
If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated? - colinismyname
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-people-could-immigrate-anywhere-would-poverty-be-eliminated/275332/
======
vilhelm_s
I do think increasing migration from poor to rich areas is a good idea,
although it should probably be scaled up slowly to make sure that there is no
unexpected effects that makes the wealth of rich areas suddenly collapse.

I have a different cause though, which I also feel receives too little love:
increasing migration between rich areas.

Currently citizens of EU states have the right to move freely inside the EU,
subject to them getting a job or having enough independent means to not need
state welfare. This is seems like an excellent idea, and surely it could scale
up to a larger area than just the EU. For example, how about the EU, the US,
Japan, and the rich areas of China [1]. For software developers, being able to
conveniently move to the Bay Area would be really welcome.

[1] E.g. Beijing and Shanghai. These already have strict immigration
restrictions, so including them in the common area would not expose industrial
regions to immigration from agricultural regions.

------
uvdiv
_To see their point, imagine an American in rural Mississippi being told she
cannot move to New York City to seek a better career._

Tangentially, this is exactly the situation in China today. The central
government restricts movement, particularly between rural and urban areas.
Many rural poor want to move to cities, but it is not legal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Household_registr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Household_registration_in_China)

~~~
Kudzu_Bob
In America, the ruling elites have ways of keeping out the rabble by means of
making city life both costly and difficult.

~~~
snowwrestler
City life is costly and difficult precisely because so many people freely
choose to live there.

~~~
Kudzu_Bob
This New York Times article discusses not only why it is so hard for poor
people to live New York but also _why the cost of living for the affluent is
lower there than elsewhere_.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/who-says-new-
york...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/who-says-new-york-is-not-
affordable.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&&pagewanted=print)

------
SilasX
Yes, but, (importantly) _only_ if the immigration isn't so rapid that it
destroys the cultural and social capital that makes the wealthier countries
desirable targets of immigration in the first place.

Caplan has very insightful remarks about the benefits of immigration and the
inconsistency of current policy on it. But he is unhelpfully silent on the
question of the _upper_ bound on ideal peaceful immigration, and yes, there
certainly is one. Taking his ideas literally, we should be totally okay with
Chinese army regulars "peacefully" immigrating, then using their free trade
rights to import their weaponry. Sure, enacting their "takeover America" plan
would be worthy of opposing (and violating free trade/movement ideals), but by
then it's too late.

(Before you flame me: no I'm not saying that this would be the result of
relaxing immigration policy; please read it carefully and flame me for the
right reason.)

There has to be some principle that tells you when you are allowing in too
many immigrants, which would stop you before you reach that point, and Caplan
shows far too little interest in articulating it.

~~~
mcantelon
I get the impression that these "open borders" advocates are utterly
uninterested in the fallout in the West. The advantage of open borders for the
economic elite is it will likely drive down Western labor costs and will
further weaken the union movement. Labor costs and union strength have already
been dramatically reduced by globalization: another idea promoted using
similar rhetoric.

------
jonemo
I've been thinking about the idea of free migration for a while. Not in the
context of eliminating poverty, but as the perfect implementation of
democracy: Vote with your feet, go to wherever you like it best.

If all immigration and emigration restrictions were dropped everywhere, and
anyone could freely move from any country to any country, and you were full
citizen of whatever country you are living in at any given point, what would
happen? Would democracy as political system prevail or would people simply
move in and out of non-democratic countries depending on how their respective
rules work for them? Would there be inhabitable regions on earth that are
abandoned because everyone moved away? Would there be countries that attract
all the "desirable" citizen while other countries collapse because they were
left with "undesirable" citizens? Is there even such a thing as a generally
"desirable" citizen or are people only desirable to some countries but not
others? If one (but only one) of those open-border countries were to start
implementing new immigration restrictions (that should be possible, after all
you can leave if you don't like it), would this result in a net outflow of
people and the ultimate collapse of this country? Or would the country strive
and be home to some kind of elite group of people? Would the world move back
to a state where every country has immigration restrictions, or would we find
a different equilibrium?

I know next to nothing about immigration policy, but thinking of this as a
game is quite interesting. I wonder if there are simulations where you can
model scenarios like this?

~~~
danenania
I think that in the long run, true open borders would be a death-knell for the
nation-state. The two central purposes for nations, as opposed to local and
regional governments, are regulating immigration and responding to (or
mounting) military threats. After societies have intermixed to a certain
point, you'll see the death of nationalism and sufficient cultural and
religious diversity in the electorates of wealthy countries that declaring war
on any other country will become very difficult as you'll always have 20% of
your populace sharing a religion or cultural kinship or some other line of
sympathy.

Add to this the strain of large demographic shifts on representative
democracies and you have the recipe for a break up into a decentralized
network of regional and local governments that run things according to their
particular demographic make-ups. The correlation we have come to expect
between geographical proximity and consistent culture and politics would begin
to disappear.

