Resolved: The United States Should Adopt an Open Border Policy

Long term policy implications, including freedom and growth, weigh against open bordersPro claims I did not respond to his claims that open borders would produce long term growth and reduce the risk of financial crisis. My response was in three parts, and the response were apparent in the arguments previously presented:1. Pro never established that open borders would bring about the claim benefits. All his real-world evidence was from countries that has policies that greatly restricted immigration. We all agree that controlled immigration is a good thing, and that countries benefit from having new people with needed skills. Pro's arguments for long term growth under open borders depend entirely under theories in which absurdly unrealistic assumptions. For this debate, the ground rules state that the US policies related to welfare and government benefits are unchanged, and immigration policies of other countries do not change. That's not what the studies assume.2. The reasonable assumption is that if there are no obstacles to immigration, people will move from where they are worse off to where they are better of off. Pro denied that, saying that the dominate consideration was solely whether the immigrant could find a job, otherwise they would return to there home country, no matter if they they were destitute refugees, jobless in their place of origin, or suffering from political persecution. If my reasonable claim is true, then open immigration will continue until the economic and security advantage of the US is diminished to being equal to the poor condition of the home countries. The long term outlook is therefore to render the US as poor and insecure as the poorest and least insecure parts of the world. In that status, the US has no better long term prospect than the least promising places on earth.3. A premise of the debate is that the US adopts an open borders policy while the rest of the world does not. That means that in the long term, every society except the US will be a more hospitable environment for immigrants with valuable skills who seek a modern culture. It also implies that, countries with a sector having extreme poverty or a violent subculture can inexpensively solve their local problem by sending them to the US. That's not a favorable long term outlook.Immigrants benefit from open bordersI grant the argument that immigrants benefit from open borders. In fact, I reasonably assume that people will move from anyplace that's worse to enjoy the immediate benefits of the public education, emergency room health care, charity, and some welfare benefits. A full $28,500 welfare package is, according to the challenge, only a few years away. Immigration remains beneficial until the US reaches an equilibrium state of impoverishment with the poorest people in the world. I think the context of the debate is clearly the well-being of the people of the United States, and not a deal to sacrifice the US for the short term benefit of others. Once impoverished, the benefits from the US end, so it's only short term.Cost is not a present-day obstacle to immigrationI pointed out that a plane ticket costing a thousand dollars would transport an immigrant to the United States. Even if the immigrant himself has no money, whoever is paying for the refugee camps, for example Jordan or the United Nations, would lower their costs by paying the fare to the US. I cited the numbers and Pro did not dispute any of them, not the cost of the fare, the cost advantage of moving the refugees, or the governments and organizations who would pay. The same applies to dissident or impoverished groups within a country, only more will be able to scrape up the relatively small sum for a plane ticket. They'll be helped by relatives or by the government making small investment to solve a local problem. Pro replied using Bellman logic; "Anything I say three times is true." He offered no more than repeated assertions that it was too expensive. America's isolation by expensive or dangerous sea voyage is over. Pro argues that not every one of the 1.1 billion people who seeks to relocate would want to come to the U.S. I granted that. The issue is what fraction of the total would seek to relocate in the US, given that other countries maintain controls and the US does not. Pro gives the example of Saudi Arabia, apparently supposing the main reason people move to Saudi Arabia is cultural. No, it's because Saudi Arabia is a rich country that needs workers. "The Saudi economy has ... remained dependent on Westerners for expertise in specialised industries and on the Asian workforce for the construction industry as well as for menial and unskilled tasks." When the Saudis think they have too many foreign workers, they expel them. [18. https://en.wikipedia.org...] Similarly, so long as there is a financial benefit to relocate to relocating to the US, immigrants will pour in. The difference is that with open borders, there is no stopping immigration until the US offers no financial advantage. Pro put a floor on the number at around 265 million permanent immigrants, with the implication of about an equal number desiring temporary employment. I argued there would be more once the welfare and infrastructure benefits become well known.Pro argues that one meaning of open borders is actually a quota system that ultimately leads to open borders. There was no such definition provided in the debate challenge that equated open borders with quotas. The implications of "citizenship within a few years" is that the borders are genuinely open, not open to waiting for a turn to enter. Experience from Latin America and Europe I presented evidence and arguments that immigration from Latin America, the basis for most of Pros studies, in not typical of what open immigration is likely to produce. Pro did not contest that Latin America, Mexico in particular, is in far better shape economically and in terms of political stability than the horrendous war torn regions of Africa and the Middle East. Pro made a new argument that the refugees fleeing Castro were accommodated by the US. The Cuban refugees were predominantly middle class and both economically and culturally compatible with the US. While Pro called it “massive,” it was only 125,000 people – nothing like the hundreds of millions we can expect from open borders. [19. https://en.wikipedia.org...] The exception was that Castro took the opportunity to empty the prisons and mental institutions into the refugee group, which caused extreme problems for many years. “The hardened criminals among the boat people did not change their ways, and their criminal activities generate a crime wave in Florida. “ [20. http://adst.org... ] We expect worse problems as terrorists arrive as refugees.Understand that my argument is not saying we should refuse all refuges. We should accept reasonable numbers that can be cared for by our society. The argument is that we cannot absorb an unlimited number. Pro cites data that because illegal Mexican immigrants will move from state-to-state to find jobs, that we should expect refugees from Syria or Somalia will want to return to refugee camps if the cannot find jobs. In fact, beyond refugees, the safe assumption is that there are many poor countries in the world where being unemployed in the US is a far better living than unemployment in the home country. Perhaps they will roam looking for work, but they are not going to leave if they cannot find it. Pro argues that as the US becomes impoverished, new immigrants will move to Canada and Mexico. That presumes impoverishment of the US, not a good outcome, and that Canada and Mexico will not control their borders. Mexico and Canada both have tight security against illegal entry, and can readily adopt more security.Pro granted that immigrants are likely to be in the lower half of the income spectrum, and that the lower half depends heavily on the upper income groups to pay the 97% of income taxes that provides them with services. Pro's response was that since we don't try to deport the lower income groups. Sure, that's because a country's first duty is to it's citizens, not self-sacrifice for the rest of the world. Pro repeats that some immigration is needed to fill low-skilled jobs, but its not plausible that there would be so many as to sustain the influx from open borders. I pointed out that by world standards Mexico is a relatively prosperous country, but that we nonetheless may have as many as a quarter of the population of Mexico in the US.With respect to Europe, I presented data that well-screened immigrants, mostly from Hungary, were a benefit to the British economy, while less-screened immigrant were a burden. That's common sense. Pro argues that terrorist activity in Europe has been minor, even though he grants it exists. The point is that open borders allows in a flood of terrorists. In the US, Pro's best data shows that illegal immigration is a net loss to the economy, offset by the benefits of legal immigration. Pro's Source SpammingThe DDO site rules require that the debate be limited to the specified number for the debate. I did not agree to waive those rules, therefore all of the reference links posted outside the debate must be ignored. Not that specific references would be acceptable, but Pro's source spamming when beyond merely citing narrow evidence. He was giving a reading list for every argument made in support of open borders and inviting readers to find the arguments.I also object to Pro's personalizing attacks by referencing me by name rather than using "Con" or "my opponent." Thanks to Pro for a good debate, and that readers get something out of it. Remember, it's about whether controlled immigration is better than open borders.