On Immigration
22 July 2006
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
Dear Editor:
Milton Friedman correctly says that immigration is "good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration" ("The Romance of Economics," July 22). But then he insists that government-provided welfare in America justifies immigration restrictions.
How can this great man who has long championed freedom as a moral imperative allow one unprincipled government intrusion (the welfare state) to excuse another unprincipled intrusion (limits on immigration)? By abandoning his principles when it comes to immigration, Friedman opens himself to the necessity of conceding at least the potential acceptability of further unprincipled government intrusions - such as allowing states with more-generous welfare benefits to close their borders to Americans from states with less-generous benefits, and criminalizing out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies (because young unwed mothers receive disproportionate amounts of government welfare). What principle will Friedman use to avoid slipping down this immoral slope?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
Dear Editor:
Milton Friedman correctly says that immigration is "good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration" ("The Romance of Economics," July 22). But then he insists that government-provided welfare in America justifies immigration restrictions.
How can this great man who has long championed freedom as a moral imperative allow one unprincipled government intrusion (the welfare state) to excuse another unprincipled intrusion (limits on immigration)? By abandoning his principles when it comes to immigration, Friedman opens himself to the necessity of conceding at least the potential acceptability of further unprincipled government intrusions - such as allowing states with more-generous welfare benefits to close their borders to Americans from states with less-generous benefits, and criminalizing out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies (because young unwed mothers receive disproportionate amounts of government welfare). What principle will Friedman use to avoid slipping down this immoral slope?
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Posted by Don Boudreaux on
Thursday April 19, 2007 at 8:20pm