"At the moment I oppose unlimited immigration." Milton Friedman

Wall Street Journal/Opinion Journal ^ | July 22, 2006 | TUNKU VARADARAJAN

[ishmac]

...Is immigration, I asked--especially illegal immigration--good for the economy, or bad?

"It's neither one nor the other," Mr. Friedman replied. "But it's good for freedom. In

principle, you ought to have completely open immigration. But with the welfare state it's

really not possible to do that. . . . She's an immigrant," he added, pointing to his

wife. "She came in just before World War I." (Rose--smiling gently: "I was two years old.")

"If there were no welfare state," he continued, "you could have open immigration,

because everybody would be responsible for himself." Was he suggesting that one can't

have immigration reform without welfare reform? "No, you can have immigration reform,

but you can't have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare.

"At the moment I oppose unlimited immigration. I think much of the opposition to

immigration is of that kind--because it's a fundamental tenet of the American view that

immigration is good, that there would be no United States if there had not been immigration.

Of course, there are many things that are easier now for immigrants than there used to be. .

. ."

Did he mean there was much less pressure to integrate now than there used to be?

Milton: "I'm not sure that's true . . ." Rose (speaking simultaneously): "That's the

unfortunate thing . . ." Milton: "But I don't think it's true . . ." Rose: "Oh, I think it is!

That's one of the problems, when immigrants come across and want to remain Mexican."

Milton: "Oh, but they came in the past and wanted to be Italian, and be Jewish . . ." Rose:

"No they didn't. The ones that did went back."

Mrs. Friedman, I was learning, often had the last word.

[ishmac]

Even WSJ icon Milton Friedman had reservations about immigration as now practiced. I guess he disliked brown people too.

[ishmac]

I know Friedman's views on immigration were nuanced, but would the WSJ editorial board dare imply that he was a closet racist?

[Jeff Head]

The key exchange, IMHO, in the whole interview is here:

(Interview) "Did he mean there was much less pressure to integrate now than there used to be?"

(Milton) "I'm not sure that's true . . ."

(Rose speaking simultaneously): "That's the unfortunate thing . . ."

(Milton) "But I don't think it's true . . ."

(Rose) "Oh, I think it is! That's one of the problems, when immigrants come across and want to remain Mexican."

(Milton) "Oh, but they came in the past and wanted to be Italian, and be Jewish . . ."

(Rose) "No they didn't. The ones that did went back."

Rose has a better handle on it than her husband or the one doing the interview and spoke directly and understandably.

[tflabo]

Is it too much to ask our Federal Govt. for legal, documented intelligent and responsible immigration policies? Enforce the borders and the laws already passed.
These DC clowns of ours instead come up with an 800+ plus page boondoggle of an (amnesty) immigration bill. Just like the tax code the Federal Govt. full of educated imbeciles and incompetents. We need to clean house in the sewage pit of DC. A mighty task my fellow Freepers but just like biblical Joshua and Caleb we can take them down if we believe we can.

[ishmac]

Rose has a better handle on it than her husband or the one doing the interview and spoke directly and understandably.

Hah!! Guess Rose is a closet racist too./sarcasm

[Redmen4ever]

At the time of this interview, Congressional Republicans were pressing for SSI to illegal immigrants. Later in the year, they were successful in getting President Clinton to sign off on welfare reform. Hence, the concern expressed by Milton Friedman was met. The man should be allowed to rest in peace. At least, he should be quoted correctly.

from http://www.ssa.gov/history/1990.html

August 22, 1996 President Clinton signed the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” This “welfare reform” legislation terminated SSI eligibility for most non-citizens. As of the date of enactment, no new non-citizens could be added to the benefit rolls and all existing non-citizen beneficiaries would eventually be removed from the rolls (unless they met one of the exceptions in the law.) Also effective upon enactment were provisions eliminating the “comparable severity standard” and reference to “maladaptive behavior” in the determination of disability for children to receive SSI. Children receiving benefits under the old standards were to be reviewed and removed from the rolls if they could not qualify under the new standards.

[AuntB]

Friedman had plenty of reservations about NAFTA as well. As he said it is NOT free trade, but managed trade.

