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.
I used to consider immigration an important issue for me and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. After watching a few of your debates and lectures a few months ago, I am strong advocate of unlimited immigration (still not sure if sold on open borders). Now, illegal immigration is a big issue for me except I am on the other side.
This is actually pretty brilliant, Bryan. You're driving folks to face up to their idol: that voting means freedom.
No better time to play this gambit than when folks have to choose between Trump and Harris. You'd have to be a complete dolt to feel free at this moment.
Mr. Caplan, what do you offer to the Americans who prefer rural surroundings and open countryside and do not desire to live year round in a skyscraper? If you invite a billion people or more to the USA, they will need to live somewhere. Where? Between open borders and YIMBY, how does the USA not become one massive strip mall?
Since I came from England, I will use it as an example. England is famous for its countryside which is not in short supply. England's population density is 12 times that of the USA. In other words, the US would have the same population density if the USA had 4 billion people.
Most of them will live in cities. For the same reason people arent migrating within the US now, there wont be huge amounts of immigration without changes in building regulations. YIMBY means they go to big cities. Wyoming will still be mostly empty, even if Cheyenne and Casper double in size.
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.
Dude debating that clown is like Mike Tyson beating up a toddler.
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.
I used to consider immigration an important issue for me and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. After watching a few of your debates and lectures a few months ago, I am strong advocate of unlimited immigration (still not sure if sold on open borders). Now, illegal immigration is a big issue for me except I am on the other side.
This is actually pretty brilliant, Bryan. You're driving folks to face up to their idol: that voting means freedom.
No better time to play this gambit than when folks have to choose between Trump and Harris. You'd have to be a complete dolt to feel free at this moment.
Mr. Caplan, what do you offer to the Americans who prefer rural surroundings and open countryside and do not desire to live year round in a skyscraper? If you invite a billion people or more to the USA, they will need to live somewhere. Where? Between open borders and YIMBY, how does the USA not become one massive strip mall?
Since I came from England, I will use it as an example. England is famous for its countryside which is not in short supply. England's population density is 12 times that of the USA. In other words, the US would have the same population density if the USA had 4 billion people.
Most of them will live in cities. For the same reason people arent migrating within the US now, there wont be huge amounts of immigration without changes in building regulations. YIMBY means they go to big cities. Wyoming will still be mostly empty, even if Cheyenne and Casper double in size.