Kinder, Gentler America

by Don Boudreaux on April 13, 2006

in Immigration

Since moving to The Atlantic, Clive Crook has written some outstanding articles.  One is this wonderful essay (summarized by Alex at Marginal Revolution) on why something as lovable as capitalism is largely unloved.

Another of Crook’s outstanding essays appears in the current — the May 2006 — Atlantic.  It’s on immigration.  It’s theme is that the allegedly humane European system of "social democracy" creates cruelty and callousness toward immigrants — much more cruelty and callousness than exists here in America.  Here’s Crook:

On the face of it, America’s welfare system is harsher and less hospitable than Europe’s, something that many liberals lament.  But in this respect, at least, that appearance is misleading.  The unintended consequences of Europe’s milder regime are not just a looming fiscal collapse but also, in the meantime, intensifying and plainly self-destructive anti-immigration sentiment.  America’s harsher insistence on work is not just economically advantageous (which is self-evident) but socially beneficial as well (which some may find surprising).  Jobs alone are not enough to ensure successful assimilation of immigrants, but jobs are a necessary condition.  By insisting that immigrants work, the host country attacks the incumbents’ intellectual and emotional resistance to immigration.  The work requirement increases the dispersed economic benefits; it reduces or eliminates the net fiscal burdens; and it lowers cultural barriers.  As a result, tempers cool.  In these key respects, America’s more brutal model is kinder — in addition to bring more sustainable.

Everything is relative, of course.  Uncle Sam is not as ready as Crook suggests to let foreigners work in America.  But Uncle Sam is much more tolerant — and, hence, less brutal — on this front than are European welfare-state governments.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • JohnDewey

    "Uncle Sam is not as ready as Crook suggests to let foreigners work in America. "


    Don, I didn't understand this sentence. Are you meaning that the American public is severely divided on whether immigrants should be allowed to work here?


    It seems to me that Americans are perfectly willing to accept the economic benefits of cheaper immigrant labor. But they don't want to admit to it.


    Polls I've seen show that a majority is opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants, but that a majority is also opposed to mass deportations. They insist that immigrants should pay the same taxes as everyone else. But a majority doesn't want to allow them the status required to do so.


    I'm not sure Americans realize that legal immigration is near-impossible for an unskilled or low-skilled Mexican worker. And yet those workers are what we've come to depend on from Mexico.

  • Don Boudreaux

    I mean by my claim that "Uncle Sam is not as ready as Crook suggests to let foreigners work in America" that Uncle Sam continues to impose work restrictions and prohibitions on immigrants. For example, certain student visas prohibit their holders from working off-campus.


    Again, I agree in large with Crook's point -- namely, that Uncle Sam is less eager than are European governments to regulate in ways that eliminate employment opportunities for immigrants (and, by the way, also for citizens). But it isn't the case that Uncle Sam always encourages, and never discourages, work by immigrants.

  • Keith

    Its a similar dichotomy to what we have with oil. One minute you hear "Oil is killing us! The planet is melting! We have to do something!", and the next minute you hear "Dear god, $3 a gallon! Record oil profits! This is outrageous!".


    You only hear "Illegal immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans won't do", but they never finish the sentence. Illegal immigrants are only doing the jobs Americans won't do for what is currently being paid. Like oil, Americans want cheap lettace and high wages. There will always be a politician around to tell them its their "right" to have both, and a majority will vote for him/her. The result is what we have today.


  • JohnDewey

    Thanks, Don. I now understand.


    I think Sen. Specter's proposal would allow more student visa holders to work off campus, so perhaps we're headed in the right direction.


    One provision of Sen. Specter's bill does not make any sense to me. Spouses and children of an amnested immigrant may be granted amnesty as well, but they will not be authorized to work in the United States. I would guess that the fastest path to increasing the social spending burden is through converting two-income families into one-income families.

  • Ann

    I think you're making a broader point, as well - that Europe is more willing to cut many types of people out of the workforce, and that this isn't necessarily humane. Some people aren't productive enough to earn the kind of wages that liberals think that they should get, and hence those people are told to do nothing, in exchange for handouts.


    A far more generous approach is to supplement their income, if needed, but to encourage everyone to contribute what they can. Even with generous welfare payments, is a person really happier being told that he/she has nothing to contribute and thus should just sit out the rest of this lifetime?


    I heard an autistic woman talk once about the importance of helping everyone to find a job that they're good at, one that allows them to be part of things. I think it's cruel to use high minimum wages and rigid work rules to shut some people out of employment. It makes the supporter feel generous at the expense of the person being supported.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: