Criticisms of my immigration article

The Everyday Economist (whose blog is definitely worth reading) criticized my TCSDaily immigration article.

After quoting this part of my article:

"Unskilled Immigrants + Large Welfare State = Higher Taxes

The above equation shows why free market enthusiasts should oppose the current immigration bill."

He wrote in part:

"A frequent claim from those on the right and those who favor free markets is that allowing unskilled immigrants to legally enter the country will lead to a natural expansion of the welfare state. This argument, however, is a red herring. If the problem is our large welfare state, then we should seek to reform the system and reduce government spending rather than build a wall to keep immigrants out."

Our first best policy would indeed be to reduce the size of our welfare state. But this is not going to happen. When evaluating immigration policies we have to accept the reality of our welfare state. If, given the welfare state, massive unskilled immigration would increase the size of government then it's reasonable for believers in free markets to opposed such immigration.

In the abstract, let's say that it will be very harmful if both conditions X and Y exist. Let's further assume that X, by itself, causes a great deal of harm while we would benefit from having just Y. But if it's politically impossible to prevent X, then we should seek to stop Y.

Recall that The Everyday Economist wrote "If the problem is our large welfare state, then we should seek to reform the system and reduce government spending rather than build a wall to keep immigrants out." Logically, this doesn't hold if it is much, much, much harder to reform the welfare system than it is to build a wall to keep out immigrants.

Update: The Everyday Economist responds here.