A (perhaps crude) argument against open borders is "import the third world, get the third world." If one treats the argument seriously and considers examples of countries that have experienced reductions in economic development and reductions in civil and women's rights in conjunction with migration that is large relative to the prior population (i.e. migration changes the demographics substantially), what is the best counterargument? What prevents a regression to mean development levels if immigration is unrestricted?
Part of that unconstrained immigration includes people that oppose the values of the nation itself. It is a liberal conundrum: how tolerant can we be of intolerant people, and still survive?
Immediate gains from more efficient allocation of labor are great, but what about lagged, second-order effects of diminishing the average level of human capital in a country? Do we get more demagogic politicians? Worse institutions? A fiscal crisis? This seems like an important thing to consider. We're already deficit spending 6% of GDP under peacetime full employment, and each new citizen below some high income percentile will increase that deficit if you hold military spending constant and scale up the other spending proportionally to population.
some restrictionists I know think massive unskilled immigration from neighboring countries contributed substantially to Argentina's fall from grace. It was ranked 7th in GDP per capita in 1913, followed by 50 years of absolute stagnation, and then another 50 years of much slower growth than the US, so that now the ratio of GDP per capita between Argentina and the US is more than twice what it was. Socialist policies are largely to blame.
I agree with the “moral” argument in that borders are entirely arbitrary. But then, why even have “countries” or “nations” at all? Why not just have “the human race” and allow freedom to go anywhere and settle anywhere anytime you please, for everyone on earth period?
For the empirical, there are more questions. There’s a housing crisis. Freely letting in an unlimited number of people when there are barely enough places to house the people already here, does not seem like a good idea. Also, the idea that it’s btw 2 people and doesn’t impact you is not true with a larger lens. Where is the infrastructure (roads, services, schools, hospitals) to cater to this unlimited flow of people? On an individual level, someone else’s employee-employer or renter-landlord relationship may not affect me, but at a society level it sure does. Also, this assumes that the incoming people don’t change the “fabric” of society and the resultant status quo. But that assumption also does not appear true, in many cases.
Another point: immigrants make use of idle infrastructure natives won't touch.
I'm a rustbelt inner city slumlord. Practically every walk-in business here is run by arab/south asians.
In the past 4yrs about 1/3 my tenants are now lat-ams who pay above avg timeliness and do their own repairs wo complaint.
People fleeing literal bombing ranges are happy to merely endure the occasional armed robbery and stray bullets in our most dysfunctional areas that locals are fleeing in droves. Immigrants are the only people even trying to stabilize and rebuild, let them.
I agree with the argument about open borders. It makes sense economically. Politics is how we actually get things done. The problem with a single issue like immigration is that one has to vote among parties to implement. Who are the open borders people? Democrats. However, if one agrees to vote for Democrats, they have to accept all of the other issues they come with - lack of justice (or worse - social justice), heavy spending and regulation, an attack on markets.
Alternatively, one who votes for Republicans will not get open borders, but will get justice and likely more support for markets.
Living in a one issue world is great for academics, and they should continue to sway people to agree with them. However, real life is not the academy. The real question for Bryan is his version of the trade off between open borders + no justice + no markets or closed borders + justice + markets.
Bryan, how many years it took you to realise and acknowledge that woke was/is a threat? I wonder what else needs to happen for you to acknowledge uncontrolled immigration is a threat as well. Clearly the events after 10/7/23 weren't enough.
While your arguments for "more immigration" are likely correct purely economically in the medium term (subject to "no welfare state" limitation which is clearly not applied in any western country right now and is almost certainly not going to be applied), it's a long-term suicide akin letting lefties own education or giving in to Greens on climate change danger. Inviting Taliban (Bangladesh/Pakistan/Indonesia/Egypt/India etc. etc.) in - what can possibly go wrong in a country of <350mln.
