This study analyzed changes to the US immigration policy in the form of supply side
changes of unskilled workers. The results showed that a successful deportation of all Mexican
workers increases the demand of unskilled domestic and foreign documented workers; this is
how employers would fill the gap of having less undocumented workers. The shift towards
unskilled domestic and foreign documented workers raises the real wage of these workers which
is beneficial for employees but not for the employers. With this increase in production costs, all
sectors in the economy would reduce output, which in turn decreases GDP, which is consistent
with the GDP reduction due to reduction in the employment of undocumented workers found by
Dixon and Rimmer (2008).
In contrast, the legalization scenarios have a positive effect on US GDP. The legalization
of unskilled workers increases competition and puts downward pressure on real wages which in
turn benefits employers. The effects on the real wage of unskilled workers depends on whether
domestic and foreign workers. The real wage of unskilled domestic workers is reduced by a
small amount, as explained before by Greenwood et al. (1997) and Hanson et al. (2002). The
real wages of the unskilled foreign documented workers decrease by a higher percentage, which
is consistent with the findings of Borjas (1987). With lower production costs, sectoral output
increases, which in turn increases GDP.
This literature survey might also be useful:
I don’t disagree with microbet’s assertion that open borders are good for the economy. I just don’t think that open borders has to go hand in hand with instant citizenship and I’d like to do more exploration of options for more open, but not completely open borders that are wider than the status quo but not what someone like microbet wants.
If I were to agree with completely open borders, I probably would not agree to do it in one fell swoop. I’d want to first establish open borders with Canada and Mexico to create a travel area without border control like the Schengen Area. Then, I’d establish some sort of reciprocity with the EU. And would work towards expanding to other countries. And, yes, of course I understand how this leaves poor and brown countries out of the loop, but the goal would be to get them in eventually.
I am not talking about the average. I am talking about some percentage of them that for a variety of reasons will not be productive enough to make up for the benefits they might get.
If all it takes is a plane ride and depending on their circumstances, yes.
Considering US involvement in installing brutal two bit dictators in the Northern Triangle and our drug use has created drug cartels and criminal gangs which rip their countries apart the least we owe them is citizenship. Really there should be some reparations too.
Thanks. I will read this, too. The part you quoted talks about “unskilled workers” which isn’t what I had in mind. What I was getting at that open borders will also admit people who are not able to work. Will they get benefits?
I would also say that I tend to be process-oriented rather than results-oriented, which I don’t think is the same as a bureaucracy fetish. If I were Senate parliamentarian, you could trust in me to make rulings that would make my personal policy preferences harder to pass.
I understand that my political views do not minimize suffering and I am okay with that.
Whether open borders means that immigrants get benefits is open to debate. If such benefits are tied to citizenship, then it depends on how citizenship is granted.
Sure, everything I said can be reduced to “be productive or die”.
Then let me clarify. I acknowledge that the current average immigrant is an economic net positive. If you will have completely open borders and a generous social safety net then it stands to reason that there will be more immigrants that will be less productive than the current average immigrant.
So? Some percentage of natives are not productive. If immigrants are more productive on average they will generate enough wealth to provide for the additional demand on the welfare state.
And no, a huge influx of 80yo Guatemalans by plane is not happening. You might be a bit out of touch about what immigrants to the US, specially the ones who end up in our detention centers are like.
A lot of immigrants do come by plane from all over the world - China, Israel, Somalia, UK, Canada…all over. Most people seem to assume they are productive enough.
It doesn’t have to be citizenship which is a whole another issue. Let’s only talk about permanent resident status for now. If they don’t get benefits what will you do with them? Let them be homeless, starve, deny them medical care? That doesn’t seem to be a great solution.
Again: right now every immigrant knows he will get approximately fuck all from the US government. Obviously that will attract a different kind of demographic, generally younger able-bodied that are somewhat confident that they will be able to make a living. You don’t think that will change if there is UBI, social security and universal healthcare for every resident?
I am not talking about Germany and the German safety net is not that generous. I wouldn’t want to live on it. This forum and its previous incarnations has talked about UBI and M4A for years now so I assume that is where you want to end up. What I am questioning is how you can have that with completely open borders at the same time.
It’s weird so see people argue that they are worried there will be a flood of immigrants to the first world nation with by far the worst social safety net.