Tweet
Let us assume that for some strange reason you believe the government should restrict immigration to your country based on anything other than criminal background. In particular, you've decided that you should aim for a maximum of X immigrants per year to your country.
I'm willing to accept this premise without argument, for the purposes of this thread.
Now, assuming that Y > X "qualified" individuals (as above, non-criminals) want to immigrate to your country every year, you're left with the task of figuring out how to sort between these Y to find the X you want.
How should you best go about this? Well, let's go over some examples of how this is done currently. To start with, for the US (reference is Table 2 in http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...pr_fr_2008.pdf
Most (2/3) legal immigration to the US is via "family sponsored immigrants", i.e. relatives of US citizens
15% is via employers. It should be noted that the lawyer's fees for an application are on the order of 20K, from what I've heard. Also, except for the most educated/elite immigrants, there is a constant backlog (oversubscription) of applications. For these categories, preference is first com first served.
The "green card lottery" (diversity program) is ~4%
Refugees and asylum seekers is 15%
Now let's look at another country with a relatively high immigration rate: Canada. Canada accepts ~ twice as many immigrants per capita as the US does, but relative to European countries they both accept far more immigrants (especially from developing nations)
The categories are broadly similar to the above, with some differences I will note:
Family class: 25%
Economic Immigrants: 60%. Note that these immigrants DO NOT REQUIRE employee sponsorship as employee-sponsored applicants do in the US. Also, as I understand it, the application process is much simpler and the costs are much lower
Refugees: 9%
Now, there are numerous similarities between the two systems, as well as significant differences. First, Canada accepts far fewer immigrants based on familial ties (as a proportion of total immigrants). Conversely, it accepts far more immigrants based on economic "viability" as it were. Immigrants who are accepted due to their employment prospects do not need a specific employee sponsor in Canada, and the transaction costs are far lower. There is also far less luck involved in the process, since there are no hard caps on immigration via this category.
In either case, it is the relevant government attempting to decide what makes a valuable resident based on legislative requirements. Those of us who think central planning of the economy is a bad idea in general should shudder at this idea. Who would have a better idea of what the gains from immigration would be? That's right, the IMMIGRANT HIMSELF. How do we allow him to transmit this information? As always, via a price signal. There is already a price signal in the US (the cost of application for employee sponsorship) but this is obviously not high enough as there is still rationing (shortages) of immigration slots.
What is the solution? To my mind it seems obvious that IF we wish to restrict immigration numbers the ideal method is to auction off the immigration slots to those who are qualified (those who aren't likely to commit crimes, for example). Those who were likely to get the highest-paying employment in the US would be willing to pay the most for the right to hold such a job. As well, the amount of revenue so raised would be considerable. I have no doubt that current levels of immigration to the US could be sustained if anybody in the world without a criminal record was allowed to enter, stay and work in the US legally for the sum of, say, 50000$. This would raise 50 billion dollars a year.
Well, while the case seems straightforward for economic/employer-sponsored immigrants, what of the tow other largest categories?
Refugees are the easiest to deal with. The federal government will forego some revenue by accepting refugees (who we'll assume to be liquidity constrained, preventing them from buying an immigration slot). This can be viewed simply as aid to individuals whose own countries have abandoned or persecuted them. It is a gift from a rich country to individuals who as a group might well be worse off than any other group in the world.
Now, to family-based immigration: as with refugees, non-auctioned slots are a giveaway to those who get them. However, in this case, they are also giveaways to these immigrants' American family members. Well, why should these particular Americans be given such gifts? Saying they are often poor doesn't hold water, as the money from these immigrants could have been disbursed to ALL poor Americans rather than being given in kind to a certain specific subset of them.
I'm willing to accept this premise without argument, for the purposes of this thread.
Now, assuming that Y > X "qualified" individuals (as above, non-criminals) want to immigrate to your country every year, you're left with the task of figuring out how to sort between these Y to find the X you want.
How should you best go about this? Well, let's go over some examples of how this is done currently. To start with, for the US (reference is Table 2 in http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...pr_fr_2008.pdf
Most (2/3) legal immigration to the US is via "family sponsored immigrants", i.e. relatives of US citizens
15% is via employers. It should be noted that the lawyer's fees for an application are on the order of 20K, from what I've heard. Also, except for the most educated/elite immigrants, there is a constant backlog (oversubscription) of applications. For these categories, preference is first com first served.
The "green card lottery" (diversity program) is ~4%
Refugees and asylum seekers is 15%
Now let's look at another country with a relatively high immigration rate: Canada. Canada accepts ~ twice as many immigrants per capita as the US does, but relative to European countries they both accept far more immigrants (especially from developing nations)
The categories are broadly similar to the above, with some differences I will note:
Family class: 25%
Economic Immigrants: 60%. Note that these immigrants DO NOT REQUIRE employee sponsorship as employee-sponsored applicants do in the US. Also, as I understand it, the application process is much simpler and the costs are much lower
Refugees: 9%
Now, there are numerous similarities between the two systems, as well as significant differences. First, Canada accepts far fewer immigrants based on familial ties (as a proportion of total immigrants). Conversely, it accepts far more immigrants based on economic "viability" as it were. Immigrants who are accepted due to their employment prospects do not need a specific employee sponsor in Canada, and the transaction costs are far lower. There is also far less luck involved in the process, since there are no hard caps on immigration via this category.
In either case, it is the relevant government attempting to decide what makes a valuable resident based on legislative requirements. Those of us who think central planning of the economy is a bad idea in general should shudder at this idea. Who would have a better idea of what the gains from immigration would be? That's right, the IMMIGRANT HIMSELF. How do we allow him to transmit this information? As always, via a price signal. There is already a price signal in the US (the cost of application for employee sponsorship) but this is obviously not high enough as there is still rationing (shortages) of immigration slots.
What is the solution? To my mind it seems obvious that IF we wish to restrict immigration numbers the ideal method is to auction off the immigration slots to those who are qualified (those who aren't likely to commit crimes, for example). Those who were likely to get the highest-paying employment in the US would be willing to pay the most for the right to hold such a job. As well, the amount of revenue so raised would be considerable. I have no doubt that current levels of immigration to the US could be sustained if anybody in the world without a criminal record was allowed to enter, stay and work in the US legally for the sum of, say, 50000$. This would raise 50 billion dollars a year.
Well, while the case seems straightforward for economic/employer-sponsored immigrants, what of the tow other largest categories?
Refugees are the easiest to deal with. The federal government will forego some revenue by accepting refugees (who we'll assume to be liquidity constrained, preventing them from buying an immigration slot). This can be viewed simply as aid to individuals whose own countries have abandoned or persecuted them. It is a gift from a rich country to individuals who as a group might well be worse off than any other group in the world.
Now, to family-based immigration: as with refugees, non-auctioned slots are a giveaway to those who get them. However, in this case, they are also giveaways to these immigrants' American family members. Well, why should these particular Americans be given such gifts? Saying they are often poor doesn't hold water, as the money from these immigrants could have been disbursed to ALL poor Americans rather than being given in kind to a certain specific subset of them.
Comment