An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

Opening:I thank CON for this great debate.Natural restrictions on immigration barriers are weak CON again agrees with my analysis that a large immigration flux would lower gdp per capita due to resource depletion, since he has provided no counterargument against it. Again, his only hope to win this debate is that natural restrictions on immigration will create a barrier.The first barrier he mentions is communication barriers. However, a large sum of the world population is competent in English of 1 in 4[1]. So that is 1.75 billion people that can immigrate without worrying about language problems. However, learning English is not required for living in the US. A full 7% of Americans do not speak English [2]. This percentage is only low due of immigration restrictions and would be much higher without them. Immigrants can create partially-segregated communities based on one’s own ethnicity and language. This is not theoretically, since these already exist in the US, for example Chinatown. Employers would be also being willing to hire non-English speakers in manual labor or other occupation that do not require talking to English-speakers. As long as someone in the community can speak English, he or she can act as a translator to the English-speaking population, both for work or general affairs. CON then further adds that people would be unwilling to immigrate since one would have to leave one’s extended family. Except that 43% of Americans are more than willing to leave their family and live in another state[3]. And this is for only for relatively modest gains in economic status. If we’re discussing huge disparities in economic status, a much greater proportion will immigrate. CON goes on to say those foreigners go on to bear the full cost of relocation, which is just plain false which I explained in the previous round. I don’t why CON complete ignored my previous argument but employers already pay for relocation expenses since the payoffs for employers would be huge. The notion that my economic theory is correct is supported by empirical evidence. Puerto Rico, a Spanish-speaking colony the US owns where, has open immigration to the US. CON would believe that since they natively speak Spanish and there’s an Atlantic sea barrier that few would enter the US. However, this is false as Puerto Ricans migrated so heavily to the US that there are more Puerto Rican ancestor living in the US than in Puerto Rico[4]. The effect of emigration out of Puerto Rico, contrary to his predictions that more labor is better and supportive of my prediction, that less labor per capital resources is better, had phenomenally positive for Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the most competitive nation in Latin America and has a relatively high GDP per capita of $27,451, predicatable based on my analysis. Does migrating to another nation somehow demonstrate you’re a productive worker? Don’t know. It’s a non-sequitur to assume so. One can easily make the argument that workers would come to America to avoid their responsibilities in their homeland. Nor have I ever accused that immigrants will be lazy. The people that worked over 80 hours a week in the industrial revolution clearly weren’t lazy. However their economy was not as developed as it is now. Likewise immigration workers might not be lazy, but the mass importation of them will strain the US’s infrastructure thus seriously harming the US. Stating that the low-immigration of Romanians to UK is proof that natural immigration restriction is effective is also wrong. This was stated merely 14 days after open immigration. Give it some time. Sweden opened immigration to Romania in 2007 and the result was almost a near doubling in immigration. One can say that Sweden did not suffer any serious damage from this policy; however there are a few things to note: a) Romania and Bulgaria contain a GDP per capita of $16,518 and $16,518 respectively. This is really good GDP per capita compared to much poorer countries like Afganistan with purchasing power in only around $600 per capita[5]. b) Romania and Bulgaria had to go through serious economic reforms to reduce political corruption, and organized crime in order to enter the European Union. The same would not be true with an open immigration policy which would have people with these negative attributes[6]. c) Romania and Bulgaria are small enough to not do any serious damages, especially considering that they obtained access to many European nations, not just Sweden. We’re looking at a combined population of less than 27.5 million versus a potential immigration population of 6.7 billion, more than a twenty-fold difference. Harmful people would ruin economic growth:CON provides a non-sequitur justification that somehow immigrants are less likely to be criminals. This falls flat in front of emperial evidene. Immigrants to Sweden are much more likely to commit crimes. While foreign born only make up 8% of the population, they commit 25% of the crimes.[7][8] Economic inequailityCon agrees that immigration will increase income inequality but does not think this is part of the economy. However, as stated in the opening round, economic inequlity is an example of negatively effecting the economy. This is a pattern of not reading what I wrote. Debunking myth of immigrants positive effect on new businesses and start-ups CON provide incredibly misleading statements on immigrant impact. He states that: “Of the relatively measly few that do make it to this country, their impact is enormous.” and “Some 40% of Fortune 500 companies have been started by immigrants or their children.”. Fact-checker has deemed this statement to be only half true[9]. There are a few reasons this is misleading: The number of foreign-born Americans consist of 11% of the population[10], while children of immigrant make up 23% of the population[11]. So combined the total is 34% of the population. Companies also have multiple co-founders. Facebook has five co-founder[12]. One of the co-founders of facebook was a foreign immigrant, Eduardo Saverin, yet he is no longer part of facebook, and contributed minimally to Facebook. Zuckerberg, a native-born American is currently the CEO and main visionary behind Facebook. However Facebook would still count as a company founded by immigrants. When taking this all into consideration, immigrants contribute less to start-ups and Fortune 500 companies than native-born Americans. This is not surprising at all, considering that in previous rounds I have shown that South Korea and Japan were able to maintain strong economies with low immigration, and economic growth is negatively correlated with immigration in the US. Furthermore, these people are self-selected due to immigration restrictions. An open-immigration policy would not select for wealth-generating immigrants. CON even concedes this point through stating that valuable foreigners can now just go to China and India. The need for STEM is also debunked. CON says that a job must be advertised beforehand to qualify for visa. This is an easy loophole that can be bypassed. A company can just advertise a job with very specific qualification and/or offer the job for an ineffective wage and then claim they could not find anybody. As previously posted there are more STEM graduates than STEM jobs so it is very questionable how they are unable to find candidates.Conclusion:This debate is not about closed vs open border debate. This is whether a more radical position of completely open borders debate is economically benefical or not. I have more than demonstrated this, while PRO cannot even defend the status-quo. Vote CON http://tinyurl.com...[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...;[8] http://tinyurl.com...;[9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12]