One of the most popular arguments against open immigration is that illegal immigrants use more government services than native-born citizens, and thus are a drain on taxpayers. Even Ron Paul used this argument against open borders, saying that open borders and a welfare state were incompatible. But
a new study by the Cato Institute , using the latest census data, is throwing some cold water on that theory. According to the study:
Low-income non-citizen immigrants, including adults and children, are generally less likely to receive public benefits than those who are native-born. Moreover, when non-citizen immigrants receive benefits, the value of benefits they receive is usually lower than the value of benefits received by those born in the United States. The combination of lower average utilization and smaller average benefits indicates that the overall cost of public benefits is substantially less for low-income non-citizen immigrants than for comparable native-born adults and children.
As illegal immigrants move into the lower class,
lower-class native born move into the middle class . Cheaper goods and services due to cheaper labor costs benefit
all Americans. The native Americans no longer have to do the menial labor the foreign-born do, and their native language and other skills gain a better premium in the job market. Thus, native-born workers then consume less welfare and other government services, too.
So, rather than building a fifty-foot fence along the border patrolled by drones,
we should let them in.
I realize this is the least popular of my free market anarchist positions, and I predict this will garner exactly
zero support here at AWRM. So, set your phasers to "stun" and fire away.
Onward and upward,
airforce
