Some argue against immigration on the grounds that immigrants create a net cost for the government because they pay less in taxes than the cost of the social services (such as free education) they use. Let’s put aside the issue of whether this is actually true or not. Let’s assume that immigrants do in fact represent a net cost for the government. Does this justify seriously harming the interests of potential migrants by using force to exclude them from the country? To help answer this question, consider another scenario starring Marvin and Sam found in Michael Huemer’s essay Is there a right to immigrate?
Sam runs a charity organization. He has made a policy of offering free food to all poor people who enter the local marketplace. Unfortunately, the organization is running short on cash, so Sam is looking for ways to cut costs. When he learns that Marvin is heading to the market to buy some food, he decides to save money by forcibly preventing Marvin from reaching the market. Marvin would be better off being allowed into the marketplace, even without free food, since he could still buy some inexpensive food with his limited funds. But Sam has already made a policy of offering free food to all poor people in the marketplace, so he would in fact offer free food to Marvin, were Marvin to make it there. Is it permissible for Sam to coercively inflict a serious harm on Marvin, in order to avoid having to either break his policy or give free food to Marvin?
Surely not. Sam has no right to use force to prevent Marvin from getting his own food. In this scenario it is better for Sam to abandon his policy of offering free food to all poor people in the market; it is better for Sam to refuse to give free food to Marvin than to use force to prevent Marvin from reaching the market and getting his own food.
In a similar manner, if a government has a policy of offering free education to everyone in the country, and is worried about the costs of this policy, then it is better to refuse to give immigrants free education than to use force to prevent them from entering the country altogether. It is better for the government to abandon its policy of offering free education to everyone in the country.
It may sound unfair, even outrageous, to suggest allowing immigrants into the country but not allowing them access to free education. It very well may be unfair, or outrageous. But what we are saying here is that if a government is worried about the costs of its system of free education, solving the problem by using force to prevent immigrants from entering the country involves more force and more harm than allowing them into the country and not allowing them access to free education.
Questions
- Is is better if Sam prevents Marvin from entering the market and maintains his policy of offering free food to every poor person in the market, or if he abandons his policy and allows Marvin into the market?
- Is it better if a government prevents immigrants from entering the country and maintains a policy of offering free education to everyone in the country, or if it abandons its policy and allows immigrants into the country?
17. That immigrants may influence a country’s culture doesn’t justify immigration restrictions