An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

Introduction My thanks to PRO. I will summarize here the key points that I have made to support my case that open borders would have a positive effect, and devote equal time to ensure that voters understand not only the flaws in PRO’s case in general, but a fundamental flaw in his reliance on GDP per capita. Of the several measures of “the economy” PRO chose to allow in the debate parameters, one would expect more command of the subject from one who chooses to depend so heavily on this parameter to semantically show that a dilution of GDP per capita can, for the purposes of this debate, be construed as a negative effect on “the economy”. I will not belabor this point of this and PRO’s other arguments’ failings, but merely provide voters with the information they will need to review the arguments made in the previous rounds to determine those with which they would like to be associated. PRO’s Argument (Open borders have a negative effect on the economy) Round 1: Clarifications etc. Round 2: In a nutshell, PRO declared that it was a ‘no brainer’ that 2.4 billion people living on under $2 a day would be winging their way immediately to the US, and his first paragraph already began to cite the US GDP per capita rate that will be his Waterloo. I countered this assumption that everybody would be able to suspend their daily search for food and water to concentrate instead on intercontinental travel arrangements by pointing out that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans place a formidable barrier to entry to assuage the fears of those who cower under a vision of their country being overrun. PRO also introduced another recurring theme and a natural progression for anyone with misinformed fears of immigrants, namely crime. No link to immigration and crime was provided here, just a hope that bringing it up in this context would create a causal linkage. The first of many poorly sourced pieces of biased information was provided here, namely the claim that immigration reduced the average annual earnings of natives by $1,700 per year, a claim I was able to flatly refute with a non-partisan study that in fact showed the opposite effect. Round 3: This round was noteworthy mostly for: PRO countering the logistical difficulties of transoceanic travel for those earning $2 a day by assuming that employers would pay relocation expenses for the destitute. PRO making this rather revealingly sweeping, unsupported generalization which goes a long way to explaining his focus on crime, namely “Of course not all immigrants are criminals, but a higher proportion of them have higher propensity towards dishonesty and violence as well as greater tendencies.” Well. Not to forget PRO’s “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” defense of the bandwagon logical fallacy. Round 4: PRO went all in on GDP growth per capita here, and this is where the wheels came off rather badly. The ‘Theoretical case’ is well worth another read, and PRO has even gone to the trouble of not only bolding but also italicizing diminishing returns on capital. For you to believe PRO’s case, you must believe this section, and see if you can follow along with the case made by capital project #1 and #2. But the problem for PRO is that he doesn’t understand the economic terms he’s using, and fails to recognize that an increasing labor force being applied to the same level of capital only results in lowered GDP per capita on one very important condition: that the level of capital remains constant. The key study that I cited showing how immigration positively impacts the economy shows that capital follows the means to put it to use. Removing restrictive labor policies removes barriers to production, causing capital to seek out its best outcome. Capital expands. PRO’s argument therefore falls apart. Not to mention that the graph showing GDP growth per capita and the claim that ‘one can clearly see GDP falling’ is not sourced properly in either of the references provided “[2][3]”. I thought it might be footnote error, so I tried clicking on source [4] to see if that would reveal the graph, but that just returned a 404 error. Round 5: PRO is right that I had to post my fourth round argument without disputing any part of his, as I had to prepare and post it in parallel with his due to timing constraints I faced. My apologies for that. In addition to reiterating employer willingness to pay relocation expenses for destitute foreigners, PRO introduced new data related to Romanian and Bulgarian immigration to Sweden as being more representative than my reference to the UK due to immigration given that Sweden’s borders have been opened since 2007. If we are going to introduce new data in Round 5, I think it would be more helpful to cite data relevant to the debate topic, namely whether Romanian and Bulgarian immigration to Sweden had a positive or negative impact on the Swedish economy. Studies have found “these migrants too make a substantial positive net contribution, with the average contribution being 30,000 kronor per migrant”[1], with the Swedish researcher concluding “My findings clearly show that the fears that are currently expressed in other European countries of unrestricted immigration from Romania and Bulgaria imposing a heavy burden on the welfare state are unfounded”.[2] CON’s Argument (Open borders have a positive effect on the economy) Round 2: I would like to apologize for a formatting error that took away from the key point I was making in this round, so I will restate it here as a synopsis of the primary claim I made in support of the CON position, viz.: “average wages of natives benefit from immigration, even in the short run. These average gains are, in the short and long run, distributed as a small wage loss to the group of high school dropouts and wage gains for all the other groups of U.S. natives." The group suffering the biggest loss in wages is the contingent of previous immigrants, who compete with new immigrants for similar jobs and occupations. Finally, our model implies that it is hard to claim that immigration has been a significant determinant in the deterioration of the wage distribution of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004.” Round 3: The primary points I made here were: Closed borders inhibit free movement of labor and are an inherent drag on economic activity. US companies continue cite shortages of highly skilled workers and bureaucratic inefficiencies of visa application processes More restrictive migration laws introduced by Arizona have not benefitted the economy as PRO’s theories would suggest. I had to choose just one of the many charts in the study I cited due to debate limits, PRO appeared to take umbrage at the one I chose showing agricultural decline, citing this as actually a positive sign of Arizona further advancing away from an agrarian society. Really. Migrant labor shortages already costing just Georgia farmers up to $1bln annually And my most important point cited a study modeling a unilateral opening of borders, demonstrating a positive economic impact. Completely refuting PRO’s GDP per capita argument, this research cites the economic law that capital follows labor. “Where there are more people there are more workers, and where there are more workers, there is more investment and economic growth.” [3] Round 4: Here I showed how immigrants are economic assets, not liabilities, their disproportionate contribution to high value industry, and the crucial role they will play if the US economy is expected to continue its growth. Conclusion: In a debate discussing a hypothetical situation, I was the only one able to cite a credible source that modeled the likely outcome of a unilateral opening of borders in the US which stated “Freer labor movement is a win for almost everyone”. [3] I believe CON has comprehensively shown how an open border policy would positively affect the economy. Vote CON. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...