> Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through.

The absolute gain is more important that the rate of return. If you only allow 1 single person to immigrate into a country, of course, that person will have the greatest return in taxes. He will not need any help of any kind and will bring lots of business. The second person you would allow would not be as great, but still will be positive. Any restriction or cutoff point would make it so the amount of absolute gains is reduced. Excepting a few cases like security or extreme refugees, all immigrants are net positive in their aggregate, because they need to work to survive and at least pay for themselves.

>If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero.

This is a thinking that comes from the economic class you are in. If they had zero opportunity in x country, they wouldnt go to x country. Sure some people will make the mistake of trying to escape into qatar or north korea to find themselves making a terrible mistake, but the vast majority of people that emigrate are making a conscious choice of worse to better. Education or not is part of the package a country can choose to give or not. Argentina gives free college education to foreigners, the U.S. doesn't for example. The U.S. still has a way more positive immigration flow.

> Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in).

Any quota or restriction is meant to be protectionist. Trump didnt put the quotas. The quotas are there because it's politically favorable to say that you will protect the jobs of americans from being taken away by some foreigner. Doctor or farmer, its the same effect. Some people are restricted to the economical gain of a few. In economic terms, the aggregate is a loss. Again, thats the point of the article that tries to draw bounds on how much could be gained.

> We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make?

I think its important to remember that economics is not about money. Money is not value, goods and services are. If someone makes 10 forks, and then with an extra immigrant you make 19 forks, society is richer. Every person has an interest that noone else does his own job, to charge maximum value for it. But by going against that interest, everything you consume will be cheaper and better because more of that will be produced and hence consumed.

Private interests are always against many kinds of freedom. The fact that you are benefiting private interests with the addition of the power of the state is a tragedy. So lets not cheer in support for laws and policies that do just that!

Its interesting however that companies in general would love open immigration, it is trades and professions that would be against that (i.e. lawyers,doctors, accountants, etc).

It's important to call it oppression because it what it is: it's negative, it's the application of force to harm someone. If any person is in favor of such measures, I will call them on that, that they are advocating for harming other people, maybe to their own benefit.

> The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance.

I dont know if you know San Francisco, but it has plenty of people in the street and they are not mobbing. But not only that, but you are looking at the problem as if it should be out of sight.

San Francisco could deport to another city/state all its homeless people, but it would only accomplish moving the problem and making it worse. If homeless people were forced by different immigration policies to live in NY, they would freeze to death for example. You are not making them a favor by restricting their movement.

So not only you have people that have little to no means to survive, but you are punishing them for it.

And regardless, the economic gains of free passage are so vast, it would produce a lot of riches and wealth that could work to improve the lives of the bottom as well.