20M a year is 100M (+30%) population increase in 5 years. Even though current immigrants (less than 1M a year) can vastly increase their income, what makes you think the US could successfully absorb 20x as many? And by 'successfully' I don't just mean they can find employment, but also fit in and assimilate without massive social unrest.
I agree. That's exactly why, rather than throw borders wide open, it makes more sense to start with a small quota that increases every year that it can be met until that balance is found. Maybe not even needing a job offer (that can be abused by employers as in H1B) but certain conditions - language and cultural knowledge, proficiency in a trade
Open border can only work in a country where everyone is responsible for himself when it comes to healthcare, education, welfare, pension etc...in the very moment you deviate from this principle you are ethically and politically in trouble (this is true in general not only for immigrants). this is why in most of the western countries people are resenting excessive and uncontrolled immigration. there is a free riding problem to some extent.
I fully support legal, well screened and controlled immigration. Especially for the world’s best and brightest. Seems like a real win/win.
Open borders is an entirely different story.
It is problematic in any country with free health care, as millions could come in without adequately contributing to the funding. This applies to places like the US, where emergency rooms don’t refuse service.
It is similarly questionable in any country where people are given extensive public aid. To escape poverty, the global poor would only have to get to a developed country (and progressives would help them do so).
It is a problem in any country with affirmative action in hiring and college admissions, as some foreigners would unfairly get to cut in line over native born “advantaged” citizens. This would be socially divisive, to say the least.
It could also be a problem between any two countries or populations with vast differences in intelligence, education, criminality, religion or culture. Open borders between Japan and Botswana would probably be a disaster. Between Israel and “Palestine” even more so.
The reasonable and utilitarian position on immigration is to screen the best candidates, while also carving out duties and obligations to pay higher taxes, obey all laws, self insure, stay off welfare, and so on. Of course, one half of the political map in the US would never agree to these terms. Thus the default (and clearly suboptimal) position is little or no immigration.
One of the 'dangers' of closed borders is that immigrants will turn up anyway claiming to be refugees. Some might genuinely be refugees, many will not, but sorting them out is an expensive and lengthy process. Moreover, refugees aren't allowed to work until their status is confirmed, and the government is obliged to house and feed them at taxpayer expense until they are confirmed or repatriated. Better to spend the money on a quick efficient process that allows immigrants to enter on a work visa, meaning they *have* to work (and contribute taxes and soc. sec. meaning net gain for the public purse).
Switzerland is a great example. All residents (citizens or not) have to pay for health insurance. Work visas are temporary (albeit easily renewable) and can be revoked for criminal behavior. There are no unemployment benefits until one has been working for many months (and benefits are limited pro-rated to length /amount of contributions). Immigration is less tham 1% of population per year (which is still quite a lot once you consider cumulative effects and 2nd generation over a few decades). US equivalent would be 3M /year.
There is a path to citizenship that is, rightly, long and challenging, requiring real community integration (in some localities the local citizens get to vote on whether to accept applicants). Citizenship comes with obligations eg military or social service, not just voting privileges, so many immigrants and their descendants, even born there, don't take up citizenship (there is no birthright citizenship).
Result is that almost all immigrants work and contribute, a large percentage of population (>25%) are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and the economy flourishes while the country mostly keeps its character.
It is equally necessary to give no political rights to the immigrants. They come for work and they work. They do not vote, they do not have permanent residency. They follow strict laws, One infringement and they go back.
Bryan, with complete respect, please take the time to actually answer the pushback from your own audience. If you can’t even convince your own fan club, perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions.
Might lead to short term labor disruption? Why are you helping the anti open borders crowd, by how much? Might means it might not, I don’t why you even need to say that!
What truth? It might lead to short term labor disruptions? Might?He is a big shot economist, tell us will it or will it not or not say anything at all, immigration doesn’t lower wages, hasn’t so it won’t with open borders.
If you characterize a possibility or even a likelihood as a certainty, then you are misrepresenting the truth.
Open borders is an extremely dangerous idea. I support someone trying it somewhere just to be sure, but I hope they are a long way from me when they do so.
Those are interesting numbers, which by your own estimation is approx 6% of the US population a year. But that’s based on extrapolation of a current reality that has constraints. I’m not sure how well anyone could model a situation where there are ZERO constraints….”open borders”….”just come….there is no application”.
Also, you’ve assumed some friction in would-be immigrants who may choose not to come due to how such an open policy overall would potentially overwhelm the labor market in the short term….those would be the smart ones who I’d actually want to take. I’d submit that most would only think as far as “I get to go….so I’m gonna”….and would not consider the consequences to the host nation one iota.
With open borders and welfare the only question is whether they would be better off living on government assistance here or real destitution elsewhere. Add on that “progressive” organizations would promptly begin to fund transportation to (once) rich countries, and we would get an immediate and virtually unlimited supply of uneducated people brought up in low trust clan cultures.
There is no way that open borders and modern liberal institutions can possibly work together.
