Build a big, tall wall or open up our southern borders completely? There is a more sensible middle ground on the issue of immigration.

As the nation’s elected leaders yet again debate another hot topical issue (immigration), they have made the perpetual mistake of organizing themselves into two distinct factions, based on the erroneous assumption that they are mutually exclusive—if you are not on my side, then you cannot be right. No one faction is looking for the middle ground or taking the best ideas from both camps.

The immigration issue is most relevant in the United States compared to any other country because, on an annual basis, more people immigrate here than all other countries combined.[i] As of 2010, the American Community Survey estimates the number of foreign born in the USA to be nearly 40 million, or 13% of the total population.[ii] Other characteristics of immigrants taken from the same survey and other sources are as follows:

  • Latin America was the largest region-of-birth group accounting for 53% of all foreign born.
  • Over half of the foreign born lived in four States: California, New York, Texas and Florida (Over 1 in 4 and 1 in 5, respectively, of residents in CA and NY were foreign-born.
  • About two-thirds of the foreign born came to live in the USA in 1990 or later; one-third entered in 2000 or later.
  • Immigrants tend to be younger (15 to 34 years of age), married, and move to areas populated by people with similar backgrounds.
  • The leading countries of origin of immigrants to the US were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.[iii]
  • Family reunification accounts for approximately two-thirds of legal immigration to the US every year.[iv]
  • As of 2010, one-fourth of the people in the USA under the age of 18 are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.[v]
  • Estimates suggest there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the USA; the majority of these immigrants are from Mexico.

Most people resign themselves to the fact that it is a country which should have the right to decide who walks into and who walks out of their territory. But, I challenge that assumption. If the entire world were privately owned, then it would be the particular whim of the property owners that decided who is allowed entry. The world is not, and never will be, privately owned, but shouldn’t ultimate determination be given to people, thereby resembling a more free society? This way, they are able to “vote with their feet” and travel to the most advantageous locale possible. Hence, having a massive influx of people would be considered a good thing, recognizing the fact that a nation’s policies are attractive enough to lure the most talented, gifted and hard-working individuals. Should there be screening process? In my view, of course there should be, because no wants to receive a large number troublemakers who break the rules and steal from others. In this way, John Doe moving from Belize to Texas would equate to John Doe moving from Oklahoma to New York. Taken from a global standpoint, having open borders and promoting the free flow of people ignores the imposed quotas and regulations of countries and gives individuals the freedom to seek out opportunities as they arise. In short: open all borders.

Having trouble finding work in New Jersey? Singapore has plenty of options. Is there an oversaturated market of lawyers in Manhattan? Kenya crying out for some. Can’t find a qualified biochemist in Prague? New Zealand has dozens of eager applicants.

Bryan Caplan in the Winter 2012, Issue of Cato Journal described research that suggested open borders “would roughly double world GDP, enough to virtually eliminate global poverty,” concluding that the “harm that immigration restrictions prevent has to be at least comparable” to the harm they cause.

Having borders which are completely open may sound scary to some people since progressive regionalization has been touted as a stepping-stone toward the formation of a one-world government. On the contrary, I am a strong proponent of national sovereignty and favor progressive decentralization; consequently, instead of having hundreds of countries around the world, there would be thousands, with each independent nation having its own unique set of laws, fine-tuned to the ever-expanding pools of like-minded people. Any person would be free to travel amongst all the principalities with little or no resistance, and of course they would be required to adhere to the rules of the land wherever they go.

Take for instance, Guatemala Joe who has worked in the construction industry as a low-skilled laborer. In his home country, let’s say he can make $10 a month killing himself doing backbreaking work. If he moves to Nevada he can make $100 a day. If you were Guatemala Joe what would you do? Even if the average wage of an American worker is $200 dollars a day, Joe is used to $10, so of course he would gladly accept the lower wage. Wouldn’t you? Joe’s move would benefit himself, his family, and the construction company owner who hires him. Also, since the owner would pay less for labor, he can then pass along his savings all of his customers, driving down prices over time. The loser is the low-skilled American worker since someone else is willing to work for a lower wage. In this example three parties benefit (Joe, owner, the consumer) at the expense of one. If viewed only through the lens of the American worker, this scenario looks overwhelmingly negative from an economic standpoint, but the great Henry Hazlitt taught us all in Economics in One Lesson that economics consists of looking at effects on all parties not only now but in the long term. In this case, Guatemala Joe never “stole” or took away a job from anyone; he simply followed the rules of capitalism and met the demand for labor with his supply.

