America is a Nation, Not Entitlement

A Review of Precedent, History, and Empirical Evidence

The modern debate over immigration usually stops before it even gets interesting. On one side, a humanitarian vision views the border as a moral test: an ethically arbitrary line that shouldn’t stand in the way of universal human rights. On the other hand, a national-interest framework views the border as a tool—a gate that should be opened or closed based on what best serves the prosperity and stability of the citizens already inside.

“America's border is not an obstacle to be overcome…but instead is a critical tool for protecting America's national interests"

—Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies

The humanitarian lens often suffers from what I call Stage One thinking. It focuses on the immediate, visible satisfaction of helping those in need today, while ignoring the Stage Two consequences—the long-term structural effects—that unfold over the next decade. If we want a policy that actually works, we have to look past the sentiment and toward the empirical reality.

Sovereignty as the Primary Duty

No state is effectively acting primarily as a global charity; it is a self-sufficient association whose primary duty is to preserve and promote the prosperity of its own members. The liberal view that national boundaries are morally arbitrary ignores the fundamental reality of self-government: a community that cannot define its own membership is no longer a community.

As Michael Walzer argues in Spheres of Justice, “The distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and, without it, cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life.” Immigration is not an inherent right of the migrant, but a privilege granted by the host. When we prioritize humanitarian sentiment over the national interest, we are abdicating the state’s responsibility to its own citizens. Effective immigration control is not anti-immigrant; it is a foundational act of national self-defense and institutional integrity.

What Human Capital Really Means

One of the most dangerous myths in policy circles is that immigration is a monolithic good, regardless of who is coming or why. History tells a different story: the success of migration is tied to the transfer of specialized human capital—technical skills, work ethics, and commercial networks.

Think of the German artisans who settled in Southern Brazil in the 19th century. In towns like Blumenau, Joinville, and Novo Hamburgo, these immigrants didn’t just provide labor; they transplanted an industrial culture, establishing centers of brewing, textiles, and footwear that remain the industrial heartland of Santa Catarina today. This transfer included specialized horological expertise; retailers like Frederic Krussmann introduced “watch clubs” for brands like A. Lange & Söhne, instilling a culture of precision and long-term financial planning among a growing middle class.

Similarly, middleman minorities, such as the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia, served as the region's commercial backbone for centuries. These groups were conduits for specialized skills and high-trust kinship networks that provided essential human capital, such as contract enforcement, when formal institutions failed.

Perhaps no group better exemplifies this value-adding role than the Jewish diaspora. Historically, Jewish communities have functioned as essential institutional anchors for their host nations, converting high levels of human capital—specifically universal male literacy—into a decisive advantage in trade, finance, and medicine. In the Ottoman Empire, sultans actively encouraged Sephardic settlement, viewing the group as a dynamic and productive urban element that bolstered the state through tax farming and the introduction of advanced technologies like the printing press and new engines of war.

In 17th-century Amsterdam, Sephardic merchants were not merely participants but crucial architects of the Atlantic sugar trade, driving the city toward unprecedented prosperity. This success was built on sophisticated private-order institutions—informal yet rigorous systems of trust and contract enforcement — that enabled commercial stability in high-risk environments where state mechanisms often failed.

From the textile factories that fueled Sweden’s early industrialization to the German-Jewish immigrants who built America’s modern financial systems, the history of Jewish middlemen is one of intense value creation, where a minority’s specialized skills provide the commercial backbone for an entire society.

When a migrant group’s skills complement the host country’s needs, you get growth. But the physical fallacy—the idea that only physical labor creates value—often leads native populations to resent successful immigrant middlemen, leading to economic wreckage when those groups are eventually targeted or expelled. The benefits of migration are not automatic and depend on whether the human capital being imported matches the technological and social needs of the nation.

The “Labor Shortage” Myth

You’ve heard the refrain: “Americans won’t do these jobs.” This is classic Stage One thinking. Agricultural and manual labor jobs aren’t inherently immigrant work—they are jobs that have been performed by Americans for centuries.

When politicians claim a shortage of workers, they really mean the current wage is too low to attract native labor. By providing an unlimited supply of low-wage labor, the government effectively subsidizes labor-intensive industries. If that supply were restricted, businesses would follow the induced innovation hypothesis: they’d innovate and automate.

Historical data from 19th-century France shows that labor scarcity caused by cholera pandemics led to a significant increase in the adoption of mechanized plows. We see this today in California, where a persistent workforce deficit has driven the adoption of strawberry-picking robots and autonomous tractors. In meat processing, states with high E-Verify enforcement saw a 36% decline in employment, which has accelerated the adoption of automated cutting and packaging systems. Instead of suppressing wages for the bottom of the economic ladder, we could be using scarcity to drive a high-tech revolution.

The Spreadsheet Reality: A $1.15 Trillion Bill

The fiscal impact of immigration isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a matter of math. Empirically, the determinant of whether an immigrant is a net plus is almost entirely tied to two factors: education and age.

High-skilled immigrants are fiscal superstars. Manhattan Institute research indicates that each immigrant under age 35 with a graduate degree reduces the budget deficit by over $1 million in net present value over their lifetime. Doubling the H-1B cap for just one year would reduce the national debt by roughly $70 billion over the long run.

The current border crisis is estimated to cost taxpayers $1.15 trillion over the lifetime of the new arrivals—a cost higher than the entire U.S. defense budget.

—Daniel Di Martino, Manhattan Institute, The Fiscal Impact of Immigration (2025 Update)

But the other side of the ledger is stark. Immigrants without a high school diploma are universally a net fiscal burden, often by as much as $400,000 per person. In 2024, data showed that 53% of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program, compared to 37% of native-headed households. While 86% of these immigrant households have at least one worker, the modern welfare state is designed to transfer wealth to low-wage earners regardless of their work ethic.

The New York City Warning

New York City has become the “canary in the coal mine” for what happens when humanitarian sentiment hits a fiscal wall. By 2024, the city’s expenditures for asylum seeker services peaked at $3.75 billion for a single year.

The crisis led to the bypass of standard oversight, with the city awarding $5.7 billion in emergency no-bid contracts. A notable $432 million contract went to DocGo, a medical staffing company with no experience in emergency housing. Audits found millions wasted on unused hotel rooms and unauthorized subcontractors, with the city paying as much as $1,500 per shift for supervisors while the average per diem cost for shelter remained $371. Meanwhile, sanctuary policies served as a magnet, eroding the rule of law until the system itself began to buckle.

A “Value-Added” Path Forward

If we want a system that strengthens the nation, we have to copy the winners. Australia and Canada treat immigration as a value-added strategy.

Australia uses a points test that prioritizes candidates under age 45 with high English proficiency and specific vocational attributes. Candidates must score at least 65 points to be eligible for permanent skilled visas. Canada’s Express Entry system similarly ranks candidates based on STEM skills and education. By upskilling the immigration flow—eliminating diversity visas and prioritizing top employment-based categories—the U.S. could reduce its national debt by over $60 billion per year and raise GDP by 4.6% over three decades.

The choice isn’t between being “pro-immigrant” or “anti-immigrant.” It’s between a policy of sentiment and a policy of substance. We can continue to stop at “Stage One” and wonder why our cities are broke, or we can move toward a system that treats the border as a tool for national renewal.