I’ve got a new piece in Foreign Policy, with brand-new illustrations by my collaborator Zach Weinersmith. Highlight:
The standard explanation for these asymmetric public reactions is that resistance to immigration is primarily cultural and political, not economic or logistical. While West Germans welcomed millions of East German migrants, a much lower dose of Middle Eastern and African migration has made the whole EU shiver. Aren’t economists who dwell on economic gains just missing the point?
Yes and no. As a matter of political psychology, cultural and political arguments against immigration are indeed persuasive and influential. That does not show, however, that these arguments are correct or decisive. Does immigration really have the negative cultural and political effects critics decry? Even if it did, are there cheaper and more humane remedies than immigration restriction? In any case, what is a prudent price tag to put on these cultural and political effects?
P.S. I’d love see you at the Cato book party on Monday night!
READER COMMENTS
Steve Fritzinger
Nov 1 2019 at 5:11pm
Oh, you will.
You will.
But not in an ominous way. I’m really looking forward to it.
Thaomas
Nov 1 2019 at 10:15pm
“In any case, what is a prudent price tag to put on these cultural and political effects?”
If you conclude that borders should be open (and that the marginal economic contribution of the last immigrant who decided to immigrate is >0), then you must believe the the maximum price of politics and culture is zero when number of immigrants is at a maximum.
Mark
Nov 2 2019 at 8:22am
Good book. I just got it. I like the analogy of the government as the bandit that stops the starving person from going to the marketplace to trade for food. This is a much better analogy than the one of the government as the homeowner of the whole country. If the government really were such a homeowner, it would be allowed to do whatever to people it wants within its own borders, including ethnic cleansing deportation, and the concept of freedom would be meaningless.
Culturally, it seems that diversity is good in and of itself because individuals should get the chance to experience as many different cultures as possible so they can decide what culture or combination of cultures they like the most.
Thaomas
Nov 2 2019 at 9:11pm
I suppose that with diversity, as with everything else, there could be too much of a good thing. That concern however ought to be pretty small given that immigrants assimilate to Western culture, especially in the US, so easily.
Frederic
Nov 2 2019 at 11:31pm
“If the government really were such a homeowner, it would be allowed to do whatever to people it wants within its own borders, including ethnic cleansing deportation, and the concept of freedom would be meaningless.”
Well no, actually a homeowner isn’t allowed to do any of these things to someone just because they are on their property. The only thing a homeowner is allowed is to decide who may and who may not enter their property. But just because someone is illegally on someone’s property they don’t forfeit their individual human rights thereby.
So i found this to be a weak argument against the analogy homeowner ~ the nation state as collective property.
Abelard Lindsey
Nov 2 2019 at 10:43pm
One issue that is not being discussed at all by anyone in the immigration debate is the need for both increased economic growth as well as infrastructure construction if we are to go “open borders”. If, say, 3% growth rate is necessary to realize people’s economic aspirations with current population projects, it seems to me that a 5% or perhaps even a China-like 7% economic growth rate would be necessary to realize those same aspirations if we had an open borders policy as you advocate. I have no trouble believing that a “Reagan-like” deregulated free market economy can achieve such growth rates. However, there has been significant increased government regulation since the time of Reagan. What is your proposal to roll this back?
A closely related issue is that of infrastructure. More powerplants, freeways, roads, lots of housing developments, water works, airports, trains and subways in bigger urban areas; would all have to be built to accommodate the increased population that would result from an open borders policy. The problem here is that there has been all kinds of government regulations and laws, passed mostly since about 1970, that have made it either impossible or horrendously expensive to built that kind of infrastructure, compared to 1965 when 400 miles of interstate could be built in an 18-24 month period. An open borders policy would require that regulation would have to be rolled back to like 1965 to allow for the cost-effective construction of such infrastructure like, 1965. What is your proposal to accomplish that?
Is not the advocacy of an open borders policy while failing to address the above issues a crass irresponsibility to the American taxpayer and citizen?
Tyler Wells
Nov 6 2019 at 9:43pm
Brian, thank you for writing this book! I am currently reading it right before bedtime with my 11 year old son and it is a delight. Due to the graphic novel format, it holds my kid’s interest much more than words alone could ever do. For my son, it is a fantastic introduction to many social and economical issues. He is much more sceptical of your position than I am! There are times when we are playing soccer or riding to school and he will ask “but where will they all live” or, “wouldn’t (the depopulation of the Great Plains) that make it easier for the people remaining to find jobs?”
Comments are closed.