An open border policy would negatively affect the economy

Economic theory of migration:There are billions of people in the world, and they live in much worse living conditions then the US. Given their dire poverty, it would be a no brainer to immigrate to the US. The costs of travel are lower than ever and employers would be more than happy to subsidize travel in order to obtain cheap labor. It is also easier more than anytime to connect with one's family, family and culture from abroad through the use of Skype, and the internet. The US GDP per capita is 142 times more than the poorest country and the world [1]. Furthermore, current estimates show that 2.4 billion people lived on less than US $2 a day. [2] Anybody living on that salary would migrate to the US with an open border policy. Even if economic conditions deteriorate in the US, people from the developing and undeveloped world would still benefit from moving to the US, since it would still be better than their own lifestyle. The marginal productivity of labor will eventually decreases with each unit of labor, and with a large influx of immigrants the marginal productivity of labor will lead to diminish returns, resulting in lower wage [3]. Even non-economic models based on population growth show that a population has a set carry capacity in which natural resources will deplete due to higher populations [4]. Therefore the US economy would deteriorate. In order for the US not to suffer from any economic hardships, then all nations would have to have to obtain a standard of living nearly equivalent to the US. This would mean a change in world GDP would have to increase to a magnitude of around five in a 10 year -span for the US to suffer no economic hardship. However, current economic estimates are not so optimistic that world GDP would increase this much due to immigration. Even pro-open border economists only estimate a doubling of the world's GDP due to open borders [5]. However these studies assume that all nations would adopt an open borders policy. However, this argument is based on the US adopting an open borders policy, so the resulting increase in world GDP as a result of the US adopting an open border policy would actually be much lower. US has a relatively homogenous income level. The richest state has a household median income of $71,836 while the poorest state has a household median income of $36,641[6]. While this margin might seem large at first, almost twice the difference in median income between the poorest and richest state in the US, the difference is nothing compared to the differences between nations, where the richest nation has $100,889. And the poorest nation has an income of $365, a whopping difference in income of 276. However, there's no reason why the US should have such a homogenous income level. The nation consists of over 300 million people in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the pacific. That's a lot of room for heterogeneous cultures, and natural resources which should lead to heterogeneous economic development. However, since there is open migration, this effect would be mitigated based on the analysis above, demonstrating that people do migrate to achieve higher levels of income, which leads to homogenous income levels. Harms in economic inequality:A net influx of immigrants would create further economic inequality. The major source of immigrants from an open-borders policy would consist of unskilled labor. This will drive down wages from the very poorest. Furthermore due to more workers per capital, this will increase the demand for capital, thus increasing the value of assets, benefiting the wealthy while harming the workers. Harmful culture and people would ruin economic growth:A major influence is the people and their culture. Certain cultures and environments are more to economic development then others. Economic and personal freedom, low-crime rates are all essential to increasing economic growth. Throughout most of history, no economic growth per capita has been the norm; modern economic growth has been the exception to the rule. The ideas of economic and personal freedom and low-crime have also been the exception not the rule. The theory that low crime-rate and economic freedom are the foundations of the economy are supported based on the two graphs below. The first graph shows the link between high GDP and low levels of organized crime. The second graph shows a correlation between economic freedom and GDP. It also logically follows that crime harms economic growth. If one's property has a great probability of theft or vandalization then why would one put any money or time to improve it? Criminal behavior is also conductive to other behaviors that are harmful to the economy. Dishonest business practices, corruption, embezzlement, lying, and neglecting one's work duties. If an influx of criminals and those with non-western values enter the nation, then not only will we get people with values incompatible with economic growth, but their values can also spread to the US population as well creating further hardships. Empirical Evidence: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. According to the center of for immigration studies, an independent non-partisan, and non-profit research organization dedicated to providing information for immigration policy, immigrants have an effect of depressing wages. The study states that:“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. • Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent. • The 10 million native-born workers without a high school degree face the most competition from immigrants, as do the eight million younger natives with only a high school education and 12 million younger college graduates. • The negative effect on native-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants. • The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status. ”[6]The public policy institute of California, another non-partisan independent source, also independently found that immigrants induced a 4% reduction in wages [7]. There's also no reason to believe that immigrants have a net benefit on the economy. Nations like Japan and South Korea have a policy of low-immigrations and have developed strongly. They also have incredibly low-levels of unemployment. Even during their worst levels of unemployment, South Korea only maintained an unemployment rate of 7%, while at Japan's worse it maintains an unemployment rate of 5.7%. Compared that to the US where a 5% unemployment rate is considered the norm and has been able to skyrocket to 10%. Meanwhile an unemployment rate of around 3% is considered the norm in South Korea and Japan. [8][9][10]Conclusion:While one can still favor an open borders policy for the US based on moral or other reasons, arguing that an open borders policy would be beneficial to the US economy is not one of them. Sources:[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...