Many economists contend that increased immigration is good for the economy in spite of the increased competition for jobs. The theory is that immigrants are consumers, and the increased demand for goods and services will have a positive effect on the economy. See previously on these pages: Finally, a plausible explanation of why increased immigration might not hurt local workers.
But the theory doesn't account for the increased demand for public services like welfare and health care. Most of us assume that illegal immigrants are taking advantage of any government largess they can get. But what about legal immigrants? Steven Camarota writes about that at Nationalreview.com. See It’s time to give preference to immigrants who are unlikely to use welfare programs:
We estimated that 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared with 30 percent of households headed by the native-born. Legal immigrants have significantly higher use rates than native-born households overall and for cash programs, food programs, and Medicaid; use of housing programs is about the same as for natives. Among legal-immigrant households with children, the rate of welfare use is an astonishing 72 percent. There is no evidence that these numbers represent fraud; instead, they represent a profound problem with the selection criteria we use to admit legal immigrants.
The problem is the importation of uneducated, low skilled workers. Once they get to vote, they will probably vote for politicians who promise them more in the way of government benefits. That's bad for the economy and ultimately a threat to the country. Hence Mr. Camarota's premise: It’s time to give preference to immigrants who are unlikely to use welfare programs.
Meanwhile, President Obama plans to bring in 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. It's unlikely the government will utilize Mr. Camarota suggestions in selecting who gets in.
Comments