~~~
sardonicbryan
The thing that is really going to collapse our current national system is
crypto currency. Once governments can't collect taxes easily, could easily see
us going to a Neal Stephenson Diamond Age style post national, lifestyle group
based system.

------
elptacek
One of my mom's hippie friends brought up the idea of a single world
government to me when I was young enough to think it was a beautiful idea.
Every time I've thought about the idea of open borders since, the analogy of
driving in traffic comes to mind. To wit, the idea of open borders seems as
orthogonal to basic human nature as allowing someone to change lanes into the
space in front of you. Even when it is possible that the other driver has to
exit the expressway for some very real reason (mechanical troubles, physical
illness), it seems difficult to overcome the reflex of NOPE. Of course the
scale is different. Letting someone into traffic doesn't cost you very much,
in the grand scheme of things. Outside of that one movie plot where you are
one minute late and miss some opportunity that changes your life.

The US has been headed very much in the opposite direction for the last
decade. These decisions seem very counter-intuitive and I've read and heard a
number of stories where people have tried to get into the states to contribute
(teach, give talks, consult) and have been sent home. Likely these stories
make the romance of freedom seem all the more compelling. But I see the
reality of a rate of change that has historically created a bad environment.
Think New York City circa 1880.

------
mcantelon
This video, although speaking only about allowing unrestricted immigration to
the US, is worth watching for perspective.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE>

Unrestricted immigration would make the West's social safety nets and
healthcare impossible to maintain. There would be corresponding civil unrest
as a reaction.

The obvious first thing to do about world poverty is provide free birth
control and related education.

------
chipsy
Here's a real-world example of a mass migration occurring: German
reunification. 20 years on, a disparity remains but both economies have grown
substantially and towards parity, and the population figures have only shifted
somewhat.[1] To some extent this is a best-case since there are other
similarities among Germans, but it's an example of how it can go well.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/west-east-
german...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/west-east-germany-
split)

------
parennoob
H'm, I have indulged in this as a thought experiment plenty of times, and
actually think it might ease the pressure of immigration, specially on
countries like the United States. Although I suppose the complications of
things like benefits and medical care make it probably un-implementable in
practice.

I'm reasonably well off, childless, and if I were given a free choice of any
country to emigrate to, I'm fairly sure the U.S. wouldn't be the first on my
list.

~~~
uvdiv
_Although I suppose the complications of things like benefits and medical care
make it probably un-implementable in practice._

There's a case to be made that welfare states are immoral for this reason. If
national social guarantees force you to restrict third-world economic
mobility, it's not progressive: it's the opposite. Internally it's
egalitarian, but globally, it's a group of rich people using force to preserve
inequality. It's not just failing to help the poor: it's actively repressing
their attempts to help themselves.

~~~
larsonf
Absolutely.

I've always thought of this in relation to the outcry against "the 1%" in the
US from people outside the country (like Scandinavia, etc). We might be
unequal in the US but the One-percenters don't have the right to use deadly
force and do not have standing armies. But these so-called egalitarian
northern European states have both. (Although I do in fact _love_ Northern
European countries and their people, I'm just pointing out the strangeness of
the position.)

In many ways we'd see a massive US if borders in all countries were opened.
The author of the piece hints at this as well. Many groups will still lose
out, but the laws will be uniform and will add to efficiency. I feel like the
British Colonies were a good example of this.

------
auggierose
A special case of this question is that the destination of the immigration is
the US. Let's assume this, and let's also assume that an immigrant is
magically and automatically converted into a proper US citizen (believing in
women's rights, having gay buddies, etc.). Now imagine that EVERYONE outside
of the US immigrates to the US. Because nobody would be left outside of the
US, the US could expand to cover the entire planet. The real question now is:
Is the US self-sustainable, i.e. can it function totally on its own?

~~~
jacquesm
> a proper US citizen (believing in women's rights, having gay buddies, etc.).

Sometimes it is hard to see when people are joking here.

> Is the US self-sustainable, i.e. can it function totally on its own?

There's a huge question that needs to be answered first then: who would we
wage war on?

~~~
VLM
Oh try harder, consider "The War of Northern Aggression" in the early 1860s.

We currently have a VERY profitable civil war against our own population, "The
War on (Some) Drugs".

I feel quite confident the military industrial complex would continue to
profit.

------
huherto
There seems to be an implicit assumption that every body wants to emigrate to
the US.