A (perhaps crude) argument against open borders is "import the third world, get the third world." If one treats the argument seriously and considers examples of countries that have experienced reductions in economic development and reductions in civil and women's rights in conjunction with migration that is large relative to the prior population (i.e. migration changes the demographics substantially), what is the best counterargument? What prevents a regression to mean development levels if immigration is unrestricted?
Part of that unconstrained immigration includes people that oppose the values of the nation itself. It is a liberal conundrum: how tolerant can we be of intolerant people, and still survive?
We can have open borders or a generous welfare state. Choose one.
I sincerely hope Professor Caplan and others are not murdered in a pogrom organized by Muslim immigrants or their progeny.
Immediate gains from more efficient allocation of labor are great, but what about lagged, second-order effects of diminishing the average level of human capital in a country? Do we get more demagogic politicians? Worse institutions? A fiscal crisis? This seems like an important thing to consider. We're already deficit spending 6% of GDP under peacetime full employment, and each new citizen below some high income percentile will increase that deficit if you hold military spending constant and scale up the other spending proportionally to population.
some restrictionists I know think massive unskilled immigration from neighboring countries contributed substantially to Argentina's fall from grace. It was ranked 7th in GDP per capita in 1913, followed by 50 years of absolute stagnation, and then another 50 years of much slower growth than the US, so that now the ratio of GDP per capita between Argentina and the US is more than twice what it was. Socialist policies are largely to blame.
I agree with the “moral” argument in that borders are entirely arbitrary. But then, why even have “countries” or “nations” at all? Why not just have “the human race” and allow freedom to go anywhere and settle anywhere anytime you please, for everyone on earth period?
For the empirical, there are more questions. There’s a housing crisis. Freely letting in an unlimited number of people when there are barely enough places to house the people already here, does not seem like a good idea. Also, the idea that it’s btw 2 people and doesn’t impact you is not true with a larger lens. Where is the infrastructure (roads, services, schools, hospitals) to cater to this unlimited flow of people? On an individual level, someone else’s employee-employer or renter-landlord relationship may not affect me, but at a society level it sure does. Also, this assumes that the incoming people don’t change the “fabric” of society and the resultant status quo. But that assumption also does not appear true, in many cases.
Another point: immigrants make use of idle infrastructure natives won't touch.
I'm a rustbelt inner city slumlord. Practically every walk-in business here is run by arab/south asians.
In the past 4yrs about 1/3 my tenants are now lat-ams who pay above avg timeliness and do their own repairs wo complaint.
People fleeing literal bombing ranges are happy to merely endure the occasional armed robbery and stray bullets in our most dysfunctional areas that locals are fleeing in droves. Immigrants are the only people even trying to stabilize and rebuild, let them.
I agree with the argument about open borders. It makes sense economically. Politics is how we actually get things done. The problem with a single issue like immigration is that one has to vote among parties to implement. Who are the open borders people? Democrats. However, if one agrees to vote for Democrats, they have to accept all of the other issues they come with - lack of justice (or worse - social justice), heavy spending and regulation, an attack on markets.
Alternatively, one who votes for Republicans will not get open borders, but will get justice and likely more support for markets.
Living in a one issue world is great for academics, and they should continue to sway people to agree with them. However, real life is not the academy. The real question for Bryan is his version of the trade off between open borders + no justice + no markets or closed borders + justice + markets.
Idiot ideas are often fodder for wagon-riding intelligentsia.
"could easily work their way out of poverty if they were here"
Easily for US, maybe. For them, NOT QUITE easily ...
Bryan, how many years it took you to realise and acknowledge that woke was/is a threat? I wonder what else needs to happen for you to acknowledge uncontrolled immigration is a threat as well. Clearly the events after 10/7/23 weren't enough.
While your arguments for "more immigration" are likely correct purely economically in the medium term (subject to "no welfare state" limitation which is clearly not applied in any western country right now and is almost certainly not going to be applied), it's a long-term suicide akin letting lefties own education or giving in to Greens on climate change danger. Inviting Taliban (Bangladesh/Pakistan/Indonesia/Egypt/India etc. etc.) in - what can possibly go wrong in a country of <350mln.