[ishmac]

This immigration bill could be a catalyst for a '94 style "sunami," sort of like "HillaryCare." I know, it sounds grandiose, but the elites aren't backing off. They seem to be turning up the heat. If they do, their "action" will likely meet an equal and opposite "reaction." They didn't count on this.

BTW, for all haven't read it yet, the post IMMIGRATION AND USURPATION by Fredo Arias-King is a must read. Author is a Mexican with pro-US sympathies who seems to know the Federalist Papers better than most Americans. Certainly better than our elites. He points out what is really motivating the immigration bill. Anyway, I'm recommending it to everyone. A long post, but great reading for the weekend.

[onyx eyes]

Is it too much to ask our Federal Govt. for legal, documented intelligent and responsible immigration policies? Enforce the borders and the laws already passed. These DC clowns of ours instead come up with an 800+ plus page boondoggle of an (amnesty) immigration bill. Just like the tax code the Federal Govt. full of educated imbeciles and incompetents. We need to clean house in the sewage pit of DC. A mighty task my fellow Freepers but just like biblical Joshua and Caleb we can take them down if we believe we can.

Yeah. ! You said it exactly right.

[Tribune7]

Another key eschange one:

Mr. Friedman here shifted focus. "What's really killed the Republican Party isn't spending, it's Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression." Mrs. Friedman--listening to her husband with an ear cocked--was now muttering darkly.

Milton: "Huh? What?" Rose: "This was not aggression!" Milton (exasperatedly): "It was aggression. Of course it was!" Rose: "You count it as aggression if it's against the people, not against the monster who's ruling them. We don't agree. This is the first thing to come along in our lives, of the deep things, that we don't agree on. We have disagreed on little things, obviously--such as, I don't want to go out to dinner, he wants to go out--but big issues, this is the first one!" Milton: "But, having said that, once we went in to Iraq, it seems to me very important that we make a success of it." Rose: "And we will!"

[penowa]

"Is it too much to ask our Federal Govt. for legal, documented intelligent and responsible immigration policies?"

Yes. The sort of immigrant under those policies doesn't make for an easily manipulated permanent underclass who will suck the lifeblood out of America's middle class until we are all gov't serfs.

[Vision Thing]

Thanks ismac. It’s a stunning article. It somewhat confirms my suspicions that this immigration issue will lead not just to civil strife here in the US, but it may just lead to Civil War 2.

[ishmac]

At the time of this interview, Congressional Republicans were pressing for SSI to illegal immigrants.

Your link references Clinton's welfare reform from the 90's, doesn't it? But the interview took place long after this. Note that Milton and Rose are talking about the Iraq war, so it's certainly later than March, 2003. Apparently Friedman still had reservations about welfare and unlimited immigration long after welfare reform had passed. (The article refers to Friedman's being 94 years old. He was born in 1912. That implies that the interview took place in 2006, the same year as the publication of the article.)

I'm not saying Friedman was opposed to immigration as such. I have pretty much the same view Friedman expresses in the article. I would be pretty much for open borders if it weren't for the welfare state and the security concerns prompted by 9/11.

My point in posting this is that many who are now being tarred with the "racism" charge by their president and some conservatives have nearly the same views as Friedman. Why are we being demonized?

[VOA]

bump

[ishmac]

...it may just lead to Civil War 2.

Oi, I hope not. To think of L.A. or Phoenix turing into Beruit is a scary prospect. If conservatives get mobilized we don't need any drastic action (other than to vote the bums out).

[mek1959]

I believe you’re right on this point.

[Age of Reason]

Mr. Friedman replied. "But it's good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration.

Let's remove our front doors and let anyone in our house whenever they feel like it, because it's good for freedom, too.

[Age of Reason]

it's a fundamental tenet of the American view that immigration is good

I wonder what Native Americans think about that.

[Age of Reason]

Enough immigration.

Our quality of life is going downhill fast from overpopulation.

[sportutegrl]

What gets me so mad is that the Democrats want to have it both ways: They want open borders, and to give away the farm. I could stomach some of this immigration, if so many Democrat-controlled cities didn’t declare themselves sanctuary cities and make it illegal to ask for proof of citizenship when getting welfare, medical care or registering to vote. We can’t even deport the criminals. The illegal immigrant has a right to privacy that trumps taxpayer rights.