>I challenge you to find a single study showing that any immigrant group (by country of origin.. by ethnicity) takes from the economy more than they contribute.

Allowing small groups of (mostly skilled) people to move into a country in a controlled manner over time, has a net economic benefit. Ergo allowing an unrestricted number of people into a country must have a greater benefit. That just doesn't follow.

>Please read the article and see re: opening up the Eastern European labor market, and how the feared outcomes did not materialize in Britain, including the scenario you've outlined.

What article are you talking about? The one at the top of the thread didn't mention that at all.

It also isn't a fair comparison, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland are the countries that people in Britain and other EU countries were most worried about in regards to immigration. The populations of those countries aren't that large in relation to the population of the more well off countries.

Now compare the number of people living in developing vs developed countries globally. Depending on the source only about 15% of people worldwide live in developed countries.

Do you think those countries will be able to handle the mass influx of immigration? There was a poll done recently that estimated that about 100 million people want to permanently relocate to the US (many more want to do so temporarily), and that's knowing that it would be difficult. Imagine how many more would be willing if immigration were unrestricted.

>Also, pick your argument

You'll find that when making hypothetical arguments you can quite easily make 2 or even 3 simultaneously.

1. Modeling the global economy as a free market is absurd.

2.
(When I gave that quote about markets being irrational, it wasn't meant as an example of what was going to happen, but as example of how even though something can be globally true--markets will eventually behave rationally--depending on the time span we care about they can be locally false.)

Anyway, back to 2. Let's assume you can model the global economy as a free market and assume that all labor markets will eventually adjust and reach an equilibrium where the global GDP is higher than it was before.

The amount of time this adjustment takes is unknown. There could be decades of depressed wages in developed countries before any benefit is realized.

3. Is related to 2. Mass migration brings with it problems that could collapse local governments lowering overall GDP permanently.

We're also ignoring what happens to developing countries when anyone who wants to can leave. Those countries may stop developing at all and devolve into even worse states. After all Pseudo-free markets still have problems with blighted neighborhoods.

>Why don't we have poor people overwhelming the school systems of wealthy neighborhoods? Because they can't afford the houses and taxes. They'd like to move in, but they can't. Economic reality still applies.

And yet this doesn't work when comparing countries because you're ignoring the relative differences in standard of living. Living as a homeless person in the US with absolutely no possessions is preferable to being poor in many countries. People are willing to walk across half a continent (and many have) to come to the US with no possessions just on the hope that they can get in.

You're also acting like you don't see migration like this inside the US all the time. There is a reason you see a much higher amount of homelessness in inner cities than you do in rural area (even adjusted for density). Social services, and public transportation attract them. A homeless person has a higher quality of life living in San Fransisco than he does living in rural Iowa, so he makes his way to San Fransisco even though he can't "afford" to live there.