What They Tell You

Immigrants take jobs from native workers. They drive down wages by increasing labor supply. They burden public services and welfare systems. They don’t integrate and create social problems. Immigration should be restricted to protect domestic workers and fiscal balance.

What They Don’t Tell You

The economics of immigration is far more positive than this story suggests. Immigrants often take jobs natives don’t want. They create jobs as well as fill them. They contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Labor is artificially kept immobile while capital moves freely. And restrictions harm both immigrants and receiving countries.

The “Lump of Labor” Fallacy

The idea that immigrants “take jobs” assumes there’s a fixed number of jobs to go around. But economies don’t work that way:

Immigrants are consumers too: They buy food, housing, services—creating jobs for others.

Immigrants are entrepreneurs: They start businesses that employ others.

Immigrants fill shortages: In healthcare, agriculture, technology—allowing industries to function.

Complementary skills: Immigrants often have different skills than natives, complementing rather than competing with them.

If immigration reduced jobs, countries with more immigration would have higher unemployment. They don’t.

The Wage Effect

Does immigration reduce wages for native workers?

The evidence is mixed but mostly positive:

  • Studies find small or zero effects on native wages overall

  • Some find small negative effects on competing workers (low-skill natives)

  • Others find positive effects as natives move into complementary jobs

  • High-skill immigration raises wages for native workers

The biggest beneficiaries of immigration restrictions aren’t native workers—they’re native workers who would compete with immigrants. But this is a small group.

The Fiscal Impact

Do immigrants burden public services?

Generally no:

  • Working-age immigrants contribute taxes while using fewer services

  • Children of immigrants attend public school (an investment that pays off)

  • Some fiscal cost from low-skill immigrants in generous welfare states

  • Net fiscal impact is usually positive or small

Studies consistently find that immigrants pay their way.

Why Immigration Is Restricted

If immigration is economically beneficial, why restrict it?

Distribution: Gains from immigration aren’t evenly distributed. Some native workers face competition while others benefit.

Politics: Anti-immigration sentiment can be mobilized politically, especially during economic stress.

Identity: Concerns about culture, language, and “way of life” matter to many voters.

Scapegoating: It’s easier to blame immigrants than to address structural economic problems.

The Global Perspective

From a global welfare perspective, immigration restrictions are the largest market distortion in the world:

Wage gaps: A worker can multiply their income many times by moving from a poor to a rich country.

“Place premium”: Where you’re born largely determines your income—more than any other factor.

If labor moved freely (like capital and goods), global poverty would fall dramatically.

Immigration restrictions essentially protect geographic privilege—the lottery of where you were born.

The Inconsistency

The same people who advocate for free movement of capital, goods, and services often oppose free movement of labor. But:

  • Capital moves freely in search of higher returns

  • Goods cross borders with few restrictions

  • Only people are kept in place

This serves capital: workers compete globally on wages but can’t move to where wages are higher. It’s heads I win, tails you lose.

What the Evidence Shows

Countries built by immigration: US, Canada, Australia—all prospered through immigration.

Germany’s guest workers: Helped fuel the postwar economic miracle.

Dubai, Singapore: Massive immigration, massive growth.

Brain drain reversal: Emigrants often return with skills, capital, and connections.

Remittances: Money sent home exceeds foreign aid many times over.

The Real Issues

Immigration does raise legitimate concerns:

  • Integration: How to help immigrants and communities adapt

  • Distribution: How to share gains and compensate losers

  • Speed: Rapid change can be disruptive

  • Selection: What criteria to use for admission

But these are questions of how to manage immigration well, not whether to have it.

The Moral Question

Beyond economics, there’s a moral question:

If you believe in human equality and dignity, why should where someone is born determine their life chances?

Immigration restrictions condemn billions to poverty simply because of the accident of birth location.

The Bottom Line

The economic case against immigration is weak. Most restrictions exist for political, cultural, or nationalist reasons dressed up in economic language.

If we truly believed in free markets, labor would move as freely as capital. The fact that it doesn’t shows that “free market” ideology is selectively applied to serve the powerful.