President Biden recently visited the humanitarian crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border but mostly used it as a political stunt to offer more failed policies and chastise Republicans. Republicans have also had years to solve immigration issues, but the situation continues. Meanwhile, Biden and former President Trump have similar protectionist trade policies, which have come at a cost to Americans.
Given the gains from immigration and trade in a globally connected economy, many on the left and the right overlook how government failures of a broken visa system and costly big-government are the source of these problems. And this oversight leads to many of their big-government solutions that aren’t rooted in sound economics but rather winning votes.
Immigration and trade overlap in many ways as they are exchanges with people across international borders. Given the rule of law and private property rights are essential in our republic, there are roles for government to enforce the rules of the game but otherwise politicians should address bad policies in the U.S. before trying to blame tangential problems on other countries or “market failures.”
For instance, have you ever heard that “immigrants and trade steal jobs”? It’s a myth.
The notion that immigrants “steal jobs” supposes that adding more people and different kinds of knowledge and innovation to the economic pie somehow prohibits the native-born population from prospering. Simply put, the aversion to immigrants joining the American workforce is rooted in fear of competition.
Moreover, much of the skepticism fueling fear of more working immigrants tends to also be directed at international trade. But the gains to be acquired from immigration and trade outweigh the suspected costs.
We would be wise to let markets work within the rule of law instead of imposing arbitrary restrictions and growing government.
Working immigrants do not steal jobs. But, as economist Ben Powell recently noted in my conversation with him, they do change the mix of jobs as they expand the capacity of the economy with more workers. Similarly, when young people graduate college and enter the labor market each year, they don’t “steal jobs” but often accept the lower-skilled positions while increasing productivity.
These groups support increased competition, fuel the creation of new jobs, and permit the native-born population to work in positions in which they’re more productive. They also increase demand for goods and services provided by lower-skilled workers.
So, immigrants and new graduates alike can increase net jobs.
When I hire a contractor to install my ceiling fan, I don’t view it as them stealing my job because someone else is better at it. Even though I pay for the service, it’s a trade that ultimately benefits me or I wouldn’t do it, as not learning how to install the fan gives me more time to do things which I enjoy.
The contractor and I mutually benefit, just like with all exchanges with people whether in the same community, same state, same country, or another country. Barriers to immigration and trade, such as visa limitations, border walls, tariffs, and quotas, are barriers to human cooperation enforced by politicians with limited knowledge.
A more productive path forward would be pursuing immigration reform that improves the visa system, making it easier for immigrants to come legally. Border walls, such as the one in Texas, are a scapegoat and far cry from addressing the real issues needing reform.
Similar to the fear of immigration, proponents of trade protectionism often fail to understand that the exchange is as economically simple as it is non-threatening.
Whether a Texan is trading with a New Yorker or someone from China, it’s individuals, not places or entities, trading for mutual benefit. A greater exchange of goods and services through trade promotes competition as the expanded pool of resources for consumers encourages producers to innovate to stay competitive or risk closing.
International trade doesn’t steal U.S. profits any more than immigrants steal jobs. But, like immigration, it allows people to focus on producing the goods they have a comparative advantage instead of being pressured to supply everything for themselves. The goal should be to reduce costs of doing business so there are abundant opportunities for American workers and businesses to flourish by cutting government spending, taxes, and regulations.
Restricting trade and immigration ultimately restricts the prosperity supported by free-market capitalism by keeping out an influx of knowledge, skills, and goods and services that made the American melting pot so great for so long.
Anti-trade and anti-immigration are anti-growth. Free markets are really free people. We ought to find free-market solutions to advance freedom and opportunity rather than impose costly barriers that hinder them.
As economist Peter Boettke recently in my conversation with him: when ordinary people are given elbow room to grow, economies thrive and people can prosper.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC. He is chief economist and senior fellow at several think tanks across the country. He previously served as the associate director for economic policy of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, 2019-20. Follow him on Twitter @VanceGinn.
READER COMMENTS
Jeremy Goodridge
Feb 18 2023 at 4:15pm
I agree with everything you are saying but I don’t think you will persuade anyone who doesn’t already believe in free trade and immigration. You present assertions but no actual evidence. For example most Americans believe that immigration hurts domestic opportunities particularly for low skilled Americans. What arguments can we find that might convince someone who holds those beliefs to reconsider? We could appeal to their morality— why should people born in other countries not be able to compete? What about pointing out that immigrants will still compete with us if they were working in another country — through trade? What about pointing out that immigrants will help us because they are younger and work and will not collect old age benefits for at least 20 years? Or maybe that immigrants will still come even if not legal but better to make them legal so they pay taxes? Or can we show that legal immigrants improve the lives of those already here?
I don’t have all the answers, but we free traders all need to do a much better job actually engaging and convincing those on the other side(s).
Spencer
Feb 18 2023 at 5:04pm
There’s such a thing as overpopulation.
Jon Murphy
Feb 19 2023 at 6:59am
Sure, but in neither the US or the world are we anywhere near overpopulation. So it’s irrelevant here.
But, even were it relevant, the solution to overpopulation is free trade and immigration as they help resources be used more effectively.
Warren Platts
Feb 24 2023 at 7:40pm
More people is not the solution to too many people…
Jon Murphy
Feb 25 2023 at 8:19am
As I state in my comment, paradoxically it is the case that increasing immigration and free trade is a way to deal with “overpopulation.”* There’s a reason why, as others have noted elsewhere, that population density is often correlated with wealth not poverty.
As one tends to learn early in any introductory economics course, the magic~ the free exchange of goods, services, and labor is that simply my rearranging how resources are currently allocated, previous barriers get smashed away. The Iron Malthusian Law turned out to be nothing more than a paper tiger. Furthermore, this reallocation due to trade and exchange leads to more production of valuable resources and heretofore unknown resources. This is especially true of immigration. After all, we do not get workers: we get people. And the human mind, in the proper institutional setting, is the ultimate resource.#
There is a major repeating pattern in human history: civilizations with declining populations tend to die out. They do not get wealthier, as the logic of the population restrictionists claim. Fewer people mean less intelligence, fewer minds working on problems.
*I put the term “overpopulation” in quotes because I have found it is increasingly becoming unmoored from any usable or even reliable definition. We’re seeing folks just invoke it as a fearmongering technique.
~I mean magic in a literal sense. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
#It is also for this reason that even completely open borders will not likely lead to a general diminishing of living standards or a development of overpopulation. Law of Diminishing Returns, after all.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Feb 19 2023 at 9:10pm
I agree with this, but it really does not go far enough. The US should be recruiting the world’s talent.
TMC
Feb 21 2023 at 10:53am
Conflating illegal vs legal immigration hurts your cause. It’s both dishonest and makes people associate legal immigrants with the illegal.
BTW, when Biden took office there were about 25k illegal crossings a month. There are now about 200k. I’m good with more legal immigration, I think it is increasingly necessary, so stop hurting the cause please.
Jon Murphy
Feb 22 2023 at 7:17am
He doesn’t conflate illegal and legal immigrants. There’s a paragraph in the middle dealing with that distinction.
But that aside, it’s not obvious why the distinction matters for this post. What is unique about illegal immigration that “hurts the cause”? They work, they don’t steal jobs, they provide many benefits to the country. How does the distinction matter?
Comments are closed.