Immigration: A Need for Markets, Not More Mandates

Originally published at Iowans for Tax Relief.

Dueling Immigration Policy Articles
​
Immigration has become one of the defining debates in American policy circles. While most agree that America needs secure borders and the rule of law, they often disagree about the broader purpose of immigration policy and the role immigration should play in the nation’s future.

After you’ve read Immigration: A Need for Markets, Not More Mandates, be sure to read Immigration: A Need for Greater Limits, where John Hendrickson explains why a more restrictive approach is necessary to preserve America’s culture, sovereignty, and long-term national interests.

​Immigration is one of those issues where Washington seems determined to make everyone angry while solving almost nothing.

Many Americans have real concerns. They worry about too many people coming too quickly, wages being pressured, schools and hospitals being strained, housing becoming less affordable, and cultural trust weakening in communities that already feel stretched.

Those concerns should not be dismissed. A serious country, like a constitutional republic, must have borders, law, order, and accountability. But we should also remember something too often lost in today’s debate: immigration has been one of America’s greatest sources of strength.

Immigrants helped build this country. They worked farms, built railroads, started businesses, filled churches, served in uniform, created inventions, raised families, and brought new energy to communities that needed it. America would not be America without people who came here seeking freedom, opportunity, faith, work, and a better life for their children.

And their lives improved too. That is the beauty of America at its best. People come here with little, work hard, save, build, and rise. Their children often do even better. That is not a problem to fear. That is a blessing to protect.

The problem is not that people want to come to America. The problem is that government has made the process chaotic, expensive, politicized, and unfair.

Washington built a system that is slow for legal applicants, disorderly at the border, costly for taxpayers, confusing for employers, and divisive for citizens. Then the same political class tells us the answer is more mandates, more arbitrary caps, more bureaucracy, and more executive orders.

That is not reform. That is doubling down on failure. Americans should reject the false choice between chaos and closed doors. The better path is order and opportunity through a market-based immigration system.

This matters here because Iowa needs workers. Agriculture, food processing, construction, manufacturing, health care, and small businesses all depend on reliable labor. That does not mean immigration should be unmanaged. It means the system should honestly connect real workforce demand with legal, accountable pathways.

Milton Friedman saw the central tension clearly when he warned that “you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” Too many people use that line to attack immigration. But Friedman’s deeper point was about incentives. If the government offers open-ended benefits detached from work and responsibility, immigration becomes politically harder to sustain. The welfare state creates conflict between taxpayers and newcomers.

So fix the welfare state. Protect taxpayers. Restore work requirements. Limit benefits to those who have earned eligibility. Make immigration tied to work, sponsorship, responsibility, and contribution.

Immigrants are people. They are not political props, automatic threats, or future dependents by nature. Many come to work, build, save, worship, start businesses, raise families, and pursue opportunity. That is deeply American. A serious immigration system should welcome contribution while rejecting disorder.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker offered a provocative idea years ago: charge for the right to immigrate instead of relying mostly on political quotas and bureaucratic rationing. Richard Vedder and others have similarly argued for auction-based immigration permits. The idea is simple. If access to the American labor market is valuable, use prices, sponsorship, and competition to allocate that access more honestly.

That does not mean open borders. It does not mean ignoring national security. It does not mean taxpayers should subsidize everyone who wants to come. It means replacing today’s political rationing with clear rules, background checks, fees, employer sponsorship, private sponsorship, and accountability.

If a business needs workers, let it prove that need by sponsoring workers or bidding for permits. If families want to reunite, let them participate under clear rules. If churches or charities want to sponsor immigrants or refugees, let them put real resources behind that commitment. If immigrants value the chance to live and work here, let them pay a transparent fee over time.

That would be more honest than a system where smugglers, lobbyists, bureaucrats, and politicians decide who gets in.

It would also help taxpayers. Permit fees or auction revenues could help offset costs in communities experiencing large inflows, though I would prefer to reduce the deficit instead. Sponsorship could create responsibility instead of leaving local taxpayers to absorb every consequence. Legal pathways would reduce pressure at the border and help employers meet real needs without rewarding lawlessness.

Markets are not perfect, but they are more humane than chaos. Prices communicate scarcity. Sponsorship creates accountability. Competition reveals demand. Clear rules build trust. Voluntary exchange respects human dignity better than political theater.

The current system is often cruel precisely because it is so political. People wait years. Families remain stuck in backlogs. Employers cannot fill jobs legally. Border communities face disorder. Taxpayers fund the consequences. Politicians campaign on the crisis instead of fixing it.

Americans should not accept that.

The classical liberal answer is simple: secure the border, enforce the law, protect taxpayers, reform welfare, and expand legal pathways tied to work and responsibility. Government should set and enforce clear rules. It should not centrally plan labor markets through arbitrary caps, political favoritism, and endless bureaucracy.

Immigration should not be run by fear. It should not be run by slogans. And it should not be run by Washington politicians pretending they know Iowa’s workforce needs better than Iowa employers, families, churches, and communities.

What would America be without immigrants? Less dynamic, less entrepreneurial, less innovative, and less true to its own story.

The right answer is not to close the door. The right answer is to restore order, protect taxpayers, and open better legal paths for people who want to contribute.

Treat immigrants as people. Protect taxpayers. Restore the rule of law. Let markets work..That is how America can be both orderly and welcoming. That is how we reduce conflict, strengthen communities, improve lives, and let people prosper.