Some of your conservative friends don’t want to read Open Borders? Perhaps this page will pique their interest…
Some of your conservative friends don’t want to read Open Borders? Perhaps this page will pique their interest…
Oct 30 2019
On Monday, November 4, I'll be giving the Brandt Foundation Lecture at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho. It will be the first time I've been in Boise since I stayed overnight there in April 1971. Details are here. Title of talk: The Case for Free Trade Date: Monday, November 4 Time: 7:00 p.m...
Oct 30 2019
Some of your liberal friends don't want to read Open Borders? Perhaps this page will pique their interest...
Oct 30 2019
Some of your conservative friends don't want to read Open Borders? Perhaps this page will pique their interest...
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Oct 30 2019 at 11:11am
This s barking up the wrong tree.
The operational objective of the political arm of “conservatives,” the modern Republican Party, is not at all interested in free markets, limited government, individual liberty, economic growth, fiscal responsibility, deregulation, etc. per se, but in reducing taxes for high income people and taxes owners of existing businesses. The benefits of immigration reform are not sufficiently concentrated on this core constituency too make it worthwhile to too take on their base, which is even less interested in free markets, limited government, individual liberty, economic growth, fiscal responsibility, deregulation, etc.
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 11:29am
To paraphrase another article on this blog, most conservatives are anti-leftist, not pro-market: https://stageeconlib.wpengine.com/archives/2015/10/my_simplistic_t.html. They don’t like principles such as free markets and small government when those principles result in leftish social outcomes such as reduced inequality between genders, races, nationalities, etc.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2019 at 4:17pm
The idea that conservative skepticism of markets is because they sometimes reduce gender or ethnic inequality seems like a progressive caricature of conservative motivations.
Most people who oppose free markets in labor (re immigration or trade) seem to genuinely believe of supply goes up, their wages and employment opportunities go down; in other words, demand for labor is inelastic. Convincing people that they benefit from free flow of labor is probably key to convincing them to support it; if anything I think the limitation of these panels is their appeal to conservative narratives and tropes rather than self interest.
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 5:03pm
I used to believe it was a caricature too, but the last few years have convinced me it’s true. It’s not just immigration; look to trade with foreign, especially non-white, countries as another example.
Also, wanting the government to intervene in the market to keep the price of something lower or higher is an example of not being pro-free market.
Mark Z
Nov 2 2019 at 12:03am
See, in attributing hostility to trade to racism you jump right over the far more obvious explanation of (perceived) self-interest: China and Mexico are the US’s two largest ‘trade deficits’ (with Japan at #3) and alone account for the majority of our total ‘trade deficit.’ I suppose it’s possible that all of this balance of trade fixation is just a rouse to cover up racism, but I doubt it. And I’m not suggesting price manipulation is a pro-market position, rather than people try to manipulate prices through politics to benefit themselves, in an effort to artificially inflate their own income or reduce their cost of living. If a homeowner opposes the minimum wage ostensibly for free market reasons, but supports stringent zoning because he thinks it drives up the value of his house, pointing out his hypocrisy may be less fruitful than trying to convince him that in the long run he doesn’t benefit from stringent zoning laws. If someone is a hypocrite ideologically, it’s often because they’re perfectly consistent in favoring what they think is in their self-interest.
BH
Oct 30 2019 at 11:45am
These panels will likely backfire on any conservative who sees them, as the image in their head will likely be poor Latin Americans who seem to lose their work ethic after the first generation and are not winning any math championships. The second most likely image to come up are Africans like Ilhan Omar. Of course, those are more like most immigrants we will get under open borders, so I’m afraid you’ve just massively failed the ideological Turing test.
BH
Oct 30 2019 at 11:48am
I mean did anyone involved with this book do something so simple as actually showing this to an immigration skeptic before hand to see how they would respond?
Anon
Oct 30 2019 at 1:50pm
I like this idea but I’m surprised by how much this misses the mark. This seems to imagine that conservatives are libertarians–free minds, free markets, etc. That’s the slogan of Reason Magazine, not the Republican Party. You’ll get the Reason/George Mason set with this, but you already have that locked down.
If you want to persuade conservative intellectuals, the Ross Douhats, Charles Cookes, Kevin Williamson, the appeal should be slightly different. I think you should emphasize that immigrants coming in tend to have more traditional values than Americans. Not just that they respect hard work, but they value the traditional family, religion, and community ties. You should also focus on the fact that immigrants tend to be more patriotic. Debunk the myth that immigrants bring divided loyalty, or loyalty to another country. Talk about how many immigrants and children of immigrants join the armed services.
I don’t know if this will win over the true Trumpists, but certainly patriotism and traditional values will resonate there as well. You might also talk about the history of America as a nation of immigrants and the old “melting pot” concept. Immigrants come here for a better life, to follow the “American dream.” That concept is valuable. Obviously, winning over committed opponents to full on open borders is likely impossible. But you may be able to soften them with respect to certain immigrants in certain situations.
Anonymous
Oct 30 2019 at 2:42pm
It seems like a real pipe dream that unlimited and uncontrolled immigration will result in a smaller government. And of course it’s a one-way ratchet. Once immigrants come in, they’re never going back out. So what happens if 500 million central americans move into the country and within decades politics move strongly toward South/Central American politics? “Oops”?
