An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

I feel compelled to first offer a fairly broad rebuttal of just about every point PRO made in this round. From misleading headings, some curious cross-referencing, downright baseless conclusions, and the coup de grâce: the adoption of the term ‘harmful culture’, normally attributed to female genital mutilation but used here in the context of some sort of xenophobic Bogey-Man; the rebuttal pickings are rich. I will provide PRO’s section headings, and my own in parentheses which I feel better describe the actual argument he made. “Economic theory of migration “ (Intercontinental Travel on $2-a-day) PRO concludes that the nirvana of a US standard of living would make it a “no brainer” for those living in “dire poverty” to migrate to the US. PRO then cites the 2.4 billion people living on less that $2 a day as presumably a tsunami of people ready to swarm the US at the first opportunity. As the overarching theme of PRO’s argument returns repeatedly to this central theme of the fear of being overrun by foreigners, it’s important to discuss whether there is any basis in fact or experience to support this fear (I will get back to the economic impact therein later). Spoiler alert: of course there isn’t, but this lack of truth has never stopped extremist right-wing political movements from using this red-meat scare tactic to exploit the ignorance of their audience. First of all, let’s remember that for the purpose of this debate, the US has decided to unilaterally open its borders. How long do you think it will be before a sizable portion of those 2.4 billion sub $2-a-day workers make it to America? Before you think too hard about your answer, I would like to cite two important pieces of evidence: • Exhibit A: The Atlantic Ocean • Exhibit B: The Pacific Ocean That’s right, the geographic reality of the US places a formidable price of admission to those who seek to reach her shores other than over land. The “no brainer” here is that the US is, in practical terms, completely out of reach for the destitute of anybody outside the Americas, whose $2-a-day existence could not entertain the purchase of a passport, much less an airline ticket. As our neighbors to the north appear quite content not to entangle themselves in the complexities of US culture other than for occasional trips to defrost, it’s safe to assume that the majority of those looking to pull themselves up from the grips of poverty in their native land will approach from the south. I will talk in later rounds about the motivations of those who undertake that journey and their impact on the economy (a positive one). “Harms in economic inequality” (If you do make it as far as the US, you must be a gangster) PRO uses a series of assumptions about this marauding mass of invaders to deduce that they will be a bunch of criminals. And then bounds effortlessly into a series of graphs showing that it sucks living in a place full of criminals, which I’m sure is as completely true as it is completely irrelevant. I’m not going to even entertain the strawman of criminal activity that PRO describes given that he presented no evidence whatsoever that the zombie apocalypse is the inevitable result of the opening of US borders. “Empirical Evidence” (Ok, the Xenophobia was a bit much, I better pretend I’m interested in minorities even if none of these stats relate to immigration’s effect on the economy) “While no developed nation has an open-border policy since politicians want to stay elected, and therefore do not want to implement a policy that would lead to economic devastation, there is research out there on the negative effects that current immigrants and illegal immigrants have on an economy. ” Let me just play that one back for you in slow motion, because it’s a beauty, with my own comments following the quotes: 1. “While no developed nation has an open-border policy” - just the standard bandwagon logical fallacy 2. “since politicians want to stay elected, and therefore do not want to implement a policy that would lead to economic devastation” - just the standard false cause logical fallacy, not to mention an outcome that is just unsupported hyperbole to which false cause is subsequently associated 3. “there is research out there on the negative effects that current immigrants and illegal immigrants have on an economy. ” - “out there” presumably means “not included here”, as the quotes that follow do not address harmful effects to the ECONOMY, just some groups that could see a negative effect on their personal situation. This last point actually gives me a springboard to make my actual point, and I will do so by bringing the research “out there” on the effect of the economy “in here” to help you decide who makes the better case. Headings from this point forward are my own. Actual Research on Immigration’s Effect on Wages PRO claims that immigration has a deleterious effect on the wages, where he states “By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. ”. Which would be interesting if it were true, but it’s not. But when PRO cites sources like the Center for Immigration Studies, which has been described as “part of a broad-based and well-planned effort to attack immigration in all forms” [1], it’s easy to see how statistics might be presented that have but a nodding acquaintance with the truth. I prefer to go with reputable sources, so if you want to really know what effect immigration has across all sectors of the workforce, take a look at the definitive analysis of wage effects over the course of a fifteen year period. It does support one of PRO’s points, namely that those without much of an education are negatively impacted. However, it refutes his primary point that immigration has a downward effect on average earnings, as the earnings of all other groups went UP. “average wages of natives bene@257;t 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 su@256;ering 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 signi@257;cant determinant in the deterioration of the wage distribution of U. S. -born workers during the period 1990-2004. ”[2] Summary While there is certainly a case that the least skilled workers in the economy are at risk of being displaced by immigrants, it will be a simple task to show how those that are displaced by an uneducated, unskilled person who doesn’t speak English were not the engines of economic growth. This debate is not about whether anybody is negatively affected; it is about whether the economy is positively or negatively affected. None of PRO’s arguments purporting a negative effect withstand the most basic of scrutiny. I had to spend this entire round refuting PRO’s opening remarks, and due to character count limits, I will need to defer my positive case demonstrating the positive effect of an open border on the US economy to later rounds. I look forward to citing past history in the US, current open borders within the US, and the open borders of the EU to further dispel PRO’s xenophobic fear that immigrants will harm the economy. As much as PRO trembles in fear of an immigration invasion, leaders of economies throughout the world would have an equal level of worry about the impact on their own economies should the US open up its borders. The only difference is that they would describe the phenomenon and source of their worry as “brain drain”. Sources: [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com...