Reading the most recent National Review,
I note a weird statement from Mark Krikorian that's striking me as
a little (or maybe very) wrongheaded:
"... Immigrants -- legal or illegal -- don't come
here just to get welfare. The high rate of welfare use by
immigrants (half of all families headed by a Mexican immigrant use
at least one major welfare program) is inevitable because, no
matter how hard they work, people with very little education or few
skills simply cannot earn enough to support their families in the
way that our society expects without subsidies from the
taxpayer."
Well, I guess it depends on what the expectations are of our
society. I'd argue that the subsidies from the taxpayer hardly
scratches at the kind of support necessary to raise the families,
and if nothing else, they likely make it more difficult for
immigrants because of higher taxes/lower job growth. What we've
learned from the free market is that frequently government
subsidies undermine the individual's ability to support a family.
This is a step further from "Government Is Inefficient," and closer
toward "Government Does Harm."
In arguing this way, Krikorian gives far too much ground away to
"compassionate conservatives" and welfare-loving liberals who point
out that the state really does help the poor. People with very
little education or few skills can earn
enough to support their families, and treating immigrants' desire
for social services as inevitable doesn't address the point that
part of why they might be so dependent on these services is that
they're in this country illegally (and finding work is difficult)
or they're priced out of the market by the minimum wage.
topics:
Taxes, Education
