What Makes Good Immigration Policy?

Immigration has recently prompted contentious debate, including within the libertarian movement. Much of the controversy arises from both real and perceived societal issues due to mass migration and illegal immigration, and whether immigration exacerbates problems such as housing affordability.

In 2015, Germany accepted over a million migrants from the Middle East and experienced a range of social problems including an increase in crime. More recently, according to the UNHCR, Poland accepted over a million people fleeing the Ukraine war yet did not appear to have experienced the same issues.

Clearly immigration, even mass migration, is not inherently bad. The issue is how immigration is managed.

Below I discuss some thoughts as to whether immigration contributes to positive outcomes.

First, immigrants should not receive government assistance. Giving welfare and free things to immigrants attracts people who prefer to exploit the system, rather than productive people seeking a better life. This is a driving factor in unsustainable mass migration leading to a large number of people who are a net drain on society and have less motivation to integrate and participate in society.

Requiring immigrants to pay their own way helps reduce the financial burden on society and, when paired with a free market economy, allows for the establishment of businesses that create jobs and contribute to the economy. Pay your own way creates a natural cap on immigration as it exposes immigrants to the laws of supply and demand when it comes to jobs and the economy. Charities should still of course be free to assist immigrant communities.

Second, immigrants should not be allowed to lie about who they are, or to falsely represent themselves as refugees. This was a huge issue during the 2015 European migrant crisis. Genuine refugees may not always have documents to prove their identity and in such situations should be given grace, but those caught lying should be deported. A refugee is someone who is fleeing actual persecution; poverty and crappy circumstances do not make someone a refugee.

Third, a good immigration policy should adequately address illegal immigration. Allowing people to remain in the country illegally is unfair to those who immigrate legally. It’s simply unfair and incentivises doing the wrong thing.

I still believe an exception should be made for genuine refugees as it is not unusual for authoritarian countries to limit the ability of their citizens to leave, making the legal immigration process impractical. Such people should be expected to declare their presence in the country as soon as possible, be a genuine refugee, and must not have travelled through safe countries. I also don’t believe those who overstay or lose their visas due to factors beyond their control, such as hospitalisation or screwing up forms, deserve punitive treatment.

Fourth, people should have the right to freely talk about and complain how immigration is affecting their communities. During the 2015 European immigration crisis, many countries in Europe responded to criticism with arrests rather than debate. More recently, a German politician was convicted of hate speech for citing government statistics in relation to sexual assaults by migrants. This is of course not an acceptable way to address concerns about poorly managed immigration; nor is it consistent with a free and open society.

Fifth, concerns about illegal immigration should not be used as an excuse to violate or limit civil liberties. For example, policies that allow authorities to question random people in the street and demand they present ID (to prove their immigration status) risks creating a Papers Please society that threatens freedom and privacy.

Then there is of course the current situation in the UK where Prime Minister Kier Starmer is using concerns about illegal immigration to mandate Digital ID. This makes no sense since it won’t stop people from coming to the UK illegally and working under the table as they currently do. All it does is threaten freedom, privacy and security.

Sixth, a person shouldn’t be barred purely because they have controversial opinions. Australia has policy of denying visas to political speakers who hold controversial views on the grounds that their presence may contribute to contentious political debate or, as the government claims, ‘incite discord within the community’. Two examples are Candace Owens and Milo Yiannopoulos. I personally find such individuals to be downright bizarre although I do not support their ban from Australia.

Lastly, we must address the underlying causes of issues that are exacerbated by immigration. For example, the underlying cause for the lack of affordable housing is government regulations that restrict the supply rather than immigration itself, although immigration does exacerbate this issue due to increasing demand. This is proven by the fact that temporary government restrictions on immigration due to Covid did not stop house prices from going up during that time period.

At the end of the day, the amount of immigration isn’t the issue. The important matter is how it is managed. Poorly implemented immigration policies can make the difference between a policy that benefits society and a policy that causes problems.