This is what I was going to comment on as well - there's a verbal sleight of hand happening where the differences between humans and goods are ignored. Someone gets paid for goods in a voluntary transaction. I guess coyotes get paid to help people to covertly cross the border, but that is very much not receiving a shipment of steel for the dollars a business sent to China.
This is what I was going to comment on as well - there's a verbal sleight of hand happening where the differences between humans and goods are ignored. Someone gets paid for goods in a voluntary transaction. I guess coyotes get paid to help people to covertly cross the border, but that is very much not receiving a shipment of steel for the dollars a business sent to China.
No, while I disagree with BC on this, it is not a verbal sleight of hand he is using. There is indeed a large economic cost to preventing a lot more immigration. Most - but by no means all - of it is borne by those not allowed to immigrate. On that point, BC is 100% correct.
Where he’s wrong is in the large not-directly-measurable (especially in the short run) costs of the high probability risk to culture (norms and institutions) to a country that allows unlimited migration, especially when done in the context of a generous welfare state (and especially where children born in the country automatically become citizens even if their parents are not).
This is what I was going to comment on as well - there's a verbal sleight of hand happening where the differences between humans and goods are ignored. Someone gets paid for goods in a voluntary transaction. I guess coyotes get paid to help people to covertly cross the border, but that is very much not receiving a shipment of steel for the dollars a business sent to China.
No, while I disagree with BC on this, it is not a verbal sleight of hand he is using. There is indeed a large economic cost to preventing a lot more immigration. Most - but by no means all - of it is borne by those not allowed to immigrate. On that point, BC is 100% correct.
Where he’s wrong is in the large not-directly-measurable (especially in the short run) costs of the high probability risk to culture (norms and institutions) to a country that allows unlimited migration, especially when done in the context of a generous welfare state (and especially where children born in the country automatically become citizens even if their parents are not).