Opening statements at my Steamboat Institute debate on open borders versus Sohrab Ahmari were so brief that I failed to even finish my slideshow. Since the audience didn’t get to see the whole thing, I’m sharing it here.
Remember: This is the only immigration debate I’ve ever done where the resolution was explicitly about “benefit to humanity.” Which really does make the case for open borders open-and-shut. Enjoy!
P.S. In case you didn’t get the title of today’s post…
Sadly, there really never is an "open-and-shut" case for things like open immigration. As long as I've 1) made up my mind, and I'm 2) immune to all evidence, and I 3) have the super power of rationalization, you will never convince me. People say, "Nothing you can say will change my mind!" as if it's a point of strength.
Bryan, do you think open borders would increase on net the aggregate welfare of current Americans? I'd be curious to know what you think are the strongest arguments on either side.
I think the strongest arguments against are: Garrett Jones national IQ/deep roots/culture transplant -> weakened institutions+trust/increased fiscal burden (holding policy fixed)/worse government policies (via voting).
The strongest arguments for are: welfare gains resulting from liberalized trade + empirical arguments showing Jones-type speculation is wrong.
I support open borders both on deontological grounds and global utilitarian grounds, but I think the case for the net welfare increase to current Americans is quite weak.