Make an Immigration Marketplace the Centerpiece Of a “Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right” Immigration Policy
Nobody can centrally plan immigration supply and demand.
In my last article “’Welcome Home’: A ‘Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right’ Immigration Proposal,” the inclusion of an immigration marketplace was met with a mix of interest and suspicion (if you missed it, read it first for context). In his stirring speech to the nation, my imaginary president had the following to say about the immigration marketplace where prospective immigrants can trade up or down after the inaugural waiting list has been established based on the initial free-of-charge drawing:
...we will create a marketplace where applicants can trade places in the queue. This will enable earlier admission, at a price set by the market, for the truly committed or sought after, and for those facing threats to life and limb in their country of residence. And if you’re not yet ready to take the leap, the marketplace will provide the option to delay admission by selling your current spot in the queue and buying one for later. The price for ‘trading up’ and profits from ‘trading down’ may be the responsibility of the applicant, a family member or other individual, an employer, or a non-governmental organization.
U.S. immigration policy has been mired in controversy at least since the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibiting immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The Immigration Act of 1924 upped the ante by preventing all immigration from Asia and setting quotas on the number of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Ever since, immigration policy has been a source of war between pressure groups wanting to admit or prohibit this or that nationality, type of worker, student, extended family member, and so on. As a result, we have a maze of currently 185 different nonimmigrant and immigrant visa categories. Simplifying the process is the only option for finding a way out of the maze. And most importantly, it will go a long way towards gradually improving the respect for and protection of the individual rights of both prospective immigrants and of U.S. citizens wanting to hire or otherwise attract them.
But even the most well intended plan cannot anticipate the continuous changes in immigration supply and demand: a war breaking out creating a surge of refugees, a sudden need for workers in a specific profession, an increase in interest in studying in the U.S. among the young from a certain country, etc. Politicians and bureaucrats will inevitably be playing catchup, hampered by both political infighting and the impossible task of centrally planning immigration. The solution is an immigration marketplace.
Just like the marketplace is superior in responding to the fluctuating supply and demand of products and services (and, if left free, respecting the individual rights of the market participants in the process), so it would be superior in responding to the fluctuating supply and demand of immigrants. Let’s take a few examples.
War breaks out between Far- and Awaystan. Civilians are displaced in the ensuing chaos and an NGO supported by U.S. individuals and businesses sets up refugee camps. Some refugees express a desire to emigrate to the U.S rather than staying in their war-torn country. The NGO reaches out to its donors with a plea for funds to buy access spots on the immigration marketplace. It gets a decent response and decides that the best use of the funds is to buy spots for the following year, as spots available for this year are too expensive. In the meantime, it will continue to provide support for the refugees in the camps.
An agriculture company is facing a shortage of unskilled labor on its farms. Checking the price on the immigration marketplace, it concludes that immediately filling the need with immigrants is cost prohibitive. However, looking a few years out, the cost/benefit analysis is more promising. The company buys 200 spots in years three to five and factors in the arrival of additional workers in its planning for those years and beyond. Meanwhile, it accepts that it must pay a higher price for domestic labor in the short term. However, the company continues to monitor the immigration marketplace in case the price drops, allowing for buying spots with earlier access.
Hiram arrived with his wife and 2-year old son in the U.S. five years ago after having received a loan from his uncle allowing him to buy an access spot on the immigration marketplace. Now a successful software engineer, he would like his and his wife’s parents to join them in the U.S. Access spot prices for the next few years are unfortunately too high on the immigration marketplace but with joint financial efforts, he, his wife and the parents can afford to buy spots seven years out. Not ideal, but they are happy to live with the certainty that seven years from now they will live close to one another. And who knows, if Hiram or his wife get promoted, perhaps they’ll be able to afford trading up for earlier access for the parents.
