En un debate que tuvimos René, Kantor y yo sobre inmigración en la feria del libro de Liberacción surgió el tema de la incompatibilidad entre el Estado del Bienestar y la libertad de inmigración. Se arguye que la avalancha de inmigrantes con escasos medios haría quebrar el Estado del Bienestar, incapaz de hacer frente al pago de todas las prestaciones que hoy garantiza a los ciudadanos. Al margen de que esta quiebra podría verse como algo positivo o de que la incompatibilidad sería un buen argumento a favor de la abolición del Estado del Bienestar (incluso, como insiste Bryan Caplan, desde el punto de vista de quienes tienen ideas más "igualitaristas" o "rawlsianas"), hay una forma de compatibilizar el Estado del Bienestar con la libre inmigración: discriminar a los inmigrantes dejándoles fuera de la red de servicios públicos.
Lo más curioso es que muchos se rasgarán las vestiduras ante semejante propuesta cuando parcialmente ya está siendo implementada, desde hace años, en numerosos países occidentales. Copio un fragmento relevante de Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), commonly known as the Welfare Reform Act, which cut off immigrants’ access to federal public benefits. Legal immigrants (except refugees and those granted asylum) are barred from all federal means-tested public benefits for five years after entering the country and denied Supplemental Security Income (assistance for needy old and disabled people) and food stamps until they gain citizenship (...) Asylum seekers and temporary workers are denied access to nearly all social benefits (...)
In Britain, temporary migrants, non-EU labourers and those admitted on family reunification visas are not eligible for any social benefits, except housing assistance, for which eligibility varies locally. The Asylum and Immigration Act of 1999 barred immigrants seeking to remain permanently in Britain from noncontributory social programmes, such as income support, for five years. In order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain in Britain, foreigners must prove that they have sufficient income and adequate housing and that neither they nor any of their family have claimed benefits (...)
In France and Germany, temporary workers and asylum seekers are denied most social benefits. Australia limits immigrants’ access to social assistance, housing, healthcare and social security for the first two years. Canada severely restricts temporary worker’s access to most social benefits (...)
The British government barred East Europeans from the new EU member state from claiming social benefits for two years when it allowed them to come and work freely in Britain in 2004. Likewise, although New Zealanders are free to move to Australia, since 2001 they no longer have access to social benefits until they become permanent residents. (pp. 147–49)
Más sobre la libertad de inmigración y el Estado del Bienestar en un ensayo que Manuel Lora y yo hemos escrito para el Journal of Libertarian Studies y que está pendiente de publicación. El artículo es una defensa ética de las fronteras abiertas y tiene por objeto contestar las tesis anti-inmigración de Hoppe y Kinsella. Cuando salga ya avisaré.
