and their employers) make the average come out positive?

Consider a mini-welfare-state of a hundred citizens. One of them is a vegetable farmer. Two of them are farm-workers in his employ. The other ninety-seven buy vegetables at the store, but are otherwise unconcerned with agriculture. All of them pay taxes to support public highways, public schools, public health clinics, etc.

At this point, an immigrant family of four shows up on the doorstep. The parents are farmworkers, willing to work for half the wages of the current citizen farm-workers. They bring with them two school-aged children.

The farmer is delighted, and proposes that they be admitted.

Should the current citizens vote to admit, or to exclude?

If the immigrants are admitted, here are the obvious gainers: (a) the farmer, who can cut his labor costs in half and make a higher profit while at the same time reducing prices, and (b) the immigrants, who can make a far better wage than they could where they came from while at the same time enjoying the superior public highways, public schools, public health clinics, etc. of their adopted country.

And here are the obvious losers: the current citizen farm-workers, who must either accept a lower wage or move on to other employment (or unemployment).

As for the other ninety-seven, they gain from lower vegetable prices, but lose from higher public welfare costs.

Let’s suppose, for purposes of argument, that the gains to the farmer, and to the immigrants, are so great that voting to admit results in an average gain to taxpayers (including the newly admitted immigrants). But let’s also suppose, again for purposes of argument, that for the other ninety-seven, their gains from lower vegetable prices are smaller than their losses from higher public welfare costs.

In that case, I count ninety-nine rational votes against admission, and only one rational vote in favor, even though admission would result in an *average* gain to taxpayers.

So no.

(2) Possibly yes – but it’s not possible, so…what?

Really, I think a guest worker program would probably be the way out of such a bind. I think it’s the best sort of compromise we can hope for, so I really don’t understand why it’s resisted so strongly by some people . . .

I’m a busy man!

(1) the average gain to taxpayers from immigrant labor more than compensates for immigrant-related welfare spending.

Would you then be in favor of more immigrant labor?

Suppose

(2) it was possible to have a large guest worker program in which guest workers were explicitly ineligible for most forms of welfare.

Would you then support the guest worker program?

Personally, I would just *love* to get rid of all those publicly funded services consumed by poor immigrants, legal and illegal alike.

But what are the chances of that? And do the chances get better, or worse, as we import more and more poor immigrants?

Suggested answers: zero, and getting worse.

I mean, for heavens sake: we live in a time when prominent so-called libertarians like Tyler Cowen adopt a “don’t worry, be happy” attitude toward the growth of government, yet go right on supporting open borders.

It’s incredibly irresponsible.

Will, would it be churlish of me to stomp my foot and demand some kind of response to my earlier comment? I think this isn’t something that can just be ignored.

If, say, a US producer of paper can’t find the pulp it needs in the US, but rather must import it from abroad, does that mean the US government is “propping up” an “uneconomic and dead” industry? Of course not. So why would you say this of a US-based firm that can’t find the workers it needs? Your argument is especially specious given the fact that a US-based firm is not free to pay the going global rate for the labor it would like to import, but must pay wages commensurate with the cost of living in the US, and/or wage minimums set by law.

But illegal aliens collect more than $2000 per household per year in public services.

It isn’t the 19th century anymore. Immigrants to the U.S. today are not showing up in a relatively *laissez-faire*, sink-or-swim society where they have to pay their own way. They are showing up in an advanced welfare state where the taxpayers get stuck with many of their bills.

So telling taxpayers that this is a purely private transaction between employers and employees, and that they have no business interfering, just isn’t serious.

Can you have the rule of law without a nation?

Also, WHOSE right to exclude. The property-owner’s or the state’s? I like property rights very, very much. But, the point is, a national territory is a legal jurisdiction, not a huge piece of private property owned by the state or “the people”. If you like the right to exclude, you must also like the right to include. So how come if I own a private factory, I can’t include anyone I like on its premises?

A lot of anti-immigration types strike me as implicitly espousing the idea that I can’t invite anyone I like because I don’t really own my property, but just sort of lease it from the state (or from “the people”), which gets to make the ultimate decision about who I can let in. But if you have any libertarian sympathies whatsoever, the last thing you think is that individual’s rights over their property are at the state’s pleasure. If the state shouldn’t be able to tell Augusta who they can exclude, they shouldn’t be able to tell my factory who can work there, either.

Weirdly, a few commenters on other sites point to Japan to show the success of low immigration policies.

This approach COULD suggest less immigration is better, but the conclusion is not guaranteed.

There are clearly millions of hopeful immigrants who would strengthen these institutions.

Uh . . . right . . . which is why we never see workers with low wages. WTF?

I was making a ceteris paribus claim about immigration per se, not illegal immigration. Guys like Will want immigration to be above-board, so trying to shift the focus to illegals specifically confuses the issue.