America Wants Legal Immigrants
Is there a more economical way to deal with legal immigration? Is there a way to both protect American citizens and still "open our borders?" Reihan Salam offers an insightful solution.
- America shouldn’t shut itself off from the dynamism and energy immigrants can bring, but it must prioritize skills-based immigration.
One of the biggest questions with incoming immigrants is not just how they would impact the labor market, but how they would impact taxpayer-funded government benefits.
View sourceThe U.S. system can be modified to give priority to those who have strong skills and job offers; people who will pay more in taxes than they need in benefits.
View sourceOur immigration system should identify people who “will at a minimum be in a position to provide for themselves and their families,” writes National Review’s Reihan Salam.
View source- The Democratic Party has increasingly embraced open borders and framed controlled immigration as an “immorality.”
Democratic politicians like Beto O’Rourke argue against any physical barriers to immigrants.
View sourceDemocrat Nancy Pelosi called a southern border security wall an “immorality,” even though Democrats have voted for border walls in the past.
View sourceMainstream Democrats promote the abolishment of ICE.
View sourceWATCH: National Review’s Reihan Salam discusses problems with the U.S. immigration system.
View source- Open borders are incompatible with the U.S. welfare system.
America is more than just a marketplace. It is a democracy based on a social contract.
View sourceFavoring skilled immigrants over unskilled would promote a more thorough assimilation and could help build the tax base instead of putting more pressure on the welfare system.
View sourceImmigrants who can’t earn enough to support their families have access to many government benefits.
View sourceWe should limit family immigration to immediate family members, while greatly expanding the number of skills-based visas.
View source- Over half of immigrant households in America are on welfare—nearly twice the average of American-born households.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “in 2012, 51 percent of households headed by immigrants (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 30 percent of native-headed households.”
View sourceForty percent of immigrant households feed their children with welfare, compared to just 22 percent of native households.
View sourceRelated video: “A Nation of Immigrants” – Michelle Malkin
View source- Only a tenth of immigrants in 2017 were admitted into the U.S. based on merit.
In 2017, only 1/10th of immigrants entered the US because of merit.
View sourceMany other advanced countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Australia have adopted a merit-based immigration system.
View sourceRelated reading: “Thoughts on the Point-Based Merit System” – Reihan Salam
View source- Prioritizing skilled immigrants would be a huge boon for people around the world looking to live the American dream.
A skills-based points system would be greatly benefit people around the world looking to live the American Dream.
View sourceA selective and skills-based immigration system would be more fair, logical, predictable, and economically sound than one strongly based on family ties.
View sourceRelated reading: “How to Balance Skills-Based and Family-Based Immigration” – Reihan Salam
View source- Without a measured approach to immigration, we risk creating an immigrant underclass excluded from the mainstream of society.
Traditionally, immigrants have been committed to assimilating to the core values American culture.
View sourceAs more low-skilled immigrants enter a country, the divide between them and the wealthier classes increases.
View sourceOur current immigration policies have brought in large numbers of low-skilled, low-literacy workers who often live separate from the rest of American society.
View source“When we don’t have a thoughtful, balanced and measured approach to immigration, then we risk creating an underclass excluded from the mainstream of society,” argues National Review’s Reihan Salam.
View source- Our immigration system should prioritize those with strong skills and job offers—those who’ll pay more in taxes than they need in benefits.
The debate should not be between open and closed borders, but whether we should see immigrants as “permanent strangers” or as “free and equal citizens to whom we are pledging our loyalty in this generation and in those to come.”
View sourceThe question is not simply how incoming immigrants would impact the labor market, but how they would impact taxpayer-funded government benefits.
View sourceRelated reading: “Melting Pot or Civil War? A Son of Immigrants Makes the Case Against Open Borders” – Reihan Salam
View source
I am the proud son of immigrants from Bangladesh. I was raised in New York City, which has benefited enormously from the energy and ambition of the millions of people born abroad who’ve chosen to make it their home. But I also believe that America’s immigration system needs to work for America, and right now, that is simply not the case.
