Some thoughts: open the borders

Immigration is good - and countries, particularly rich ones, should fully embrace it.

Art on the US-Mexico border wall. From Guillermo Arias (AFP/Getty Images)

Economist Alex Tabarrok calls it “the World’s Best Anti-Poverty Program". Economist Eli Dourado calls its opponents “the new aristocracy”. Economist Michael Clemens says it “makes economic sense”. The Economist claims it will make the word 78 trillion dollars richer - nearly ten thousand dollars per person. Economist Bryan Caplan likes it so much he wrote a whole book about it, as did economist Lant Pritchett. Open borders is a popular idea with one set, at least: economists, especially libertarian economists.

Let’s start from the beginning. Immigration is good (I’ve said so). It’s so good there should be more of it. Should there be unlimited amounts of it? Probably.

The economic case starts with a figure: 9750 dollars. That’s how much closed borders are costing the average person in the globe. If a Mexican moves to the US, they expect to make 50% more than they did in Mexico; if a Nigerian does, their income increases tenfold. When the US closed its doors to immigrants, its economy suffered. Countries that opened them flourished. Immigrants won’t take your job, and they won’t lower your wages. Immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than natives. Immigrants are also more socially conservative and economically liberal than natives - a boon for right of center parties, who frequently denounce migration.

In addition, convergence, the process by which rich and poor countries catch up (roughly speaking) was really fast the last time we had massive migrations between countries: in this case, Europe and a few “offshoot” nations like the US, Canada, Australia, and… Argentina. The early 20th century wasn’t a time of depressed wages or of widespread poverty, but rather the opposite, until World War One led to previously unprecedented restrictions in the freedom of movement.

And for the home countries, what about them? They will receive remittances of large magnitudes, plus wealthy tourists who visit often. In 2004, remittances to Mexico matched the amount of all foreign investment in Mexixo. Brain drain, besides from being just not a good enough argument, is also not even a real problem. Immigrants are less likely to use welfare than natives. Immigrants are inventors and entrepreneurs. Countries that are wealthy attract people who want to share in and contribute - to grow and flourish instead of scrape by.

Furthermore, the number of immigrants might not even be that high under an open borders regime, especially when dispersed across the developed world: of the 11 million Greeks in Greece, only 150,000 (or 0.15%) ever left for any other European nation. Israel’s borders are basically open to 24 million Jews, and yet only six million (a quarter) have ever lived there. A majority, in fact, reside in the United States, and about three million more live in other developed nations.

Imagine a person who is starving to death during a famine. In the next village over, there is a big pile of food that anyone can take - for free. On his way to ask for some of it, a guard points a gun at them and orders them to leave. The person starves to death. Is the guard guilty for it? Philosopher Michael Huemer answers yes. Global poverty is appalling, and immigration is an excellent tool in reducing it. The United States and other developed nations are harming themselves just to harm people who live across an imaginary land on the ground even more. Not only that, the history of immigration restrictionism is and has been plagued by extreme, profound racism, in the United States and Europe. The benefits of immigration to immigrants are so large that many of them go to nations in the Persian Gulf, even though they are well aware that Gulf nations all but enslave migrants to their territory.

People who are born on wealthy nations make multiple times what everyone else does by getting really lucky with where they’re born. Just like people online deride and mock NIMBYs, anti housing voices who are frequently wealthy homeowners, immigration restrictionists are also naked rent seekers. Productivity and income depend more on location than anything a government could ever do; not sharing that with anyone else is a grievous act of selfishness. Lack of global mobility is so unfair it’s frequently compared to apartheid or feudalism. Rich nations built their wealth off their long and proud history of carbon dioxide emissions; it’s more than fair than the poor nations who will bear the brunt of them are able to share in.

Now, a disclaimer. I am someone who lives in a poor country (or, uh, middle income?) and who wants to move elsewhere. But my home country, Argentina, has virtually open borders, since migrating here is a constitutional right. Immigration isn’t a political issue that’s frequently discussed, so even if immigration restrictions are somewhat popular, they’d never get implemented. In 2017, 600 Venezuelans moved to Argentina every week, and the country has taken in roughly 15,000 people (out of 1.5 million). The main reason more people don’t come is, simply speaking, that it’s not such a good country to move to. Back in the golden years, it received as many Europeans as the United States.

Allowing extremely disparate standards of living to billions upon billions of people simply for their place of birth is an enormous injustice. Allowing anyone the freedom to make a better life for themselves is urgent - especially when their hosts would only gain, not lose, from that decision. A world of fortresses, walls, and barbed wire isn’t a better world - not for anyone on either side.