I don't that is true. If given the choice a lot of people would choose to
stay. Sure, you can have more material things, but you will have to go to a
strange place, far from friends and family, where you are just a stranger,
that possible don't even speak the language.

People who decide to emigrate is because they have strong reasons. Either your
situation is desperate or your are very courageous, or both. Leaving your
country is really not easy.

~~~
threedaymonk
It's a manifestly false assumption, too. We've had free movement in the EU for
quite some time, and yet Greece is not empty. Migration waxes and wanes with
economic factors, but most of the population stays home, where their family,
language, and culture is, regardless.

------
bane
I think something that's not discussed as much, but would resonate with the HN
audience...with lots of us being full or part-time remote workers, imagine
being an American and doing your remote job with the low low cost of living of
living in Thailand? Or how about waking up on a beach and eating fresh Oysters
in Ecuador? Imagine if the majority of your salary went into the local economy
of the Dominican Republic?

Sure lots of Thais, Ecuadorians and Dominicans might move to the U.S. and
Western Europe for jobs, but the Americans and Europeans might move to their
countries and live like kings, generating tons of local jobs.

Now suppose you did your remote job in the countryside of South Korea
(relatively cheap and has its charms), and you decide you need an junior
person to help you out with your work? Why not hire an incredibly well
educated local, who'd be just as happy to not take a job in a boring _chaebol_
grinder? Now you're generating high-end white collar jobs?

------
dllthomas
Eliminated? No, I think that's overstating it. But reduced? Likely.

------
Ras_
Welfare states are quite fault tolerant, but could they handle unlimited
immigration? It isn't just money. Societies with high level of trust would
change psychologically if too many people from states in disrepair would
arrive at once.

How much poverty would need to be eliminated that dismantling of welfare state
becomes an acceptable trade-off?

------
tokenadult
I've thought about this for a long time, as an American who twice lived
overseas as a bona-fide long-term resident of another country. My wife, a
first-generation immigrant to the United States, is just one of many examples
of first-generation immigrants to the United States I know, from many
countries.

From the article: "George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, whose writing at
EconLog inspired Naik's interest in open borders, has offered 'keyhole'
solutions as a substitute for black and white, yes-or-no questions on
immigration. 'If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants
higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers,'
Caplan wrote last year. 'If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make
immigrants ineligible for benefits. If immigrants hurt American culture, we
can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy. If immigrants hurt
American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote. Whatever your
complaint happens to be, immigration restrictions are a needlessly draconian
remedy.'"

Further along in the article, what is to me the scariest possible outcome of
huge immigration is mentioned: "Naik points out that 'political externalities'
may be a major drawback of allowing anyone who wants to move to stable,
wealthy nations to do so. Gallup polls have found that 700 million people
would like to permanently move to another country, many of them from
developing nations with failed political systems. If the U.S. or another
wealthy nation were to see a sudden large increase in immigrants from these
countries, it's possible that the new populace will vote for bad policies in
their new home. As Naik puts it, some people believe that 'if you're coming
from a place that has a problem, you are probably part of the problem, and if
you move to a new place you might bring the problem with you.'" I would indeed
want a keyhole solution to acculturate new immigrants to United States
political culture (which I have seen done, for my wife) before allowing them
to vote in local or national elections. One great advantage that the United
States has over many other countries is that its sources of immigrants are so
diverse that the immigrants tend to educate and broaden the perspective of one
another. As I have related before here on Hacker News, all my grandparents
were born in the United States, but three of the four spoke a language other
than English at home, and my two maternal grandparents, one born in Nebraska
and one born in Colorado, received all of their schooling in the German
language. My grandparents learned English and learned American attitudes about
civic culture because they interacted with other people who had come here from
other places besides where their ancestors came from. That's always the
strength of American society, and that's why I'm generally sympathetic to very
open immigration policies. I am aware many Europeans don't feel the same way,
but most countries in Europe LOST population to emigration until rather recent
times, so the European experience with the benefits of immigration is not as
deep as the American experience.

The other reason the policy suggestion is plausible to me is that I have
visited Hong Kong, a territory that was flooded with immigrants during my
lifetime, on more than one occasion. Countries that receive large influxes of
people from elsewhere can learn to deal with that.

AFTER EDIT: Here's the website with the policy case for open borders

<http://openborders.info/>

mentioned and linked in the submitted article.

~~~
lobotryas
It's worrying to see that Caplan thinks his "keyhole" solutions are
politically feasible.

Let's say you let the genie out of the bottle and allow open immigration with
several restrictions (higher taxes, no right to vote) for this new group of
immigrants. First you have a problem with deciding when to lift these
restrictions (10 years, a test, only the next generation?).