First International Bank smells a business opportunity in providing loans for buying immigration marketplace access spots. The bank establishes a unit that lends money to individuals in high-paying professions where the U.S. is experiencing a shortage. The loans allow the individuals to buy access spots, something they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford. Once in the U.S., they contractually start to repay the loan with interest out of their earnings.
Obviously, the scenarios are almost unlimited for why and when someone will immigrate and how much they can afford or are willing to pay. Nobody can realistically create an exhaustive list, be they think-tank policy wonks, politicians, government bureaucrats—or Substack writers. Only an immigration marketplace allows for nimbly responding to unforeseen shifts in supply and demand.
Once the process is in place and the marketplace is up and running, the government’s only role is to screen immigrants approaching their arrival date to ensure they are not violating one of the very few barriers to entry:
Having a criminal record (according to U.S. law)
Carrying a deadly contagious disease
To finance its limited role, the government may charge a small transaction fee for access spot trades.
Will the marketplace be used by financial professionals trading in marketplace spots, options and futures just like in the stock and bond markets? Of course, but just like in the stock and bond markets, they fill an important function in creating signals for where the immigration market is going, making it more responsive and better reflecting the true price for immigration access.
Is there a risk that “profiteers” will prey on extended families desperate to be united, employers taking advantage of vulnerable individuals desperate to get to the U.S., etc? Again yes, but in the long run, public opinion tends to keep such behaviors in check, and if there is proof of criminal activity, the justice system steps in. And while such anomalies are regrettable and may justifiably be condemned, they pale in comparison with the profiteering, suffering, and individual rights violations under the current immoral (lack of) immigration policy. We owe it to ourselves and to the Americans-in-mind around the world who were unfortunate to be born in the wrong country to remove this stain from our record. An immigration marketplace should be a central component of that effort.
Anders:
In the 18th century, America was made up primarily of people who, of necessity, simply understood they had to work hard. Should they not have taken full responsibility for their own welfare, there was no one else to do it for them and they would have starved. As this was the case, anyone who did arrive on American shores who was unwilling to work and wanted others to provide for them, could expect to find no sympathy and might well starve.
In the 19th century, the former colonies had become the United States. Expansion was underway and the young people of the 18th century became the entrepreneurs of the 19th century. Those who arrived were "welcomed," because it was simply assumed they were prepared to start at the bottom, often live in poor conditions, receive no entitlements and had to compete for even menial jobs. They accepted these terms, and in exchange they received the opportunity to live in America.
Also, in the 19th century, the US was expanding to the West coast, covered the nation with railroads and dramatically accelerated the industrial revolution – the greatest period of expansion in US history!
In the 20th century, a tax on income was implemented, the Federal Reserve took control of money and credit, and the “New Deal” Introduced the concept of entitlement. It was a mixed century of wealth generated by the industrial revolution, fighting against the new concept of entitlement. "Immigration" became entwined with moral entitlement and America's contracting freedom with political duty and obligation.
In the 21st century, immigrants in large numbers are now encouraged to come. However, unlike in the 19th century, they are no longer encouraged on the basis of starting at the bottom, often living in poor conditions, receiving no entitlements and competing for even menial jobs. Quite the contrary. Not only are they "guaranteed" welfare, schooling and housing, they are not required to work at all and, if they become criminals, they are likely to be released without prosecution. They, in fact, are afforded privileges above that of American citizens.
As you might expect, American conservatives are stating that immigration must be curtailed, as immigrants are "damaging" America. Conversely, liberals are stating that America was built on immigration and the way forward is to open the doors to all who wish to enter.
Both these contentions are incorrect, though IN CONTEXT, the conservative's logic is based on an elements of truth, as are the liberal's!
Meanwhile, those of us who maintain principles based on what is proper, moral, beneficial, and "just," try to "right the wrongs," while "entrepreneurs" outside America's borders take advantage of America's remaining market for liberty and opportunity and "select" who shall arrive and in what numbers!
You have provided yet another fresh perspective, Anders!