I also see no connection to work ethic or meritocracy. Instead, open borders reward people who happen to be born in Mexico and environs, while disadvantaging others and discouraging them from coming. A system like Canada’s or Australia’s would actually reward work ethic and other merits.
As far as freedom goes, it’s like the right to enter and live in someone else’s house. I know everyone furiously protests this analogy, probably because it is so apt.
The idea of a sovereign nation with property rights to its borders that supercede the “rights” of non-members to violate them (e.g. free movement) is just anathema to most hardcore libertarians. In the end they simply reject sovereignty and believe that countries should cease to exist (primarily the U.S. of course). What would be the practical effect of that? This doesn’t seem to concern them greatly, despite what a massive change it would be. But they don’t like to openly argue for dissolution of the federal government and nation.
IVV
Oct 30 2019 at 3:04pm
…There’s only 47 million Central Americans. Clearly the answer is to move to the blessedly vacated isthmus.
Sometimes, I wonder, though, if a better solution wouldn’t be if the USA made a call out to the world: “Would you like to be annexed by the USA? Let us know, and we’ll talk.” Because if people want in, wouldn’t it be easier to export institutions than import people?
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 4:08pm
The flaw in that reasoning is that US success is not solely because of our institutions.
IVV
Oct 30 2019 at 5:09pm
Agreed, it’s more of a thought experiment than anything, but I feel like it helps to demonstrate what the actual challenge is: developing the high-trust environment necessary to enjoy a prosperous economy.
nobody.really
Oct 30 2019 at 5:14pm
I’d had a similar thought. Imagine the next US president making a big announcement: “While Trump left many of his promises unfulfilled, I want to let his supporters know that we’re not giving up; we’re doubling down. In particular, we’re implementing a revised trade agreement covering all of North America, and we’re going to create a mechanism that will virtually eliminate undocumented people crossing our southern border. Specifically, we’re forming a union of all of the nations of North America, from Canada to Panama. Recall Trump’s vision of a wall on our southern border with a moat? What a joke–as compared to the Panama Canal. And as a bonus, it’s already built–Mission Accomplished! We’re making America TRULY great–in every sense!”
Surely Trump voters would be thrilled to see all their ambitions fulfilled, right? Yet somehow, I suspect they’d manage to find something to complain about….
robc
Oct 30 2019 at 9:15pm
The Kurds offered, but Nixon said no.
Thaomas
Oct 31 2019 at 9:56am
I imagine if a Central American asylum seeker were offered the option of protection by US institutions in their country, most would take t over immigration.
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 4:06pm
I think we can look to the European Union as an example. There have been open borders between Sweden and Bulgaria for over a decade (which have a similar gap in GDP per capita as the US and Mexico). Yet most Bulgarians still live in Bulgaria—and the ones who have moved to Western Europe are overwhelmingly the younger and more ambitious ones who are not going there to increase welfare.
Open borders maximizes meritocracy because it treats everyone in the world the same regardless of their citizenship; therefore those who get ahead are those who create the most consumer value for others. A Canadian or Australian system would be an improvement over the existing US system but would be inferior to open borders because it would still privilege those who happen to have been born in the US over others.
The main libertarian theory of why land ownership is legitimate is that the first person who peacefully develops land ought to own it, provided there is plenty of land left for others. These conditions do not apply to nations—most land owned by nations is conquered, not settled and developed peacefully, and people cannot just go run off and create their own nation as all habitable land is already claimed. Treating national land like private property is more like a feudal system where 200 lords control all the land in the world and everyone must do what they say if they want to live on their “property.”
Alexander Turok
Oct 30 2019 at 4:31pm
Sweden has a much more regulated and unionized labor market than America does. Of course if America did get open borders, I expect many more private sector workers would exercise their right to form unions, and demands for labor market regulation would increase. Conservation of Walls.
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 4:10pm
And countries would of course continue to exist even if borders were open. Most countries had open borders prior to World War I and they certainly existed. There are open borders between US states and countries of the EU, yet those states and countries still exist. Borders should delimit the jurisdiction of governments, not the rights of people.
Kurt Schuler
Oct 30 2019 at 10:17pm
In a paragraph that I think accurately describes the views of many conservatives, the late Charles Krauthammer once wrote, “As the most attractive land for would-be immigrants, America has the equivalent of the first 100 picks in the NBA draft. Yet through lax border control and sheer inertia, it allows those slots to be filled by (with apologies to Bill Buckley) the first 100 names in the San Salvador phone book.” Telling conservatives that yes, you want to take the first 100 names in the San Salvador phone book is forthright in its candor will not win you any conservative converts. If this page is representative of the overall level of argument in the comic book, you are clueless about conservative views.
Thaomas
Oct 31 2019 at 10:44am
All of these reasons, except for “small government” per se, are reasons that Liberals do support greater immigration, although not “open borders.”
BG
Nov 1 2019 at 1:14pm
This is premised on the false assumption that all people are the same. Libertarians seem to grasp that individuals differ, but they don’t seem to grasp that populations differ, and that the character of a population affects the character of a society.
You might want to ask why the US and NW Europe achieved such high levels of prosperity and personal freedom, while other countries lagged behind. Why did the US prosper while Mexico lagged? Both started out with abundant natural resources, but they had different founding populations. Institutions are part of the answer, but institutions depend on people, and institutions can be changed.
The false assumption is that you can change the population without changing the nature of a society.
Comments are closed.