Today’s column is going to be about the contentious issue of immigration. But I’m going to take off my economist hat (perhaps a good thing) and become an amateur political pundit.
Let’s start with this short clip from a recent interview.
There’s always been a debate in libertarian circles about whether mass immigration is compatible with having a big welfare state.
I summarized my economic views in 2024, writing that:
- The immigration system should be especially welcoming to people who are likely to increase the country’s per-capita economic output.
- On the flip side, the immigration system should be very unwelcoming for people who want to get government handouts.
- Refugee laws should be immediately reformed to minimize the likelihood of trapping people in long-run government dependency.
Now I’ll share my amateur political views.
Here are three observations that I think are quite defensible.
- First, I think the strongest explanation for Donald Trump’s takeover over the Republican Party is immigration. When he first ran in 2016, every other Republican candidate was either fully or partly in favor of amnesty and increased immigration. Trump took advantage of that opening, won the nomination (to my surprise), and then won the general election (also to my surprise).
- Second, Trump’s takeover is not good news from the perspective of libertarians, small-government conservatives, and classical liberals. Set aside his views on immigration. On economic issues, he is both a big spender and a protectionist, two policies that undermine economic growth and sap American economic vitality. I want Reaganism, not Trumpism.
- Third, the same thing is happening in other countries. Anti-immigration parties are now very strong in many European nations. Given my focus on economic issues, that might not bother me if those parties supported limited government and free markets. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Like Trump, they gravitate to big-government populism (consider Orban’s approach in Hungary).
Now I’m going to shift back to economics.
What worries me is that the western world faces enormous economic challenges because of aging populations and poorly designed entitlement programs.
If something isn’t done to reform programs and restrain the growth of government, I fear we are heading to economic crisis. Imagine what happened in Greece about 15 years ago, but apply it today to nations that are too big to bail out, such as Italy and France.
Or maybe even the United States.
Sadly, populist right-wing parties seem to have no interest in the reforms that are needed to avert fiscal crises (and left-wing parties, needless to say, want to make things worse).
So the relevant question is how to resuscitate Reaganism or Thatcherism (or how to spread Mileiism) so that there’s at least a chance of having leaders who will fix fiscal problems?
The answer, I suspect, is that traditional right-of-center parties need to become immigration skeptics.
Or, to be more accurate, they need to become selective about immigration. So I’ve unveiled a Theorem of Government that presumably can be the basis of a popular approach.
For what it’s worth, my 21st Theorem is not original. I’m basically describing the immigration policies of nations such as Australia, Switzerland, and (pre-Trudeau) Canada.
My Theorem also is not original because a few portions of the American immigration system are based on attracting people who would boost per-capita GDP and presumably have very low crime rates. Just look at some of what I’ve written in the past about the EB-5 program.
P.S. Here’s an immigration proposal from 2010 that is somewhat akin to my 21st Theorem.
P.P.S. If you want immigration-themed humor, click here and here.
