Gary Becker Supports Fee-Based Immigration

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker endorses the idea of charging people for access to the United States:

The United States should apply price theory to immigration and charge immigrants a fee to gain citizenship, said Gary Becker, University Professor of Economics and of Sociology...

[A] one-time fee of $50,000 would generate $50 billion a year from the current 1 million immigrants admitted to the U.S. each year, he said.

Such revenue would reduce opposition to immigration by blunting the argument that immigrants draw on U.S. resources, such as welfare, Medicaid, and schools, Becker said. “This would lead to a greater willingness to accept immigrants,” he said. “No longer could people say they’re not paying their way. They would be paying their way, not only in income taxes but in the entrance fee, so to speak.”

In order to prevent limiting immigration to only the wealthy, the government should modify the federal college loan program to help finance entry to the U.S., Becker said. “This is a form of human capital and investment, namely migration to more productive areas,” he said. “It would be natural to extend this program to help finance immigration of people who may only be willing to put up $10,000 or $15,000 of the required amount and finance the rest with a loan.”

The loan could be collected through income tax in absolute amounts or as a function of a person’s earnings, Becker said. “Employers might pay the fee,” he said. “The H1B [visa] program goes through employers entirely. Immigrants don’t have to pay anything for it. Employers might say, ‘Gee, I can get you to work. I’ll pay the $50,000. I’ll work it out with the worker, as long as you’re going to repay me for this later on.’”

The effect a fee would have on illegal immigration is not clear, Becker said. “Some who are coming legally now, for free so to speak, may decide to come illegally,” he said. “On the other hand, some workers now who come in illegally because they can’t get in legally might decide to pay the fee. They could come legally, work above ground, advance, and so on.”

Becker does not (yet?) add (as I do) that in the absence of such a fee-based immigration system (in which case the United States could formally recognize the right to migrate as part of the basic inventory of human rights), people are justified in practicing civil disobedience by coming without the US government's sanctions, defying unjust immigration laws.  You get the sense, though, that illegal immigration doesn't make him too indignant.

Comments

[Darel99]

Gary's obvious assumptions stands to reconcile the facts. Depending on the source of immigration few people who seek entry into out nation could afford a $50,000 fee of entrance. If we look at immigration from those who can afford a fee based immigration plan then perhaps those who hail from Germany and other richer nations his plan may work. However, the bulk of our immigration hail from Mexico with third world wages. Of course many professor's are out of touch with reality and though Gary Becker has obtained the respect of many. His folly plan to impose a $50,000 fee is simply overstated and is clearly not a workable solution.

In addition having traveled to many nations over the years I meet an amazing women from Belarus. During the last two years we have grown close and willing to take the next step. Under Gary Becker's plan I would pay a $50,000 fee to help her gain entry into our nation and another $50,000 for each one of her children. Now keep in mind she is an amazing women but to impose a $150,000 fee to create a family unit is absurd. Love and life should never be regulated with outrageous fees.

However, if your an illegal alien you have access to free medical care and for the most part undermines our nation.

I support strong borders to protect our nation. To add an influx of cash with our poorly mismanaged government will not solve the issues.

I suggest that Mr. Becker consider real world dialogue and get out of his office a little more. Perhaps an introduction to real life examples will change his views. If not I can't in good faith support Mr. Becker's ideals or economic plans as proposed.

[Nathan Smith]

We obviously don't see eye to eye on this... but I would guess that A LOT of people would shell out $50,000 to come to America, and the country would be better off for it. (If you calculate the expected income gains from coming to the US from most countries in the world, $50,000 is a bargain.) My preferred immigration solution is different, but Gary's would definitely be a positive step.

[James Aragon]

There are already fees to immigrate the United States. I spent nearly $2000 in medical, administrative and stamp fees to bring my wife to the states. So really you are looking to raise the fees.

Do you advocate for an addition to the Statue of Liberty plaque so that it reads "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free so that we can enter them into indentured servitude"? How about we just enforce the rules? I had to sign an affidavit declaring my intention support my wife and would not render her to the state.