We need a new immigration system. So what should it be? We’re often presented with two stark choices: Severe restrictions or open borders. I think there’s a better way.
But before I offer a solution, let’s look at the usual suspects. The case for open borders is, on the surface, pretty attractive. Tens of millions of people around the world would be grateful to come to America for the chance to live in peace and earn a decent living. The vast majority of them mean us no harm. Why not give them a chance to share in the blessings of liberty?
The simple answer is that our country is more than just a marketplace. We’re a democracy based on a social contract. Americans pay taxes so that, among other things, the poorest, most unlucky among us can still lead decent and dignified lives.
If you can’t work, you might be eligible for unemployment benefits or disability. If you do work but your paycheck doesn’t go far enough for you to afford medical care or food for your kids, we have a safety net designed to help you stay afloat.
Liberals and conservatives disagree on how extensive this safety net ought to be, but they all agree it needs to be there. The question is, how we far are willing to stretch it?
A century ago, immigrants who found they couldn’t make it in America had little choice but to go back home. That is no longer the case. These days, immigrants who can’t earn enough to support their families have access to many government benefits. That doesn’t make them bad people. In an age of offshoring and automation, wages for menial jobs don’t go very far. If we only admitted a modest number of low-skill immigrants—say, as political refugees—we could easily handle it. But over the past forty years, we have allowed millions of low-skill immigrants into the country, both legally and illegally. While highly-educated immigrants pay far more in taxes than they consume in benefits, the opposite is true of immigrants with less than a high school diploma
Immigrant engineers working for Google, Amazon and Apple do just fine without government help. The immigrant janitors and busboys who serve them struggle to afford housing and to give their kids a decent start in life. Without government aid, many would go hungry. If we were to open our borders, the number of low-skilled immigrants would skyrocket, and so too would the cost of meeting their needs. Ironically, this would only exacerbate the wealth disparity that so animates the open borders crowd.
Maybe the rich could wall themselves off in gated communities. But the growing ranks of the poor and even the middle class would have to deal with ever more strained social services. That could provoke resentment strong enough to set off real class warfare.
If open borders are a bad idea, so too is severely restricting immigration. For one, immigration has always been part of the American story. And it continues to be an essential source of talent, from Silicon Valley to medicine to pro sports. Why shut ourselves off from the dynamism and energy that immigrants can bring?
Thankfully, there _is_ a way to fix this problem.
We can modernize the system to give priority to those who have strong skills and job offers— people, in other words, who will pay more in taxes than they need in benefits.
Today, we admit about two-thirds of immigrants on the basis of family ties and only 15 percent on the basis of skills. We need a course correction. We should limit family immigration to immediate family members—such as spouses and minor children—while greatly expanding the number of skills-based visas.
A skills-based points system would be a huge boon for people around the world looking to live the American Dream. It would give them a predictable, step-by-step guide for how to better their chances at a green card. Just as importantly, by prioritizing immigrants with strong skills, we’d make the safety net much easier to sustain for those with low skills—whom we’d still admit, albeit at a more modest level.
Let’s announce to the world that if you’re ambitious, if you have skills we prize, the golden door is open. If you can support yourself and your family, and add to our economy, we want you. If we aspire to an immigration system that works, this the most realistic—and idealistic—choice.
I’m Reihan Salam, Executive editor of National Review, for Prager University.
Stay up to date on our latest releases
PragerU is changing the minds of millions worldwide. Help us keep our videos FREE!
Help support our mission
To make a donation over the phone, call (833) PragerU
At $35 or more you’ll be a PragerUnited Member
- Free merch every quarter
- Insider updates
- Free Annual Membership Sticker
Prager University is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, Tax ID: 27-1763901. Your contribution is fully tax-deductible in the USA.