Immigration policy must serve the nation, not just the economy
Immigration policy is about more than border security or economic growth. It also shapes citizenship, assimilation, national identity, wages, housing costs and the future of the American workforce. The central question is whether immigration policy should primarily expand the economy or serve the broader interests of the nation.
Immigration policy has been a recurring subject of debate throughout American history, and for the past decade, it has consistently ranked among voters’ top concerns. It has also become one of the most divisive issues within conservative policy circles. Some want to increase immigration levels as a way to bolster the workforce and grow the population, ultimately benefiting the broader economy. Others, such as Patrick J. Buchanan, warn that under an immigration policy focused solely on economics, “The commands of the market overrule the claims of citizenship, culture, and country.”
Immigration is not an issue that will disappear anytime soon, and Americans will continue to wrestle with fundamental questions about immigration and the policy implications. While there is broad agreement on the need for border security, disagreements emerge over the details. Debates over completing President Donald Trump’s border wall, for example, highlight these differences. Similarly, many policymakers support stronger border enforcement while also favoring relatively generous levels of legal immigration.
Beyond border security, immigration raises broader questions about citizenship, culture, heritage, national security, sovereignty, economic growth and the future composition of the American workforce. As a result, the debate extends well beyond illegal immigration to include legal immigration levels, assimilation and the proper balance between economic interests and the broader national interest. At its core, the debate centers on whether immigration policy should be guided primarily by economic considerations or by a broader set of concerns that shape the nation’s character, identity and long-term interests. America has wrestled with that question throughout its history, and it remains unresolved today.
One side of the policy debate argues that America needs relatively high levels of immigration to support population growth and economic expansion. From this perspective, efforts to limit immigration are often viewed as a form of nativism, while measures such as a border wall are seen as inconsistent with free-market principles. Robert Bartley, the late editor of The Wall Street Journal, famously advocated for a “five-word constitutional amendment, There Shall be Open Borders.” Former President George W. Bush expressed similar concerns when he stated in 2008, “I’m troubled by isolationism and protectionism … (and) another ‘ism,’ and that’s nativism…”
A different perspective holds immigration cannot be reduced to a workforce development issue. Concern should be given to how immigration affects existing American workers. It is worth noting that the United States is experiencing a transformational wave of mass immigration. “During Biden’s four years, the estimated number of immigrants in the United States, both legal and illegal, rose from 45 million to 53.3 million,” wrote Steven A. Camarota and Jason Richwine, both of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Camarota and Richwine note that the “increase was so rapid that the U.S. Census Bureau had trouble keeping up.” In 2024, “net migration hit 2.8 million, a number that is quite literally unprecedented: it is more than double the highest annual net migration figure recorded in U.S. history.”
This elevated level of immigration can have a direct impact on American workers by making jobs more competitive and lowering wages. It also increases the costs for essentials such as housing, argues Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Krikorian goes on to suggest that while immigration can increase the overall size of the economy, it may also undermine broader economic goals such as maintaining a strong middle class, promoting higher wages, increasing productivity, and preventing excessive income inequality.
Some advocates of a more open immigration policy assume that immigration primarily affects lower-skilled occupations or manual labor jobs. However, highly skilled, middle-class professions are also impacted. For example, the H-1B program is often used as a pathway to bring workers into information technology positions. From May 2024 to May 2025, the economy “gained 41,060 computer jobs,” yet the nation’s immigration policies allowed nearly 53,000 workers to enter the country for computer-related occupations. This is not encouraging news for Americans currently working in these fields, nor for recent college graduates who will be competing with 53,000 additional workers, some of whom may be willing to accept lower wages.
Immigration also has a direct impact on taxpayers. Nationally, illegal immigration is estimated to cost taxpayers $150 billion annually. Legal immigration also carries fiscal costs, as state and local governments are responsible for providing services such as education, health care, and various social assistance programs. In Iowa, an estimated 55% of noncitizens participate in at least one means-tested welfare or economic support program. According to one projection, illegal immigration alone costs Iowa taxpayers roughly $322 million annually.
Even as officials of both parties remain reluctant to formally codify any changes to immigration policy, it has not always been that way. President Calvin Coolidge signed the Immigration Act of 1924 into law, which “ushered in a four-decade-long Great Pause in mass immigration.” Lawmakers at that time favored placing limits on immigration, emphasizing assimilation, and valuing the good of the nation above the market.
From an economic perspective the 1924 Act resulted in significant wage increases for Americans. President Coolidge even credited “restrictive immigration,” a “tariff for protection,” and “economy of expenditure [limited government]” as policies that not only led to economic growth but also benefited the worker.
A prudent immigration policy must go beyond simply securing the border, though that would be a good place to start. Rather, our laws must protect American workers, encourage assimilation, and place the interests of the nation above the demands of the marketplace. The question is not whether America should have immigration, but whether immigration policy should serve to merely increase the number of workers in the economy, or whether it should serve the broader good of the American people.
John Hendrickson is policy director of Iowans for Tax Relief.
