An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

Motivations of the Unskilled Immigrant It takes a lot of courage to move country, especially for the unskilled. In addition to the financial costs of relocating which they must bear themselves, often through exploitative ‘sub-prime’ loan-sharking, there are the difficulties associated with assimilating into a foreign culture. Not being able to speak the language creates enormous hurdles that the immigrant must overcome. Raising a family without the support network of extended family adds to the pressures. It is no wonder that the host country tends to get the cream of the crop, those motivated enough to overcome all those challenges to improve their lot. These people are economic assets, not liabilities. The Mexicans and Guatemalans who risk their lives to come to America are not lazy, they are highly ambitious. The Romanians who make their way to Sweden are not couch potatoes. Motivated human resources are ready and willing to apply their human capital to the material resources and investment capital of the US that may otherwise lay fallow. The result is economic expansion. It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars per year policing borders to try to keep people out who the US should be trying to attract due to the positive economic contribution they will make. Impact on Immigration on Existing Economic Output Before deciding what effect open borders would have on US economic output, it’s important to remember what effect existing immigrants are having on the economy. I showed earlier evidence that there is a shortage of qualified technical resources, as demonstrated by the H1-B visa allowance for 2013 being oversubscribed within one week of the application process beginning. [1] Of the relatively measly few that do make it to this country, their impact is enormous. The US lets in only 225,000 foreigners with special skills each year, just 0.1% of the total labor force. [1] But the amount of start-ups they are responsible for creating far outweighs their representation in the workforce, demonstrating that their presence provides a disproportionate contribution to economic output. Some 40% of Fortune 500 companies have been started by immigrants or their children. But the US no longer offers the same unique set of conditions that made it a magnet for the best and brightest in the past. As their native economies and infrastructure has caught up with the US, why should a brilliant software engineer or biotech researcher take on all the risk, expense and uncertainty of uprooting to the US when they can expect success in India or China? Opening up borders would once again demonstrate to the world that the US is seeking to attract the best and brightest, and lays down a challenge to once again prove that you have what it takes to “make it” on a completely level playing field. Silicon Valley start-ups founded by immigrants has fallen from 52% to 44% since 2005. [2] For every job created in the high-tech sector, another 4.3 jobs emerge over time in the local economy. [1] So, knowing the profoundly positive contribution to the US economy that the relatively tiny number of immigrants already make, and knowing that US companies have demonstrated that the existing immigration vehicles available to recruit them are both inefficient and inadequate, I fail to see how anybody could come to a conclusion other than opening up the borders and removing all such restrictions would inevitably contribute positively to the economy. Immigration necessary for economic expansion cannot be assumed Without sufficient access to human resources, economic opportunities are missed. Removing immigration controls in the US immediately removes barriers to employers filling positions in a timely fashion with the most qualified people at the most competitive cost. And the US cannot assume a position of arrogance that its greatest challenge is to ensure its borders remain sealed to restrict access to its economy by the very resources who will grow it. Even those who have risked life and limb to enter the US do not blindly accept that their fate is immediately and inexorably better off for ever more. With the recession after the financial crisis, the US actually saw as many illegal immigrants returning home voluntarily as those trying to enter. [3] With those returning migrants will come tales of the reality of their living conditions, and how the streets are not all paved with gold. This will undoubtedly have a sobering effect on the family and friends and villagers who hear their stories, and will make their future decision on whether to stay put or risk moving to the US an even more difficult one. The US can expect to face labor shortages if it does not make its economy one that welcomes the resources upon which its very existence depends. “Migrants – and the experts who study them – say they are deterred by state laws in the US that have fueled anti-immigrant sentiment, tougher US-border enforcement, and border violence. So, many Mexicans simply stay put.” [3] This change in perception poses a very real threat to the US economy. Indeed, alarmist warnings in the UK that the recent opening of its borders to the relatively impoverished nations of Romania and Bulgaria would result in a surge of migrants has proven unfounded. [4] This is another example of how open borders does not result in the chaos that naysayers predict, and the conversation must change from calamitous foreboding to using open borders as just leg of a policy shift to attract the workers that the US economy will need if it is to expand. The decline of the number of people in the US who were born in Mexico from almost 12mln in 2000 to less than 8mln in 2010 should not be seen as a triumph, but a worrying trend that needs to be reversed to avoid threats to economic output. Open borders provides the means necessary to guarantee that one of the most important ingredients of economic output, workers, will not be denied to the US economy, whether in the start-ups of Silicon Valley or the orchards of Georgia. Conclusion While the US prides itself on its innovative companies, it must not forget that much of that innovation was driven by immigrants. One is only left to wonder how much better the economy would already be if immigration restrictions did not prevent companies from getting access to the resources they knew they needed and were unable to find in the local labor force, as demand for H1-B visas has demonstrated. PRO might take the time to understand the Labor Certification process associated with these visas, where the employers must demonstrate that jobs have been advertized in the US without finding qualified candidates, before making baseless judgments that they are merely a wage dilution mechanism. [5] While the US continues with restrictive immigration policies and native economies offer ever more opportunities for its graduates, the incentive to work through that bureaucracy is diminishing. Not only would open borders remove that competitive disadvantage, failure to do so places the US economy as we know at endemic risk of retraction were it to continue its restrictive labor policies. For those who believe that closed border labor migration policies are helping the economy more than open borders would (the very essence of this debate), I would ask that they take their logic and apply it within the US and see if they would now like to change their minds. Or do they continue believe that limiting your right to work to your home state would result in the economies of individual states being better off? Because that is what you must believe to argue in favor of restrictive labor policies. Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...