An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

As I have limited space to make my argument, I will have to resist the strong urge to once again point out all of PRO’s statements in his third round argument that ran the gamut from questionable, to flat-out wrong, to the almost comical. I will provide those voters so inclined to spend the fifteen minutes necessary to fact-check his claims with the following clues: check any statement where PRO informs you what I called him, what I think or where PRO states that I agree with his conclusion (save for ‘crime is bad’). And reread his passionate argument against the validity of the bandwagon logical fallacy, if nothing else than for the sheer entertainment of the “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” defense. Or as I think of it, the defense of ‘mob rule’. Thousands of politicians the world over couldn’t ALL be wrong about economic and immigration policy, could they? Question asked, question answered. PRO’s pleas to voters about conduct should be considered in light of PRO’s decision to post a link to the definition of the word ‘harmful’. I have dignified his disrespect with too much of my time already. Let me turn my attention to my case. This debate is about whether open borders would have a positive effect on the economy. Not whether some individuals in the US might face competition and be worse off as a result of open borders (high school dropouts WILL be worse off). As I mentioned earlier, those who will lose out are being displaced by workers willing to do more for less. At the end of the day, economic output is increasing. I urge voters to detect and reject any attempts by PRO to shift the goalposts to isolated harmful ‘economic effects’ of immigration such as wage inequality. That is NOT the subject of this debate. Theoretical Case for Open Borders Unfettered access to human resources is what powered the growth of America. Without labor, the steel produced in Pittsburgh does not become the transcontinental railroad or the bridges that span the rivers of the continent. Restrictions on labor movement affect economic output. This is intuitively obvious. It you have a lump of metal and adequate capital to pay the wages of workers to create widgets, you must have access to those workers to create a value-added product for you to sell. Any delay in finding the right workers affects your output. If there is a shortage of workers and you face higher wage demands, this may effect your decision on whether the costs of production are justified. You may elect to sit on your capital without adding to economic output. These problems are relieved by the ready and timely access to workers that open borders offer. Closed borders inhibit free movement of labor and are an inherent drag on economic activity. Open Borders Impact on Availability of Highly Skilled Labor Is access to human resources still critical to economic growth in a modern economy that is less dependent on labor-intensive industries due to technology? Bill Gates thinks so. “Demand for specialized technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill this gap.” [1] Anybody who has been through the existing limited immigration process for technical professionals knows all too well how time-consuming the labor certification process is for H1-B visas, adding up to six months to the time needed to fill a position.[2] This of course is unproductive time wasted by the employer following bureaucratic processes that is not contributing an economic output. As the economy continues to become more knowledge and innovation based, this kind of unnecessary drag on accessing qualified technicians places companies at a competitive disadvantage. High-tech product life cycles continue to shorten, placing time-to-market at the forefront of product development: adding six months to creation/manufacturing cycles is the difference between having a desirable product and watching your overseas competition enjoy that success. Many advocates of restrictions on labor movement assume that special visa programs such as H1-B are providing the US economy with the ability to cherry-pick the talent it needs. This is incorrect, and the data shows it. Applications for this year’s quota of 65,000 “H-1B” visas for such workers began on April 1st. In less than a week they were oversubscribed. [3] This indicates significant demand for skilled labor that is being denied by restrictive labor policies, negatively impacting economic output. Open borders would remedy this limitation immediately. Empirical Case for Open Immigration Ultimately, this debate is about whether you see these immigrants as a liability and a drag on the economy or a critical asset without whom economic growth is impossible. PRO correctly states that there are no countries without absolutely open borders, but there is compelling historical evidence to show that open borders create positive economic growth. And efforts to create artificial scarcities of labor have a negative impact on growth. Let’s look at some examples. It stands to reason, if you subscribe to PRO’s argument, that efforts to further restrict borders should have a demonstrably positive effect on the economy. The effect on Arizona’s economy relative to its neighbors since the passage of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) in 2007 indicates otherwise. The Cato institute cites a number of measures to show Arizona lagging New Mexico and California at an accelerating rate since the introduction of LAWA, including changes to agricultural employment in these states. [4] Even states without international borders feel the pinch of restrictive federal immigration policies. In Georgia, 56% of farmers say they are having trouble finding farm workers. The Georgia Agribusiness Council says that migrant labor shortages could cost state farmers between $300 million to $1 billion. [5] To give an indication of the type of drag closed borders are on the world economy as a whole, studies have shown that “Fully open borders would double world GDP in a few decades, virtually eliminating global poverty”. [6] I provide this as compelling evidence to underscore the theoretical benefits of removing labor movement restrictions, but I know this debate is about the US unilaterally opening its borders, so its benefit to my case is limited to illustration. Luckily for me though, there is research on available on the effects of open borders on a more localized basis by the US. A University of Iowa economist has developed models based on free labor movement in North America. As I mentioned in an earlier round, a unilateral opening of borders by the US will result overwhelmingly in land-based migration from the south to the US, so the results from these models are probably the best we have available to decide the empirical case at hand. The results are an overwhelming endorsement of open borders. This independent economist found that open labor borders would raise aggregate output by 10.5% within 50 years.[7] The reason he found for this growth is that capital follows labor. Investment takes place where the workers are available to translate that investment into output. Which is the fundamental question this debate poses. Conclusion No matter where I turn, and no matter how I search, the data I come across consistently support the positive economic impact of free movement of labor that open borders would offer. Open borders would immediately remove the inherent cost which companies must bear trying to access scarce resources. Attempts to further restrict labor movement should improve economic output if you support PRO’s position. Arizona’s experience shows otherwise. I implore PRO to accept the inevitable and concede. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com...