Benefits of immigration are spread wide, but costs are not. Here’s how to fix that | Opinion

The border standoff between Texas and the United States persists. Gov. Greg Abbott vows to continue state-level efforts to deter record illegal immigration. Meanwhile, as the prospects for a deal in Congress fade, President Joe Biden is considering emergency executive action to tighten the border.

The politics of the Austin-Washington battle are crowding out discussions of a lasting solution. We need to find a way to capture the immense benefits of higher immigration while more evenly distributing the costs.

The rancor over immigration makes it easy to mistake it for a purely partisan issue. In Tuesday’s Texas Republican primary elections, there are several nonbinding ballot propositions gauging support for a state “Border Protection Unit” and whether to “require the use of E-Verify by all employers.” But characterizing border control as just another political squabble radically understates the importance of getting immigration right. All Texans have an interest in an orderly immigration system that promotes economic growth, community cohesion, and equality of opportunity.

The potential benefits of increased immigration are enormous. Economist Michael Clemens describes the lost wealth from migration restrictions as “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.” More immigration means more work, which increases national income. Furthermore, immigrants commit less crime than native residents, a fact especially well documented in Texas. Finally, the claims that high immigration levels undermine culture and political institutions appear to be false. The evidence is clear: In a well-governed community, extra hands are a blessing, not a curse.

Yet immigration skeptics, especially in border communities, have some valid concerns. The benefits of immigration are widely distributed. But the costs are mostly borne by the cities and towns in which immigrants first arrive. Those seeking a better life often come here with nothing. They need clothing, food, shelter and medical care until they find work, often in large cities far from the border. The residents of Eagle Pass, El Paso and other border communities might wonder why their private and public resources should disproportionately service these needs, while the eventual benefits they reap are no greater than those Chicagoans and New Yorkers enjoy.

Interminable debates about the justice of immigration restrictions will resolve nothing. If we want more immigration, we need to persuade a majority of citizens — and especially a majority of Texans, Arizonans, and Californians — that they will be net winners from immigration reform.

That means bringing order to the border. If not contained, the ongoing chaos could turn a generation of citizens against immigration reform. National and state authorities should cooperate to establish a predictable and nondiscriminatory system for monitoring, recording and processing border crossings.

Stricter border control, with the ultimate goal of admitting more immigrants, creates an intriguing possibility: It establishes the administrative foundations for an immigration tax. Many economists have lauded the benefits of charging immigrants an entry fee, which would finance the infrastructure and programs necessary to help immigrants during the transition period while ensuring that taxpayers are not excessively burdened.

Ideally, the states would administer these support structures because they’re closer to the problem and more nimble than Washington. Funding to border communities could be apportioned by immigration flows and weighted by domestic population. This would help Congress and state legislatures to satisfy immigration skeptics’ concerns, giving them room to make the necessary statutory changes.

Many Texans are furious about the border situation, and rightly so. Incomprehensible laws, selectively enforced, all but ensure immigration mayhem. The relationship between the states and the national government sours, the rule of law erodes, and citizens miss out on enormous gains to wealth and well-being, all because of a lack of institutional imagination.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There is no inherent conflict between immigration levels and an orderly border. We can have both if state and national authorities correct existing governance failures. To enjoy the long-run benefits of immigration, distribute the short-run costs more equitably.

This story was originally published March 2, 2024 at 5:32 AM.