What if Joe one day falls off a ladder and breaks his neck? What will he do then? Well, what would Texas Johnny do if in the same predicament? What if Joe gets struck by lighting? Impaled by a unicorn? If you take a chance in life, you always assume risk to reap a reward and earn dividends. The price which Joe (or even Johnny) pays for the prospect of a better life is not guaranteed and the risk of failure is always present; that is not being harsh, that is just how the world works. If Texas Johnny enrolled in the police academy, he involves himself in a dangerous line of work, so if he took a bullet one day (of course, let us hope not) that is a risk assumed by him in choosing that profession.

Now let us consider this fact: the “waiting line” for those who have applied to immigrate legally contains 4.5 million people and is 19 years long. As usual, the bureaucratic process has slowed down the lives of honest, hard-working people. Do you think this phenomenon would incentivize some people to immigrate illegally or not?

Some may raise the objection that illegal immigration is wrong simply because it is against the (our) law. OK, but up until the year 2000, Alabama kept a law on the books that declared inter-racial marriages to be illegal. At one point in the USA, the law also prevented women from voting with no legitimate legal basis whatsoever.

In light of all these points, there should be absolutely no “handouts” or “gifts” for immigrants who cross the border illegally. This means that all those who want to eat should work, and if you don’t want to work, then you don’t eat. It is completely ludicrous for an illegal immigrant to be eligible for any form of state or federal assistance if they do not also contribute to the system. I can’t walk into IHOP and demand free pancakes, nor can I stroll the isle of a grocery store and take what I want without paying. In a 2004 study by the Center for Immigration Studies, The High Cost of Cheap Labor—Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget researchers found, “based on Census Bureau Data, households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also significant.” This study also notes that if illegal aliens were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at “the federal level would grow by nearly $29 billion.” A non-partisan report in 2007 from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that most estimates show that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments.[vi]

Immigrants are younger and thus tend to be healthier, but current proposals in Congress for an immigration overhaul would add billions to the already overpriced Obamacare program set to take full effect in January 2014. Under one of the current immigration reform proposals by the “Gang of Eight”, the number of legal immigrants entering each year would be allowed to double (to approximately 1 million), and about 80% would be immediately eligible for a taxpayer subsidized Obamacare stipend, adding $100 billion in costs over the next decade (yes, 1/10th of a trillion dollars). A bad idea with a topping of a frosting still tastes horrible.

Consider these facts as well: immigrants are highly mobile, and thus able to satisfy employment needs as they arise in different geographic areas. They are great for women since their ability to fulfill domestic care needs (child-care, adult-care, home maintenance) frees native women to enter the workforce and contribute. Furthermore, low-skilled immigrants also create jobs since they fulfill many positions (i.e. housekeeping, construction, landscaping); if the native-born people are thus spending less money on these immigrant-fueled services they can spend more elsewhere, and create employment.

A society built on individual freedom that encourages creativity, productivity, civility, and innovation is complemented by the idea that the world is full of individuals willing to thrive and work in such an environment. We are all potentially missing out on all the gifted and talented (especially the high-tech, highly-skilled) if we choose to close our doors and restrict others from moving freely. Besides, America was built on a foundation made by those fleeing from persecution and a restrictive regime that inhibited their personal liberty and ability to express themselves. By incentivizing the self-starters and removing programs of dependency, any society will be able to select seamlessly select for all those who can create and generate. Instead of implementing overly expensive and invasive ways to “build a fence” or “secure our borders”, why not let in all who want to come and immediately exclude those with a propensity for violence and a criminal history? In fact, in regards to safety, the more open and the more successful a society is, the less and less likely it is that anyone would commit an act of terror, since they would be damning themselves and preventing enjoyment of society’s bounty. Moreover, if select individuals choose to migrate to another country and do commit crimes, why should the taxpayers of that nation fit the bill for incarceration of the criminal? I do not discipline someone else’s children—I leave that up to their parents in the confines of their own household.

