Restrain the Welfare State by Opening the Borders

“You can’t have open borders with a welfare state.”

This common assertion should not be taken as gospel. It depends on a few factors, which are at the very least questionable. On the contrary, more freedom in immigration should be viewed as a strategy for restraining the welfare state. Given the empirical evidence, more immigration is likely to lead to less welfare spending per capita, and less support for welfare among the populace. Moving toward a world of easier migration should help to keep the welfare state in check.

Immigrants Use Less Welfare

…and it’s not even close. The average value of welfare benefits for immigrants in 2016 was $3,718. The average usage for native-born was $6,081. Immigrants, on average, used almost 40% less. While payouts for Cash Assistance, SNAP, and Medicaid were slightly higher for immigrants, it was far outweighed by the significantly higher usage by native-born for Medicare and SS, as well as higher SSI benefits.

When the welfare benefits of second-generation immigrants are included in the total cost of immigrants, not much changes. The authors found that 1st and 2nd generation migrants combined averaged 33% less value in welfare benefits compared to older generations.

This implies that as the proportion of the population who are immigrants increases, welfare benefits per capita decreases. Rates and value of welfare alone suggest immigrants are making our society less welfare-dependent.

Immigration Reduces Support For Welfare

Another consideration is what effect immigration has on the views of the native-born population. A possible explanation for why European states developed larger welfare programs than the United States is due to the lack of diversity within European nations. It appears that as heterogeneity increases in a society, there is a corresponding decrease in support for government welfare, perhaps because citizens have more trouble relating to everyone in society. In a review of 16 studies, the author noted “…welfare spending rates in countries with higher immigration grow significantly smaller than in countries limiting immigration.” In one of the studies – Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution – the authors stated: “…the typical industrial society might spend 16 or 17% more than it now does on social services had it kept its foreign-born percentage where it was in 1970.”

It’s noteworthy that less government welfare in the U.S. relative to Europe has been accompanied by higher levels of private charitable activity in the U.S. On a 10-year aggregate, the United States was ranked 1st in the world by the Charities Aid Foundation on a composite index that included volunteered time and money. Perhaps people tend to prefer having a more personal say in how their resources are spent when they think they have less in common with some of the country.

Immigrant Votes Are Not The Problem

A final objection might be that even if immigrants tend to use less welfare themselves, and their presence decreases support for welfare among the general population, maybe the migrants will come and vote for more welfare. There is little evidence for this.

For starters, immigrants tend to vote at lower rates than the average American. Among naturalized migrants, there is around a 54% turnout rate in presidential years. This is compared to a 61-64% rate average for all Americans. But naturalized immigrants represent less than half of all foreign-born (44%). There is some speculation that many illegal immigrants vote, but even the highest estimates put that number at around 6% of non-citizens, an estimate which is by no means a consensus. Regardless, even if the outlier estimate of 6% was correct, it would still reduce the percentage of all foreign-born who vote substantially. The vast majority of immigrants do not vote.

More importantly, immigrant views on welfare policy are not radically different from those of native-born. On the General Social Survey, the responses of 1st generation Americans were statistically insignificant compared to more established generations. Support for welfare spending, government assistance to the poor, and social security benefits were similar across generations.

Rather than immigration and the welfare state being incompatible, free immigration should be embraced as a strategy for limiting the latter. The average migrant is helping to reduce society’s reliance on welfare by contributing to lower per capita benefits. Not only that, but the research indicates immigration levels are an important factor in limiting support for government welfare, and immigrant voting does not seem to be any worse of a problem than native-born voting. Let’s not let the excuse of the welfare state limit immigration. Let’s allow immigration to limit the welfare state.