Resolved: The United States Should Adopt an Open Border Policy

R: Swamping Roy argues that, without immigration restrictions or natural borders, we will be swamped with immigrants and there will simply be too many people for our economy to handle. This argument has many flaws. a) In some ways, this would be a good thing. As it is difficult to build an enormous amount of housing, property prices would skyrocket. This would be extremely beneficial to anyone who owns property. This would have another beneficial effect: higher consumption. Consumption would increase, which would dramatically increase economic growth. John Y. Campbell and João F. Cocco have found that for every 10% increase in housing prices, consumption increases 17% [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. The reason for this is because people’s wealth increases as the price of their homes increase, which translates into higher consumption. Matteo Iacoviello has confirmed the strong connection between housing prices and consumption [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. Thus, being swamped may not be as bad as Roy claims it is. b) In fact, Roy is borderline arguing for central planning. In just the same way the Soviet Union was unable to perfectly plan economic policy because planners lacked proper economic knowledge, this would inevitably happen if we restrict immigration. Who would decide the optimal number of immigrants? The government. It is impossible for the government to have the microeconomic knowledge to make that decision properly. Market forces would inevitably naturally regulate the number of immigrants that enter this country under an open borders system through job openings and housing prices. If millions of immigrants came overnight, housing prices would skyrocket and the labor market would struggle to adjust. If a huge amount of immigrants arrive, the opportunity for them to get jobs would be diminished, so the incentives for them to stay would simply disappear. If the economy cannot handle an influx of immigrants, people cease coming here because their opportunities will diminish if there are more immigrants than the optimal amount. Economist Bryan Powell argues, “Absent a market process, there is no way to centrally plan the optimal number and mix of immigrants,” and he also argues that the market would be able to determine the “optimal number” better than the government could. [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. Roy’s plan--which would require arbitrarily capping the flow of immigrants into this country--would never be able to capture the optimal number of immigrants because it relies upon the same flawed central planning logic that the Soviets believed in. Market forces would best determine the number of immigrants entering this country, not an arbitrary government cap. c) Roy cites a gallup poll claiming that 1.1 billion people would migrate to the US. This is untrue and I urge readers to read his source [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. It argues that 1.1 billion people total want to move out of their country, but not all of that 1 billion want to come to the US. The number of people who would actually come would be a lot lower. Another Gallup Survey puts the number of immigrants who would permanently reside in the US if they could at 165 million [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. Remember, even this estimate is high. Even without immigration barriers, many would still be too poor to afford a move. 165 million people want to move to the US, but it is unlikely that they can move to the US. d) Roy worries about assimilation, especially in regards to Muslim immigrants. However, modern immigrants tend to become more assimilated than they did a decade ago, and Muslim immigrants assimilate in the US more than they do in other countries; in fact, Muslims are “more assimilated than the rest of the foreign-born population” in the US. Evidence suggests that the US has been successful in creating a “successful multiethnic society.” [6. http://tinyurl.com...]. e) It should also be noted that the resolution does not force us to open borders overnight. Economist John Keenan supports open borders, but would prefer them to be done gradually in order to prevent swamping [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. R: Welfare + Unsustainability Roy’s claim that low-skilled immigrants would take up our welfare system is false. a) He claims that incomes for many people in Palestine are extremely low. This is because of the price premium effect. We proved this last round. If they move to the US, their incomes would be much higher because, even with their low skills, they would have access to better technology and education. As their incomes would rise upon arrival, it is unfair to assume that their wages would be the same as it was in their home country. b) Roy focuses on the negatives of immigration--he assumes the economic pie is static. Dynamic estimates take into account the growth impacts of immigrants as well as the positive revenue effects. Roy argues that these revenue effects are small, but he has to remember that not only would illegal immigrants begin to receive services, but as they would also pay more into the system. The conservative CATO institute has reviewed the literature, taking into account revenue and growth effects. They also take into account long-term growth and revenue trends. CATO’s review found that the “studies reveal a very small net fiscal impact clustered around zero,” and that “even dramatic changes in the level of immigration have small effects on government budgets and deficits.” [8. http://tinyurl.com...] If you take into account the entire picture, it is not as black and white as Roy claims. The fiscal impacts could vary significantly, though the evidence suggests that the effect is close to zero in either direction. c) Whether or not an immigrant is a net positive or negative effect on our country’s finances depends a lot on when an immigrant arrives in this country. Roy seems to argue that many immigrants come here then they are extremely young. However, the average age of immigrants who have arrived after the year 2000 are 31 years old [9. http://tinyurl.com...]. This means that the majority of immigrants who would arrive would likely quickly enter the workforce, and the number of child immigrants would probably be lower than adult immigrants. The following image graphs the fiscal impacts of an immigrant based on their educational status and age upon arrival. For families, immigrants who stay here for their entire life, and educated immigrants, the fiscal impacts are generally positive. For those older than age 16 and under age 65, you are almost always a net-positive on this country’s pocketbooks. The effect to public finances that Roy is espousing is greatly exaggerated. d) Roy argues that legalization would increase harm to programs like social security and increase education costs. Roy uses illegal immigrants being legalized as an example. However, the CBO has already noted that amnesty would increase revenues and reduce the deficit, not increase it [10. http://tinyurl.com...]. According to the CATO institute, educating children at a young age means that there is upward mobility and that the increased productivity from their education translates into higher wages and a net fiscal benefit over time. Further, more immigrants would benefit programs like social security. Social security requires more people giving to the system than taking from it if the system is to function properly. Immigrants, who arrive here at young ages tend to work for many years. As immigration increases the amount of workers compared to benefit receivers at any given time, increased migration prolongs solvency and helps pay for the system [11. http://tinyurl.com...]. e) Evidence suggests that immigrants are more interested in work than in receiving welfare. In many cases, they move out of states with generous welfare benefits if there is a better job market elsewhere [12. http://tinyurl.com...]. This means that immigrants, as they are seeking work, will consume as little welfare as possible while producing as much as possible, leading to a net-benefit for our nation’s pocketbook. R: Opportunity Increases Immigration We agree. People have a right to live a life of opportunity. If anything, this is an argument in favor of open borders. Opportunity begets immigration, and immigration begets opportunity. The Mexico argument is silly. Living in the US would help immigrants much more than living in Mexico--there is a reason they travel through Mexico in order to get here now! R: Legal Immigration is good--fudging numbers? We agree. Legal immigration is good. All immigration is good. a) The claim that GDP growth through increased spending is a bad thing has no effect on our arguments. The reason open borders increases GDP is not through government spending, but rather through ending price premiums. Simply living in the US means you will make more in your lifetime than if the same person lived in another country. Open borders would allow workers who come to the US to have a dramatic increase in productivity, as they have access to more technology and can produce more, which boosts world GDP [13. http://tinyurl.com...]. There are a plethora of other benefits--which we posted last round--which explain why GDP would increase with open borders. None of the reasons include Keynesian spending. b) Roy claims we are redistributing America’s wealth. Nowhere did we say this. The evidence suggests that immigration increases our wealth. The economy isn’t a static pie, and more people arriving does not mean everyone has a smaller slice. It causes the pie to expand and everyone is better off. d) I don’t see how illegal immigration being dangerous is related to this debate. As legalization would ruin the underground immigrant trafficking economy, Coyotes would be out of business and violence would decrease. Roy has not come close to proving that the research has ‘fudged’ the numbers.