20M a year is 100M (+30%) population increase in 5 years. Even though current immigrants (less than 1M a year) can vastly increase their income, what makes you think the US could successfully absorb 20x as many? And by 'successfully' I don't just mean they can find employment, but also fit in and assimilate without massive social unrest.
But the process is self-adjusting. If the immigrants find no jobs, and assuming no welfare to immigrants, they would simply not come.
A job offer may be imposed as a condition to get a visa and visa held to the job,
I agree. That's exactly why, rather than throw borders wide open, it makes more sense to start with a small quota that increases every year that it can be met until that balance is found. Maybe not even needing a job offer (that can be abused by employers as in H1B) but certain conditions - language and cultural knowledge, proficiency in a trade
Open border can only work in a country where everyone is responsible for himself when it comes to healthcare, education, welfare, pension etc...in the very moment you deviate from this principle you are ethically and politically in trouble (this is true in general not only for immigrants). this is why in most of the western countries people are resenting excessive and uncontrolled immigration. there is a free riding problem to some extent.
I fully support legal, well screened and controlled immigration. Especially for the world’s best and brightest. Seems like a real win/win.
Open borders is an entirely different story.
It is problematic in any country with free health care, as millions could come in without adequately contributing to the funding. This applies to places like the US, where emergency rooms don’t refuse service.
It is similarly questionable in any country where people are given extensive public aid. To escape poverty, the global poor would only have to get to a developed country (and progressives would help them do so).
It is a problem in any country with affirmative action in hiring and college admissions, as some foreigners would unfairly get to cut in line over native born “advantaged” citizens. This would be socially divisive, to say the least.
It could also be a problem between any two countries or populations with vast differences in intelligence, education, criminality, religion or culture. Open borders between Japan and Botswana would probably be a disaster. Between Israel and “Palestine” even more so.
The reasonable and utilitarian position on immigration is to screen the best candidates, while also carving out duties and obligations to pay higher taxes, obey all laws, self insure, stay off welfare, and so on. Of course, one half of the political map in the US would never agree to these terms. Thus the default (and clearly suboptimal) position is little or no immigration.
One of the 'dangers' of closed borders is that immigrants will turn up anyway claiming to be refugees. Some might genuinely be refugees, many will not, but sorting them out is an expensive and lengthy process. Moreover, refugees aren't allowed to work until their status is confirmed, and the government is obliged to house and feed them at taxpayer expense until they are confirmed or repatriated. Better to spend the money on a quick efficient process that allows immigrants to enter on a work visa, meaning they *have* to work (and contribute taxes and soc. sec. meaning net gain for the public purse).
Switzerland is a great example. All residents (citizens or not) have to pay for health insurance. Work visas are temporary (albeit easily renewable) and can be revoked for criminal behavior. There are no unemployment benefits until one has been working for many months (and benefits are limited pro-rated to length /amount of contributions). Immigration is less tham 1% of population per year (which is still quite a lot once you consider cumulative effects and 2nd generation over a few decades). US equivalent would be 3M /year.
There is a path to citizenship that is, rightly, long and challenging, requiring real community integration (in some localities the local citizens get to vote on whether to accept applicants). Citizenship comes with obligations eg military or social service, not just voting privileges, so many immigrants and their descendants, even born there, don't take up citizenship (there is no birthright citizenship).
Result is that almost all immigrants work and contribute, a large percentage of population (>25%) are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, and the economy flourishes while the country mostly keeps its character.
It is equally necessary to give no political rights to the immigrants. They come for work and they work. They do not vote, they do not have permanent residency. They follow strict laws, One infringement and they go back.
Bryan, with complete respect, please take the time to actually answer the pushback from your own audience. If you can’t even convince your own fan club, perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions.
Might lead to short term labor disruption? Why are you helping the anti open borders crowd, by how much? Might means it might not, I don’t why you even need to say that!
Because of the value of truth and honesty?
What truth? It might lead to short term labor disruptions? Might?He is a big shot economist, tell us will it or will it not or not say anything at all, immigration doesn’t lower wages, hasn’t so it won’t with open borders.
If you characterize a possibility or even a likelihood as a certainty, then you are misrepresenting the truth.
Open borders is an extremely dangerous idea. I support someone trying it somewhere just to be sure, but I hope they are a long way from me when they do so.
Those are interesting numbers, which by your own estimation is approx 6% of the US population a year. But that’s based on extrapolation of a current reality that has constraints. I’m not sure how well anyone could model a situation where there are ZERO constraints….”open borders”….”just come….there is no application”.
Also, you’ve assumed some friction in would-be immigrants who may choose not to come due to how such an open policy overall would potentially overwhelm the labor market in the short term….those would be the smart ones who I’d actually want to take. I’d submit that most would only think as far as “I get to go….so I’m gonna”….and would not consider the consequences to the host nation one iota.
With open borders and welfare the only question is whether they would be better off living on government assistance here or real destitution elsewhere. Add on that “progressive” organizations would promptly begin to fund transportation to (once) rich countries, and we would get an immediate and virtually unlimited supply of uneducated people brought up in low trust clan cultures.
There is no way that open borders and modern liberal institutions can possibly work together.