Jun 3, 2021 5 min read

Immigration is a very politically divisive issue, though I would hope there are things we can generally agree on. First, in an ideal world, freedom to live where you want is a very important concept, which would suggest that “open borders” is an ideal. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world, so that will not be attainable anytime soon. In opposition to complete freedom of movement is that is the fact that most people like where they live, and want to control how much it changes. So it is fair to say that dramatic change caused by a large influx of foreigners who bring with them a different culture is undesirable.

A related issue is that of border security. Republicans like to claim that without complete control over our borders, we shouldn’t even call ourselves a country, which is one reason they supported Trump’s efforts to build a 30-foot wall on the Mexican border. But complete control over the border is also an ideal (and one that would suggest that a similar barrier, if it actually worked, should be built on the Canadian border). But most countries do not have hardened borders with their neighbors, and as the recent action of the Belgian farmer would suggest (he moved the marking stone that designated the border between Belgium and France 7 feet to get it out of the way of his tractor). Most borders are not like the Iron Curtain, and they don’t need to be.

Although the situation is not as dire as hyperventilating media stories claim (recent increases largely reflect seasonal fluctuations and pent-up pressure from 2020), there are real problems at the southern border, with asylum seekers from Central America overwhelming our capacity to process their claims. Because of the difficulty in immigrating legally, many resort to illegal crossings, often paying coyotes $5,000 to $10,000 to cross; these desperate immigrants are frequently exploited along the way. The only people who benefit from the current system are those who exploit it, the smugglers and crisis-mongering politicians.

Had the U.S. not had “open borders” for most of its history, and limited immigration to those coming from Britain, we would never have become a world power. Matt Yglesias makes an interesting argument in his book, “One Billion Americans”; he argues that the best way for the U.S. to remain a world power (and specifically to resist being dominated by China) is for the U.S. to grow its population. Traditional world powers (the U.S., Europe and Japan) have all experienced a declining birthrate. Without immigration, the U.S. would have had a declining population since 1975. Recent demographic data from China showing a decline in population growth even there has worried Chinese leaders who want China to be the world’s dominant power.

Many environmentalists, who are concerned about the biological carrying capacity of the earth, cheer the news out of China as it follows the path of wealthier nations who experience a decline in birthrates as health outcomes improve (child mortality declines) and women get more education and economic opportunities. The downside of China’s impressive economic growth is that more prosperous societies use more resources and can cause more environmental destruction (more carbon in the atmosphere, e.g.). As the world’s wealthiest major country, the U.S. has 5% of the population and uses 17% of the world’s energy.

Immigration allows the U.S. to grow without increasing global environmental stress. The U.S. has a relatively low population density (81/sq mile compared to the European Union’s 300/sq mile) and thus has plenty of room to accommodate more people (and is blessed with natural resources to match). Many areas of the U.S. have lost population (many cities, the upper Midwest) and would benefit from an influx of more people.

Another reason we need immigration is that without it, we have an aging population that will struggle to remain economically solvent as the ratio between contributors and recipients of Social Security declines. In 1965, it was 4.0; in 2019, it was 2.8 and is expected to decline to 2.2 by 2037. More young people will ensure the financial security of those who retire.

While illegal immigration causes a lot of problems, legal immigration has many benefits. Illegal immigrants can be exploited by employers, which reduces wages for the sectors of the economy that employ them. But most economic studies show legal immigrants help the economy (they stimulate demand) and they do a lot of important but difficult jobs native-born Americans are reluctant to do (picking crops, e.g.). Immigrants also become entrepreneurs at higher rates than native-born Americans.

Illegal immigration hurts a lot of people, often the immigrants themselves. But instead of doubling down on trying to prevent these immigrants from entering the country, we need to make it easier for immigrants to come legally. It is certainly appropriate to limit overall levels of immigration, and policies could encourage immigrants to settle in the many areas of declining population (like Southwestern Pennsylvania) so that an influx of immigrants from one region don’t overwhelm parts of the U.S. It is a credit to the U.S. that people want to come here, and immigration has been an integral part of making the U.S. what it is.

We should do what we can to help resolve the problems around the world that force people to flee their homes so there are fewer desperate immigrants, but instead of spending all of our efforts trying to prevent their entry, we should help them enter legally and work to help them become productive Americans.

Kent James has a doctorate in History and Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and is an adjunct in the History Department at Washington & Jefferson College.