Even if you find a solution, you will be breeding resentment due to imposed
inequality. Now you are facing a protest and political movement composed of
immigrants and their citizen sympathizers who are demanding the ever-popular
"justice, equality, etc". For a recent example see the illegal immigrant
Debate in the US. Southern illegals are already entering the US (illegally) as
if the borders are open, already face discrimination and restricted rights and
_already_ have a political movement to fight for things that matter to them.

~~~
davidw
> you will be breeding resentment due to imposed inequality.

Telling those people to stay the hell out isn't exactly winning you any points
either.

In any event, political article, consider flagging.

~~~
saffer
Discontented people within your borders are a much bigger problem then
discontented people outside your borders though.

Also, as a potential future immigrant (native English speaker, doing a PhD in
the US, not very culturally distant from Americans except perhaps for a
greater appreciation of Monty Python) I would feel extremely alienated if told
I had to pay higher taxes for the rest of my life just because I was born
elsewhere. The current immigration system may be frustrating at times, but at
least I can hold onto the hope that if I become a citizen here, I will have
the same rights as everyone else. (Except running for president, which isn't
relevant to my planned career path anyway.)

------
1337
This comment over at Bryan Caplan's blog pretty much sums it up nicely:
([http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/02/open_borders_in....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/02/open_borders_in.html#252166))

1\. Poverty is endogenous to population, not exogenous. Admitting a flood of
poor immigrants to your country makes your country poor. All this stuff about
being born on the wrong side is misleading, because the difference between the
two sides is not natural resources or something* but the people themselves.

Also your stuff about willing employers and landlords is incomplete, because
those people do not keep immigrants in cages. The immigrants impose stiff
externalities on other people in the destination country, who are not able to
adjust their costs and benefits vis-a-vis immigrants by lowering their wages
or raising their rents.

2\. Restricting immigration is necessary to avert the destruction of the high-
capital-to-worker society which is uniquely conducive to technological
progress. Even if mass immigration may please some poor immigrants in the
short run, it is 'eating the seed corn.' As commenters have pointed out to you
before, virtually all the world population growth in the last two centuries
has been enabled by the diffusion of technology from advanced countries to
poor ones (and one reason most formerly-poor countries are still poor is that
they put nearly all their economic growth into population growth rather than
capital accumulation, so they stayed near the Malthusian limit!). Transforming
all the advanced countries into poor countries by mass immigration will kill
the goose that lays the golden eggs. Anyway, hard-core utilitarianism is a
suicide pact; clearly non-adaptive. The moral duty to refrain from harming
strangers, which is a form of cooperation (offer to participate in 'mutual
altruism') does not extend to a duty to relieve all strangers' opportunity
costs of not having been born or invited into the community.

Also, there are diminishing marginal returns to immigration. The first few
poor immigrants may enjoy big wage gains over their home-country wages (though
higher cost of living in rich countries will mitigate those gains) but as more
immigrants arrive to compete down wages and fill all the jobs enabled by the
available industrial capital, each new immigrant gains less and less over
staying home. (We know for sure there isn't much demand for low-wage workers
in rich countries-- low wages==low demand!) It is therefore misleading to
suggest that open immigration will relieve much poverty around the world,
because only a modest amount of migration will force the marginal gains to
zero. Sadly, by that point, the quality of life for citizens of the (formerly)
rich countries will have dimished toward poor-country levels. So open borders
means economically destroying rich-country citizens to benefit a small
percentage of world poor people. Temporarily.

3\. You tend to destroy your own credibility when you lie, even by omission or
by statistical legerdemain. Poor immigrants pay much less in taxes than they
(and their offspring) consume in benefits. This is very well documented (in
Europe as well as in the US) and conceded even by (intellectually honest)
open-borders advocates, and it has been pointed out to you with links to
reliable references many times. The closest you can come to justifying your
propaganda is to average (as Julian Simon was wont to do) a few hyper-rich
Google-founder-type immigrants in with the millions of low-IQ Mexican peasant
illegal aliens. That's dishonest because we don't need open borders to admit
math geniuses-- we do that already.

4\. The "guest worker" approach doesn't work: (1) even immigrants "ineligible
for benefits" collect them. They have children and claim welfare payments and
schooling for them. __They get sick or injured and go to the E.R.. They file
for EITC. (2) Poor immigrants excite the sympathy of nice people, the
duplicity of leftist politicians, and the cupidity of businessmen. Every
grocer in a neighborhood of poor immigrants funds politicians who work to
extend benefits to immigrants because the grocer wants his customers to spend
more money and he doesn't mind if that money is taxed away from citizens
somewhere else. Every employer of poor immigrants is a big advocate for
government subsidies to them because those reduce the wages the employer must
pay to maintain his workforce-- it's a matter of socializing costs and
privatizing benefits. In our society, the only way to avoid subsidizing poor
immigrants is to exclude them from the country.

