Sind unser Wohlfahrtsstaat, mitunter konkurrierende Kulturen und die Bedrohung durch den Terrorismus wirklich stichhaltige Gründe gegen eine freizügige Einwanderungspolitik? So jedenfalls argumentiert
der amerikanische Ökonom Thomas Sowell:
Even if every one of those immigrants added to the national output,
that does not mean that today's American population would be
economically better off after this unchecked influx from around the
After all, people not only produce, they consume -- and some
consume more than they produce, courtesy of the American taxpayers.
Nor are our schools or our neighborhoods improved by becoming a
tower of babel or scenes of clashing standards of behavior, noise, or
violence. We need to count all costs, not just money costs.
Why is this a far more prosperous country than the countries from
which most of our immigrants come? Many of those countries are well
endowed with natural resources but are lacking an economic and
political culture that would allow those resources to be used to
produce better results than the poverty which drives their people to
When you import people, you import cultures. Those cultures no
longer give way to the American culture when "multiculturalism" is a
dogma and its apostles and activists make it necessary for American
laws, language, and culture to give way, or at least accommodate
growing alien enclaves in our midst.
A nation is more than a collection of whatever population happens
to reside within its borders. Something has to unite those people if
the country is not to degenerate into the kind of unending internal
strife brought on by Balkanization in many countries around the world,
not just in the Balkans.
Dem hält der ebenfalls amerikanische Ökonom David D. Friedman auf seinem Weblog "Ideas"
What I want to explore instead is the flip side of the argument. The
existence of a welfare state may indeed make open immigration less
attractive. But the existence of open immigration also makes a welfare
state less attractive—which, for those who disapprove of a welfare
state, is an additional argument in favor of open immigration.
the analogous argument applied intrastate. Supporters of higher levels
of welfare generally want them to be provided at the federal level—for
a good reason. If welfare is provided and paid for by the states, high
levels of income redistribution tend to pull poor people into, and
drive taxpayers out of, states that provide them. That provides a
potent political incentive to hold down redistribution. This is one
example of a more general principle: The more mobile taxpayers are, the
more governments, like businesses in a competitive market, have to
provide them value for their money, and thus the less able they are to
tax A in order to buy the votes of B.
The same argument applies across national borders.Zeigt sich doch gerade in Deutschland
, dass der traditionelle Wohlfahrtsstaat auch ohne Einwanderung eines der gewichtigsten Wohlstandshemmnisse ist.
Ebenso plausibel argumentiert
Friedman hinsichtlich der angeblichen Terrorismusgefahr durch zu starke Einwanderung:
Listening to the current immigration discussion, I am repeatedly struck
by the absurdity of linking that issue with the issue of preventing
terrorism--usually put in terms of some phrase about America
controlling its borders.
The linkage is absurd for two different
reasons. The first is that current illegal immigrants are not Muslims
and have no connection with or allegiance to Islamic organizations,
terrorist or otherwise. Most of them are Catholics. They are no more
likely to support Islamic terrorism than the people already
here—probably less likely.
The second is that the U.S. doesn't
control its borders, isn't going to control its borders, and probably
cannot at any acceptable cost control its borders, in the sense
relevant to the terrorist issue. In 2004, the most recent year for
which I found figures, there were more than eighty million tourist
arrivals in North America, presumably most of them in the U.S. Anyone
with sufficient resources and ability to pose a serious terrorist
threat can get into the country as one of those tens of millions—he
doesn't have to scramble through a tunnel under the U.S./Mexican
border. And making it a criminal offense to hire illegal aliens will
have very little effect on those aliens who are working for al-Qaeda.
They already have a job.
Gute Gründe für eine multikulturelle Gesellschaft nennt implizit schließlich Tyler Cowen
, wenn er in seinem Buch "Weltmarkt der Kulturen"
darlegt, dass wirtschaftliche Verflechtungen über Grenzen hinweg zwangsläufig zu kulturellen Verflechtungen und vor allem Bereicherungen führen. Grenzen für die Menschen werden nicht verhindern, was internationale Warenströme schon heute forcieren.
Zum Thema einer befürchteten Beeinträchtigung der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Kultur eines Landes durch Einwanderung haben die amerikanischen Ökonomen Christopher J. Coyne und Peter Boettke
etwas zu sagen:
Our main conclusion is that while
historical traditions and cultural factors play a significant role in
the political and economic development of any country, they should not
be overestimated. While immigrants come from a diverse set of
backgrounds, the American Creed can in fact be learned. The fundamental
problem is not one of immigration or culture, but rather one of
establishing institutions that create a relatively higher payoff to
activities that recognize and respect the principles of liberty,
equality, individualism, representative government and private property.