You might expect that I, as an immigrant and as an economist who favors the free movement of labor, would find the idea of open borders to be an obviously good policy. If you also learned that in 1977, the Immigration and Naturalization Service tried to deport me, you might think that I would also be emotionally, and not just intellectually, in favor of open borders. At times I have been.
At other times, though, my enthusiasm for open borders has flagged. When I didn’t know a lot about the facts, I worried that a large number of immigrants would come here for welfare or would, once they became citizens, vote for an even larger amount of government interference than we currently have. I didn’t worry about crime because I knew that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than non-immigrant Americans. The work of my co-blogger Bryan Caplan and others persuaded me that my fears were largely unjustified. In fact, my new learning motivated me to write a Defining Ideas article titled “The Case for More Immigration.” Now Caplan’s latest book, Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, has reduced those fears even more. Caplan considers virtually every argument against open borders and demolishes each with a figurative Howitzer. I do, however, have two criticisms of his book—one of substance, and one of tone in a particular footnote.
This is from David R. Henderson, “A Graphic Case for Open Borders,” Defining Ideas, November 13, 2019.
READER COMMENTS
Duncan E
Nov 15 2019 at 1:09am
“Among the policies he proposes are charging immigrants “higher taxes, an admission fee, or both” and then using the proceeds to cut taxes for U.S. natives or provide better services or both.”
The issue there is the government would take the extra tax revenue and spend it something that doesn’t help the people effected by the “increased immigration from Mexico had reduced the wages of native U.S. dropouts by 4.8 percent.”
So your one substantive criticism is quite a big one.
Matthias Goergens
Nov 15 2019 at 6:53am
I’m not sure that ‘Policy A is bad, because a different policy B is bad.’ is a fruitful argument?
Duncan E
Nov 17 2019 at 11:03pm
Policy A is more immigration. It seems to be bad because it hurts certain native workers.
Policy B is tax immigrants to offset this. My point was that if the government actually did this the money wouldn’t make it back to the effected native workers.
But its worse, because its not clear to me how you would use the tax revenue to help the effected workers. Reducing tax rates doesn’t typically help low income workers and “providing betters services” is a bit vague.
mike
Nov 15 2019 at 11:13am
if you call charging $50k per admission (and also perhaps higher tax rates..so say maybe an additional 10% on average 50-100k salary, so 5-10k more per year in revenue, so a net $100-150k in “fees / taxes” in first decade”) open borders, then I am all for it, and in fact think most conservatives would be for it, but no way most liberals would be for it, and there is no way that can actually be called “open borders” can it?
Do many other people here consider that to be open borders? I ask sincerely, because if that is, I totally support that plan. Because the reality is the only way that plan would happen is then for college educated and somewhat well to do immigrants would come here…(either through direct savings, or through employers paying a fee / bonus for the $50k etc). Immigrants doing “jobs americans won’t do” can by no means actually afford the $50k.. nor would their employers pay them that. I am baffled by this, and pretty much wrote caplan’s non-worry about open borders as ridiculous, but if he would be down for the $50k fee (is he btw? i think that is your figure David correct?) then i support the plan / idea of “open borders”
Dylan
Nov 16 2019 at 8:37am
Mike,
I think charging a fee for entry would broadly fall into the not best, but better than the status quo options that would lead to significantly more open borders than we have right now.
As for the type of immigration that would encourage, I think it would definitely skew it younger and more educated, but given those numbers it would probably make sense for less educated young migrants to move as well. A quick NPV shows that if you can make ~$15 an hour over a 30 year period, assuming a 10% discount rate, that you’d still be well into positive NPV territory, which should lead to some financing options for people that would not be able to afford the upfront cost.
mike
Nov 16 2019 at 8:43am
Dylan, I appreciate your response. On the NPV side and needing only $15 per hour, the question is who would pay the $50k. I would assume the policy would require $50k up front, so either from a) the immigrants savings, b) the employer or c) from a loan from a bank or similar financial group.
I don’t think any of those three is likely . Ultimately the $50k fee would get us close to canada or Australia’s immigration policy which basically wants english speaking people with bachelors degree, work history, and under 35 or 40 (i think australia is a little less picky on age). I think that is the immigration policy we want, so yes a lot of immigration, but skewed skilled. The entry fee would be even better since we get the same skill levels AND funds we can use in a multitude of ways, which I guess I was shocked anyone would consider that as part of “open borders”. Really didn’t intend to read caplan’s book, but maybe I will now.
Thomas Sewell
Nov 16 2019 at 7:33pm
I’m betting that by “financing options” he means a loan from a financial group.
Another alternative would be something like a perpetual emigration fund where someone starts the process with seed money and then each immigrant is expected to pay back to the fund later, thus funding another round of individuals.
Robert EV
Nov 16 2019 at 3:05pm
My question is: What would such an entry tax do to the proportion of businesses started by these immigrants, and consequently the numbers of persons hired by these businesses, and their wages?
