What a big pyle of crap. Bryan Caplan has cherry picked data, and ignored several of the most Damning objections to open borders. He is a liar and a fraud.
Maia, agreed on all points. The overwhelming balance of evidence is in favor of immigration and likely more immigration, than the US currently has.
For those of us who might like a UBI or NIT-system, however, it makes me wonder if some degree of control is optimal. This could be wrong, but in the past I have mused that an immigration "tariff" might be the best way to go. Essentially, we would open the border (subject to background and health checks) to anyone would wanted to immigrate, but charge a fee to do so.
My personal twist on the idea is that the fee should be scaled with age. Younger immigrants would be essentially free up to 21-25 years of age. This works because presumably this group has their entire tax-paying and working age ahead of them, and they cost little for the state to provide healthcare/pensions for.
The fee grows as the immigrant ages, with the goal of roughly approximating the lost tax revenue that person would have paid has they lived their lives domestically. This seems, to me, to strike a solid balance between totally open borders and burdensome bureaucratic restriction. It would also essentially annihilate the "black market" of illegal immigration.
What a big pyle of crap. Bryan Caplan has cherry picked data, and ignored several of the most Damning objections to open borders. He is a liar and a fraud.
Clear, concise, constructive! Thanks!
Maia, agreed on all points. The overwhelming balance of evidence is in favor of immigration and likely more immigration, than the US currently has.
For those of us who might like a UBI or NIT-system, however, it makes me wonder if some degree of control is optimal. This could be wrong, but in the past I have mused that an immigration "tariff" might be the best way to go. Essentially, we would open the border (subject to background and health checks) to anyone would wanted to immigrate, but charge a fee to do so.
My personal twist on the idea is that the fee should be scaled with age. Younger immigrants would be essentially free up to 21-25 years of age. This works because presumably this group has their entire tax-paying and working age ahead of them, and they cost little for the state to provide healthcare/pensions for.
The fee grows as the immigrant ages, with the goal of roughly approximating the lost tax revenue that person would have paid has they lived their lives domestically. This seems, to me, to strike a solid balance between totally open borders and burdensome bureaucratic restriction. It would also essentially annihilate the "black market" of illegal immigration.
My discussion on this idea here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/toward-an-optimal-immigration-system
So Clownworld and Pillvain were wrong ?