What empirical data would falsify your belief in open borders?
So if X or Y or Z happened it would cause you to change your position.
Are there any real world events that would cause you to change your mind on open borders?
I can think of things that would falsify my believe that open borders were bad, but none of them have happened yet. A lot of people thought they would happen a couple of decades ago, but they didn't, which is part of why I've come to this position (I used to be pro-immigration and have gradually become more and more against it).
I honestly don't get "bordertarians". Immigration restrictions are soooo antithetical to libertarian principles, but yet, based on my experience in libertarian forums, there are a LOT of bordertarians. These groups were mainly populated by Americans? Is this just American thing? Do American libertarians take on the flavours of the American right? Worldwide, how do libertarians view immigration?
I think that a lot of people who make the Friedman argument against open borders vs. the welfare state are actually afraid that, if we opened the national borders as the 50 States are open to each other, immigrants would not actually overstress welfare state institutions, because they are proud, hardworking and courageous to leave their homes and travel to another land to improve (often to save!) their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The immigration opponents would have to find another pitch, and it is difficult for me to imagine that they wouldn't fall back on good, old-fashioned xenophobia and racism. Maybe they would pivot to emphasizing the criminal drug trade attributed to foreign cartels. But if we then ended the drug war, those against immigration would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, I think, and the US would be a WHOLE lot better off.
No country in the world has open borders; does this not tell B Caplan anything? Nice to keep promoting it as an attention grabber for yourself and brand Caplan.
Bryan, have you ever treated the open borders debate at length in written format? How do you address Milton Friedman’s observation, “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state” or the current immigration crisis in NYC? I am partial to the idea of immigration by invitation, requiring a corporate or personal sponsor willing to assume liability or purchase similar liability insurance to cover potential public expenses and damages, or for the immigrant themselves to purchase such a liability policy.
Friedman is right about that, but the solution is to get rid of the welfare state, not to close the borders.
Even without free immigration, the deindustrialization of America that the fiat money-financed welfare state has brought us over the past half century is not sustainable in the long-run. Immigration merely accelerates the process of capital consumption, but even without it, the deterrence to thrift associated with government promises of economic security and with artificially-suppressed real interest rates, and the diversion of savings away from the productive sector due to enormous government deficits all tend to reduce the share of GDP devoted to net private investment in capital goods, and thus erode worker productivity and living standards. Empirically, one can observe that increases in the share of GDP devoted to government spending (mostly driven by increases in Social Security and Medicare since the mid-1960s) is almost exactly mirrored by decreases in the share of GDP devoted to new capital goods formation. The growth of the welfare state has turned us into a nation of spendthrifts.
The trust funds are in fact headed to bankruptcy, and the current Republican propensity to advocate walls and tariffs to curb immigrants and imports is not going to magically make America more productive and more able to afford the staggering burdens of our welfare state.
His response to Friedman's claim in the book, is that it's obviously an arithmetic problem, and the main question is just what the sign of the solution is. Contribution of immigrants minus cost of immigrants = net effect of immigrants. If contribution is more than cost, the net effect is positive. If the cost is more than the contribution, then the net effect is of course negative.
The existence of welfare implies that the cost is not zero, but that hardly implies that benefit minus cost is negative.
To know the sign of the solution, you have to look at actual analyses. Such analyses find that the net effect of immigration - in spite of our current welfare system - is positive.
Bryan,
What empirical data would falsify your belief in open borders?
So if X or Y or Z happened it would cause you to change your position.
Are there any real world events that would cause you to change your mind on open borders?
I can think of things that would falsify my believe that open borders were bad, but none of them have happened yet. A lot of people thought they would happen a couple of decades ago, but they didn't, which is part of why I've come to this position (I used to be pro-immigration and have gradually become more and more against it).
I honestly don't get "bordertarians". Immigration restrictions are soooo antithetical to libertarian principles, but yet, based on my experience in libertarian forums, there are a LOT of bordertarians. These groups were mainly populated by Americans? Is this just American thing? Do American libertarians take on the flavours of the American right? Worldwide, how do libertarians view immigration?
Walking in Memphis...
I think that a lot of people who make the Friedman argument against open borders vs. the welfare state are actually afraid that, if we opened the national borders as the 50 States are open to each other, immigrants would not actually overstress welfare state institutions, because they are proud, hardworking and courageous to leave their homes and travel to another land to improve (often to save!) their lives and the lives of their loved ones. The immigration opponents would have to find another pitch, and it is difficult for me to imagine that they wouldn't fall back on good, old-fashioned xenophobia and racism. Maybe they would pivot to emphasizing the criminal drug trade attributed to foreign cartels. But if we then ended the drug war, those against immigration would be scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, I think, and the US would be a WHOLE lot better off.
No country in the world has open borders; does this not tell B Caplan anything? Nice to keep promoting it as an attention grabber for yourself and brand Caplan.
America's culture isn't that great? I thought you were a big fan of Western culture?
Worth mentioning Lisa Kennedy was hosting.
I expected Bryan to win, but not for his side to win that badly. Elder got stomped. Fantastic work from all participants!
You’re lucky I wasn’t on the jury, I would have voted for the death penalty.
America has its problems, surely, but I think it’s premature to talk of dissolving it.
Bryan, have you ever treated the open borders debate at length in written format? How do you address Milton Friedman’s observation, “It’s just obvious that you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state” or the current immigration crisis in NYC? I am partial to the idea of immigration by invitation, requiring a corporate or personal sponsor willing to assume liability or purchase similar liability insurance to cover potential public expenses and damages, or for the immigrant themselves to purchase such a liability policy.
Friedman is right about that, but the solution is to get rid of the welfare state, not to close the borders.
Even without free immigration, the deindustrialization of America that the fiat money-financed welfare state has brought us over the past half century is not sustainable in the long-run. Immigration merely accelerates the process of capital consumption, but even without it, the deterrence to thrift associated with government promises of economic security and with artificially-suppressed real interest rates, and the diversion of savings away from the productive sector due to enormous government deficits all tend to reduce the share of GDP devoted to net private investment in capital goods, and thus erode worker productivity and living standards. Empirically, one can observe that increases in the share of GDP devoted to government spending (mostly driven by increases in Social Security and Medicare since the mid-1960s) is almost exactly mirrored by decreases in the share of GDP devoted to new capital goods formation. The growth of the welfare state has turned us into a nation of spendthrifts.
The trust funds are in fact headed to bankruptcy, and the current Republican propensity to advocate walls and tariffs to curb immigrants and imports is not going to magically make America more productive and more able to afford the staggering burdens of our welfare state.
His response to Friedman's claim in the book, is that it's obviously an arithmetic problem, and the main question is just what the sign of the solution is. Contribution of immigrants minus cost of immigrants = net effect of immigrants. If contribution is more than cost, the net effect is positive. If the cost is more than the contribution, then the net effect is of course negative.
The existence of welfare implies that the cost is not zero, but that hardly implies that benefit minus cost is negative.
To know the sign of the solution, you have to look at actual analyses. Such analyses find that the net effect of immigration - in spite of our current welfare system - is positive.
He addresses Friedman both in the debate and in the book (more detail in the book).