One of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century, John Rawls, asked readers to imagine a thought experiment known as the “veil of ignorance.” In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls argued that a just society should be designed as though none of us knew what position we would occupy within it. Before birth, we would not know whether we would be rich or poor, healthy or disabled, educated or uneducated, privileged or disadvantaged. Because we would not know where we would end up, we would be inclined to support institutions that protected those who were least fortunate.

Rawls developed this argument as a critique of pure utilitarianism. A society cannot be considered just merely because it maximizes aggregate wealth or happiness. If prosperity is concentrated among a minority while large numbers of people struggle, Rawls would argue that the arrangement remains morally questionable, regardless of how impressive the national statistics appear.

This framework raises an interesting question about immigration. If one were standing behind the veil of ignorance and choosing where to begin a new life, would the United States necessarily be the obvious choice?

For many people, particularly Americans, the answer seems self-evident. America remains the world’s largest economy. It offers relatively low taxes compared to Western Europe, deep capital markets, strong property rights, and enormous opportunities for entrepreneurship. Yet a Rawlsian analysis suggests that the answer may not be so simple.

The Immigrant Lottery

Migration is often discussed through the lens of success stories. Americans celebrate immigrant entrepreneurs, technology founders, and business leaders who arrived with little and built fortunes. The stories of men such as Sergey Brin are presented as evidence of America’s exceptional openness and dynamism.

But these success stories are only one side of the ledger.

Behind the veil of ignorance, one cannot assume that he will become a billionaire entrepreneur. He must also consider the possibility that he will become an ordinary worker, a struggling small-business owner, or a middle-class professional whose life fails to unfold according to plan.

This is where the immigration debate becomes more complicated.

The United States offers extraordinary rewards to those who succeed. However, it also places a greater burden on individuals who fail. Health care is expensive. Higher education can involve substantial debt. Family support networks are often fragmented. Geographic mobility frequently separates immigrants from parents, siblings, childhood friends, and cultural communities.

The immigrant contemplating America is therefore participating in a kind of lottery. The prize can be enormous, but the risks are substantial as well.

From a utilitarian perspective, this may be entirely acceptable. If enough people prosper, the system can be judged a success. From a Rawlsian perspective, however, one must ask a different question: What happens if I am not among the winners?

Why Europe Lost Interest

The changing pattern of immigration from Eastern Europe illustrates this dynamic.

During the 1990s, many people from countries such as Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary viewed America as a highly attractive destination. Their countries were emerging from communist rule. Wages were low. Economic opportunities were limited. The gap between local living standards and American incomes was enormous.

For many of these migrants, the risks were worth taking.

Today, the situation is very different.

Most of these countries are integrated into the European Union. Their economies have grown substantially. Infrastructure has improved. Educational opportunities have expanded. Citizens enjoy freedom of movement across much of Europe. A Czech engineer, a Slovak accountant, or a Polish software developer can often build a comfortable life without crossing an ocean.

As a result, fewer Europeans view America as the obvious destination it once appeared to be.

This does not mean they dislike America. Rather, the calculation has changed. The potential gains are smaller while the social costs remain significant.

Moving to another continent means leaving behind family, language, cultural familiarity, and established social networks. For someone already enjoying a decent quality of life, the prospect of earning somewhat more money may not justify those sacrifices.

The King Midas Problem

This reflects what might be called the King Midas problem.

In Greek mythology, King Midas received the power to turn everything he touched into gold. At first, this seemed like a blessing. Eventually, however, he discovered that wealth alone could not satisfy human needs. Food became gold. Relationships became impossible. What initially appeared to be prosperity became a curse.

Modern immigration can sometimes follow a similar pattern.

An immigrant may increase his income dramatically while simultaneously losing access to many of the non-monetary goods that make life meaningful. He may live farther from family. He may work longer hours. He may struggle to maintain friendships. He may postpone marriage or child-rearing. He may find himself financially richer but socially poorer.

This does not mean migration is a mistake. For many people it remains entirely rational. But it does mean that income alone cannot serve as the sole measure of success.

Rawls understood that human flourishing involves more than aggregate economic output. The quality of institutions must be evaluated according to how they affect actual lives, not merely statistical averages.

Two Americas

This helps explain why contemporary immigration increasingly appears concentrated at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.

At one end are highly skilled professionals. Engineers, physicians, researchers, entrepreneurs, and specialists often have strong reasons to relocate to the United States. America’s economy rewards exceptional talent more generously than most countries. For these individuals, the upside can be enormous.

At the other end are people facing severe economic hardship. For someone escaping extreme poverty, political instability, or limited opportunity, even a difficult life in America may represent a substantial improvement.

The middle, however, is less certain.

A middle-class family from Mexico, Argentina, Chile, the Czech Republic, or Hungary may compare America not with poverty but with an already acceptable standard of living. They may ask whether higher wages are worth longer working hours, greater inequality, higher medical costs, and distance from family.

Increasingly, many conclude that the answer is no.

For Spanish-speaking migrants in particular, countries such as Spain often appear attractive because they offer linguistic familiarity, universal health care, extensive public transportation, and social welfare systems that reduce certain risks associated with starting over.

The trade-off is lower income potential. Yet many people willingly accept that trade-off because they value stability as much as upward mobility.

Looking Beyond the Success Stories

The American immigration debate often focuses on exceptional outcomes. Politicians celebrate immigrant success stories, while critics focus on failures. Both perspectives can obscure the larger reality.

Most immigrants are neither billionaires nor cautionary tales. They are ordinary people attempting to improve their lives under conditions of uncertainty.

The veil of ignorance reminds us to evaluate systems not according to the experiences of the exceptional few but according to the probable experience of the average participant.

Would a rational person choose a society if he did not know whether he would be rich or poor? Would he cross an ocean if he did not know whether he would become a millionaire or a struggling worker?

These are the questions Rawls encourages us to ask.

The answers help explain why immigration patterns have changed. As living standards rise across much of the world, fewer people are willing to gamble everything on the possibility of striking gold. They are increasingly interested not merely in maximizing income, but in maximizing the overall quality of life.

And that may be the most important lesson of all: prosperity is not measured solely by what appears on a paycheck. A society must also be judged by what happens to those who never become success stories.