[Nato]

I suspect Nathan does not really want the $50K entry fee, but rather for there to be some compromise that allows free (as in speech, not beer) immigration for peaceful people. Later, we can bring down the fee. I don't know. Whatever the case, 50K is way too high in my view. $5K or something similar, collected over time via a social security tax-type mechanism, to cover the costs of background checks or whatever seems fair to me. Guest workers who return to their originating country get some or all of their immigration taxes back. It even makes sense to add a reasonable penalty for those who have been living here illegally. Further concessions about which I'd be less happy but to which I'd gladly accede in the interests of getting humane and practical immigration reform past the nativists:
1)Adding an additional penalty to those who don't learn English (alternate form: giving a discount to those who do)
2)Adding social services used during an initial period to the immigration tax.
3)Some sort of "pay up front" requirement for those with no appropriate sponsors such as family members.

[Matt]

That's not a bad idea, but to actually publically state that this is what you think should be done, shoes just how little thought you gave this issue. This could ONLY work AFTER our borders are secure and we reform our currently under-staffed and severely outdated immigration and naturalization department.
Then we'll know who's coming across aka: to whom we can charge the $50K. His rationale completely misses the actual problem. There are very few who oppose immigration in this country. How could you?... being that this country was founded by immigration! Even the Irish, Italians & Poloks, etc.. all came here legally via Ellis island ... they were documented, processed, and some were even turned away & rejected.
It's those ILLEGAL immigrants who come here sneaking across our borders that are the problem. They are the ones burdening our school and healthcare systems to the point of fracture. THEY are the ones clogging up our roadways and degrading our more established society with poor-quality lifestyles and over-crowded homes. THEY are the ones taking Lower-class American jobs from America's lower class who so desperately need them. ...and don't get me started on all the thousands of South American gang banger losers & criminals that sneak up here the same way (can you say MS13? :-) )

So how are you going to charge 10+ million illegal border-crossers who are already here $50K each ? All this idea would do is make it even HARDER for those to become American citizens LEGALLY .. & those are who we Americans WANT here.

[Nato]

Matt, how does it make it harder to collect any amount of money by offering the fee as a way to legalize one's residency? Your kneejerk scapegoating doesn't invalidate the idea even if one grants your dubious "facts" regarding the effects of illegal immigration.

[Nathan Smith]

Let me clarify. There are a lot of ways to get into the US, including applying for a permanent visa, coming in on a student, tourist, or other temporary visa and overstaying it, and just walking through the desert on the southern border; or from the north if you can get into Canada.

I don't propose to close any of them. I am for opening a NEW channel, whereby an individual could pay $50,000 to get in. If the $50,000 could be garnished from wages over time, even better.

Border restrictions are not part of the republic the Founding Fathers made. Back when the Poles, Irish, Italians etc. were coming through Ellis Island, there were Mexicans coming over the southern border, too. That was before the social-engineering fad of the 20th century had got started, and the idea of "securing the border," in the sense of shutting out peaceful workers as opposed to repelling invading military forces, wouldn't have occurred to anyone.

I don't think "securing the border" is physically possible, and the sooner people will shut up about it, the better. I realize that my candidate, McCain, is talking about it now. Oh well.

[Nato]

Now now, Nathan, securing the border is possible: totalitarian regimes perfected it in the 20th century. We could also learn how to operate our anti-illegal progroms with maximum efficiency and minimum effective dissent!

[Tom]

McCain switched to the dark-side? When did that happen? Did Emperor Palpetine make him an offer he couldn't refuse? "Oh well" is right! Guess it's time to support Democrat X vs Republican Y.

[Nathan Smith]

No, not the "dark side." McCain hasn't quite disavowed his pro-amnesty position, even when the incentive is greatest. His commitment to border enforcement is probably sincere but not obsessive, and what he's proposing are the least harmful policies.

Paul, by contrast, *is* on the dark side on immigration. He's even made noises about repealing birthright citizenship. That the libertarian movement has embraced that scumbag is really sickening.