The new arguments about Arizona’s new immigration policy have proved that immigration restrictions are good policy, with the main question being which level of government should have the right to enforce the law, and also how. However, the case for immigration restrictions is not that convincing.
The supporters of these laws and restrictions mainly rely on four apparently important arguments. First, that immigration has the ability to dilute existing languages, religions, family values, cultural norms, and many more. Secondly, that immigrants travel to countries with some social welfare programs. Third, that immigration has the ability to harm the sending country if the departing immigrants are some sort of high-skilled labor. Fourth, that immigration can lower the income of many inhabitants such as, native, low-skill workers. The most popular statement for immigration restrictions is that we need those strict rules to protect our American workers from the bows of poverty. The procedure is simple: Without these laws, the supply of labor would rapidly increase—and the American wages would plummet to the level of the Third World.
All of those arguments are mainly wrong, overstated, or misinterpreted. Immigration can change various cultural values or norms, but nothing suggests that this is a negative case. Many societies can improve and grow because they have accepted some new businesses, cultures, foods, and so on. Mainly, immigrants normally assimilate to the previously existed culture provided government policy does not segregate them from the rest of society. In the past many wealthy countries have incorporated big immigration flows with some modest adjustment costs. Many of these immigrants have to face many difficult conditions at first, but after some time they achieved middle class status or better.
The chances that immigration gives pressure on the welfare state are a matter of concern, although some evidence does not suggest that this is really a major problem.
The risk that immigration reduces greatly some of the high-skilled labor from poor countries is not a lie, but this kind of immigration has some positive effects on the sending country that mitigate against many negatives cases also. The possibility of migration to a high-wage country can create a situation of acquiring more knowledge and education, and only few of those educated person leave. When the borders were really open, many immigrants would try to get education abroad but always return to their own country, knowing they could leave if economic factors so dictated.
Many people can argue that immigration have to be increased gradually to moderate the costs of transition. But any reasonable ideas can imply the vastly expanded immigration relative to the recent levels. This has the power to improve the welfare of poor people in other countries much more than foreign help.
Having many concerns for the poor, assuming this includes the poor in other countries, argues for more expanded immigration, as many talented immigrants are very poor than the natives of the country whose wages they might depress. The conclusion that the borders which are open is the preferable immigration policy, it is also the stronger one because the attempts to restrict immigration have their own problems or negativity. These include the border control cost, the creation of a black market for immigration, and many incentives for corruption. Further, immigration also have some good effects on the production power of a country by nurturing the idea of competition and introducing many new ideas, approaches, business models, products, and so on. On the other hand, many people in receiving countries can enjoy the good aspects of new cultures. Whereas reducing the cultures the immigrants helps the culture to expand in a grand appearance. Immigrants enhance the general productivity of the American workers by providing much-needed skills.
Immigrants also can work at jobs for which the native manpower is not enough. Immigrants have also the power to fuel entrepreneurship.