In the end, I have engineered this post in the context of immigrants but if we have a system that incentivizes production universally and does not reward consumption, this will naturally sift through the foreign-born and the native-born populations. After all, there is a name for holding select groups accountable to different standards while the majority maintains the status quo: democracy.


Dr. C.H.E. Sadaphal


[i] ” Nancy Foner, George M. Fredrickson, Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States (2005) p.120.

[ii] US Census Bureau: The Foreign Born Population in the United States. American Community Survey Reports; (10) May 2012.

[iii] Naturalizations in the United States: 2008. Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report.

[iv] Ramah McKay. Family Reunification. Migration Policy Institute.

[v] Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move. ( html?ref=world) The New York Times. June 25, 2010.

[vi] The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments (December 2007) ( ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf/)”. /Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office (


Do you feel like this content is valuable? Then share it!
Tagged with: ,
Posted in Current Events, Politics
  1. Picasso says:

    Now when you make arguments like this using facts and data, not emotion, prejudice and hatred, people can either stop and think about what’s really going on or bury themselves deeper in ditches of ignorance.

    I’d like to see the same blogger tackle global warming.

    • CHE Sadaphal says:

      Keep checking back, I have a post tentatively titled “Fudging the Numbers” due out next month that talks about climate change and the role of CO2 in the air.

  2. Tamara says:

    Some people simply won’t admit that its prejudice keeping their noses up in the air and dismissing many immigrants as “unworthy” to cross into our borders. Our neighbors to the south are often regarded as legit to fulfill certain menial jobs at rock bottom wages but other than that, they are looked down upon as “stealing” our jobs. You make yourself more competitive by making yourself more competitive, not by keeping the competition tucked away and walled off behind a fence.

  3. Tom says:

    What is reasonable and what is reality often are two distinct and separate entities: what’s really going to happen is Congress will pass some form of crap on paper billed as a “compromise” which will amount to letting people literally walk on in with no skills, produce nothing while mooching off the welfare state. Why would this happen? To secure the Hispanic vote. Let’s not forget that in a few decades whites will be an American minority.

  4. Edith says:

    As with most libertarian-minded people you have made the mistake assuming that most people will pick themselves up by their bootstraps and assimilate into your utopian society where everyone loves peace, productivity, and money free from taxation. You are clearly a productive and intelligent person (read the bio) and have made the classic mistake of assuming the world works and thinks just like you. The proposed model sounds good in theory but we all know given the option of doing something vs. doing nothing, most people will choose the later because most people are ignorant sloths. Here’s what will really happen if we open the floodgates: you’d have a massive (tens of millions) of immigrants from all over the world, most who are uneducated, low-skilled, speak little english, and they will bring their families and children who share the same skillsets. After an initial employment void is filled, there will be no real jobs left (unless you want to cut grass for 50 cents/hr) and what do you think these newbies will now do? Hold hands and form a prayer group? No-they’ll have to resort to something (crime) to sustain their families or else they’ll starve. Of course they could go back to their home country, but their home country doesn’t have disability of free healthcare (thanks Mr. President). Let us allow in the creme of the crop from all the world, so all the thinkers, creators and producers who are undervalued elsewhere can find a happy home here. There is a market for the low-skilled workers who can drive down labor costs, but there needs to be a strict limit on how many of said workers are allowed in at one time, not to overwhelm the already bloated taker-nation.

    • CHE Sadaphal says:

      No one solution is perfect, and to pretend otherwise would be a self-delusion. It would be impossible to implement a filter that is 100% effective in selecting for the “right” type of immigrant that you want … I certainly am not in the habit of telling people what they are not (or are) capable of, because given the circumstances, one may often be surprised what people can do given the right set of incentives. The only thing than can be legislated are environmental rewards that encourage diligence and penalize “sloth”, not just for those who seek to come in but for those who are already here. In reality what I think will really happen is many will be given a one-way ticket to move in AND be given a taxpayer subsidized care package along with it, accelerating our irreversible course toward complete financial meltdown.

  5. Dean says:

    Major irony: the right proclaims itself to be freedom seeking but nothing says “big government” like controlling the free movement of individuals through massive federal programs, electrified fences, biometric ID cards, and mandating government permission slips before businesses can hire willing workers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sign-up and get new posts straight to your inbox!

Simple Share ButtonsDo you feel like this content is valuable? Then share it!
Simple Share Buttons