I could see such a scheme ultimately being a net detriment to both the immigrants and the US natives (who do not own businesses, or have the capital to start them), depending on the tax amount.
Thaomas
Nov 15 2019 at 11:49am
I wish very much that Caplan had written, “More: The Science and Ethics of Immigration” for which his book makes a compelling case. “Open Borders” does not make a compelling case for open borders.
Thaomas
Nov 15 2019 at 7:35pm
I would not call a stiff admission fee “open borders.” We already have that for “investors.” I don’t see any reason to want to restrict many of the the immigrants who could pay the fee. We’ll presume that no fee would be charged to refugees and asylum seekers.
IronSig
Nov 29 2019 at 12:34am
I took the title in the same vein as “The Case Against Education,” even though I recommended (and got my wish) for my graduating class’ motto: “Never let your schooling interfere with your education.”
Fred
Nov 15 2019 at 11:49am
Isn’t the argument about open borders moot? In fact, aren’t our borders pretty open? There are reportedly more than ten million border crossers. Surely, every Mexican who wants to come is already here. Chinatown is growing rapidly in NYC without the benefit of green cards. When the economy in Ireland was sluggish, Boston was full of Irish guys. We argue about legalities but ignore realities. It’s similar to drug laws; laws create black markets that have undesirable externalities.
Thaomas
Nov 16 2019 at 8:56am
I think with immigration reform (not open borders) we could get both more and better immigrants. If we has some minimum requirements for the relatively low skilled immigrants that we could allow to come, many would invest more in their human capital before coming. Surely you know that it is not easy for a student who can get admitted to a US college to stay and work permanently afterward.
David Seltzer
Nov 15 2019 at 3:44pm
From A Graphic Case For Open Borders,”Immigrants start businesses at a rate that is twice that of native-born Americans” I’m from a steel town in NW Indiana. The Jewish community was small but vibrant, welcoming and aiding former inmates of Nazi German concentration camps. Many of those immigrants were hired in steel mills and private businesses. Owners of apartment buildings housed families until they could pay reduced rents. In a short while several of the newly settled opened grocery stores, hardware stores and auto repair shops. The money to start these enterprises came from their savings, private loans from within the community and cosigners of bank loans. I remember my father cosigning a loan only to have the counterparty’s business fail. That person took a job in a steel mill and repaid the debt in full. My story is one data point but makes for me, a case for open borders.
Thaomas
Nov 16 2019 at 9:01am
No, your fairly typical experience with immigrants is a case for more immigrants, not for open borders. The fact that the level and pattern of restrictions on immigration is too high from most kinds of immigrants means that they should be lower, not zero.
David Seltzer
Nov 16 2019 at 1:14pm
Thaomas, I see your point. I don’t know if immigration law and border policy are separable. Immigration is determined by border policy along the US-Mexican border. Libertarian Consequentialism would ask if we are better off or worse off with open borders. Immigration policy would follow on. Cost benefit analysis, where the last dollar of benefit equaled the last dollar of cost, would be the best possible case for determining a policy for open borders. Thanks for your comment. I had to think about this for a while.
Thaomas
Nov 16 2019 at 3:40pm
I was referring to all the restrictions, HIB type visas, refugee/asylum seekers, educaton, etc. not just on the Southern border.
Charles Lumia
Nov 16 2019 at 12:11am
The labor market works on supply and demand like every other market. Importing people and exporting jobs has dramatically lowered wages for average folks.
In addition to that the flight of the best and brightest has caused tremendous pain to foreigners and their countries. Tens of millions of Mexico’s best and brightest fleeing their country is why cartels control large portions of it.
Open borders hurts everyone but the rich and powerful who push for it.
Mark Brady
Nov 17 2019 at 1:46am
David writes, “One big difference between immigration now and in the 19th century when the United States had something resembling open borders is that we have a very expensive welfare state. Even Milton Friedman, a strong advocate of economic freedom, stated, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” Caplan’s response to Friedman’s objection is one of the strongest parts of book. He admits that immigrants would be disproportionately low-income but points out that a large part of the federal government’s budget is for defense and it doesn’t cost more to defend a larger population in the United States than it costs to defend a smaller one. Taxing immigrants, therefore, lightens the fiscal burden for those of us who are already here.” (Emphasis added.)
Bryan Caplan assumes that defense (by which he means military expenditures that are not just for defense!) is a pure public good. But that is not the case. Military expenditures are largely rival and excludable. Military interventions in, say, the Middle East, preclude interventions elsewhere. And moreover government determines which interest groups receive the purported benefits, favoring some and not others, e.g., U.S. oil interests in the Middle East and not crony capitalists in other locations.
John Arthur
Nov 17 2019 at 5:50pm
David, great piece
The low crime of our immigrants is due to the fact that most of them are Hispanic and Asian, given fertility trends this does not seem to be a sustainable course of action.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6715a8.htm
Though if the flows will remain the same, then there is really nothing to fear at all
Comments are closed.