(Nobody is "forcing" anyone to go and live in Haiti. Your prospective
immigrants already live in Haiti. They were born in Haiti. Haiti may be a dump
but the Haitians made it that way. Americans have no duty to import Haitians
to make America a dump like Haiti. Americans who feel sorry for Haitians can
send them money. Hope springs eternal, but experience is the best teacher.
More than a century of American experience with Haitians in and out of Haiti
suggests that no amount of subsidy improves Haiti because the Hatians
themselves squander any resources given to them, and bringing Haitians to the
US simply adds mouths to the welfare rolls (and inmates to the jails). The
only way to "fix" Haiti-- an approach I oppose completely-- would be conquest
and imperial administration. I do not advocate doing that.)

 _Generally speaking. Oil sheikdoms and so-forth are noise.

_ *Eventually a disproportionate number of the children of low-quality
immigrants become criminals and impose additional stiff costs on citizens.

~~~
rayiner
People don't like to hear it, but this is true. Part of what makes America
successful is Americans. Community and culture, not just capital. When my dad
left Bangladesh, he did so partly to get away from Bengalis.

~~~
anxx
Same here. I am going the US because I am much more like Americans than the
people from my country. The last thing I want is the ability of the pervasive
unethical mindset from back home to make its way to the US.

------
qwerta
Typical american self-centered bu*it. Streets filled with homeless people and
unemployment over 25%. Yet somehow world poverty would magically disappear if
entire world population would move to New York or California.

------
sigzero
Only in a very simplistic model. Otherwise, the answer is no.

------
EdwardTattsyrup
A really good way to make this happen would be for the US to just "open its
borders" around the rest of the world so that every place currently outside of
the US becomes a US state. (Either that or China should do it.)

Think of the efficiency: it would save many thousands of tons of fuel, reduce
greenhouse gas exhaust, save people transport time and travel stress, etc.

It reminds me of the old "How do you move Mt. Fuji?" challenge. Problem
solved. Next question please.

------
o0-0o
NO. There are plenty of places that only allow you to build a home on 25
acres. You can't build a home in these places if you're poor.

------
codex
No. Two reasons:

A. Poverty is always relatively defined. There will always be a bottom n
percent in the population.

B. A high bar for immigration acts as a filter to select the hardest working,
most intelligent, most willing to take risks, and sometimes the richest. Take
that filter away and the profile of immigrants looks quite different.

------
huherto
I think once a country reaches a stable population, you can implement free
immigration. You could have multi country treaties where for every person that
is allowed in another country you could have one person get in. That would
keep flows under control and give freedom to the people.

------
lakeeffect
The mobility of labor will never offset the negative externalities of
globalized mercantilism.

------
drucken
Immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with relieving world poverty and
could never fulfill such a goal.

The primary effect, and perhaps purpose of immigration (excluding asylum), is
to keep labor costs down. One could even convincingly claim that wages, in
general, are controlled by immigration and certainly not the "free market".

A useful side effect is that it maintains a healthier demographic profile.

------
eip
As long as there are privately owned central banks and debt based money there
will always be extreme poverty.

------
SPSteinbeck
The costs of such a project -- downward pressure on working class wages,
elevated levels of crime among urban poor, dangerous and degraded public
schools, etc. -- are not born by writers at The Atlantic, or economists like
Bryan Caplan. They know semi-literate peasants pose no threat to their
livelihood and they don't feel any more solidarity with another American than
would with urban poor in Bangladesh. That people in positions of influence can
believe such things is a damning indictment of the United States.

In historical terms, there is an important distinction between _inimicus_ vs
_hostis_ ; that is, hostility between individuals _within_ a given political
order vs hostility to the political order itself. To someone who views a
country as nothing more than a utilitarian vehicle for atomized and rootless
individuals to maximize their earning potential, this distinction vanishes and
thus someone like Bryan Caplan -- a rootless cosmopolitan in every sense of
the word -- can publicly and proudly endorse to the destruction and
displacement of a people in their own country.

People like this are not men with legitimate opinions and ambitions -- a man
who is a traitor to his own people is by definition an evil man and a
criminal. He is categorically animated by malice and he's an unjust _hostis_
(enemy) of his own society.

------
Kudzu_Bob
Open Borders can eliminate poverty only if evolution from the neck up doesn't
happen.

