
If borders were open - kawera
https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724907-yes-it-would-be-disruptive-potential-gains-are-so-vast-objectors-could-be-bribed
======
sattoshi
>European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into
trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be
young and male.

I don't even know where to start with this. Could it be that young and male
aren't the core of the issue?

I like how the article almost dismisses the realities of religious and racial
conflicts.

Then there is this:

>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an
uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants
vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it
is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants
might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay
extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could
also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden
surges

This seems like a very sane system. Why is this not something we do? Do we not
care about local interests at all as long as immigration isn't "too high"?

As an immigrant, I think this would be fair.

~~~
0x4f3759df
Not to mention the social welfare systems would collapse.

~~~
conanbatt
Milton friedman spoke 40 years ago of how people in america changed their
views on immigration. In the 1800's and early 1900's, immigration was open and
considered nowadays to be one of the great processes that got america to be
what it is. Bring me the poor and the sick and all that. 60 years later, turns
out immigrants are lazy welfarers.

As MF says, the moment you put welfare, suddenly you end up wanting to
restrict people's freedoms. In any case, being inelegible for welfare is a lot
kinder than having quotas of how many people can come in, absurd legal fees,
the unpredictability of lotteries, and all of that.

~~~
programmarchy
This is a good point. Once welfare systems exist, you don't know if immigrants
are coming because they believe in the host nation's cultural values or if
it's just because they want free stuff, and have no intention of assimilation.

~~~
conanbatt
It is one of the terrible side effects of all welfare programs. If you have
socialized medicine, suddently it makes sense to ban products and practices
for public health (since it lowers costs). If you agree to split the bill with
the friends, you end up having to make rules on what people should be able to
order to make sure things dont go too out of whack.

~~~
Zahlmeister
Meanwhile, if healthcare is profit-driven, suddenly it makes sense to
recommend pointless treatments for revenue reasons.

Obamacare is basically the worst of both worlds.

------
sergiotapia
>One seemingly simple policy could make the world twice as rich as it is: open
borders.

In this utopian paradise the author describes is he willfully ignoring the
fact that different cultures exist? Not all cultures are equal, no matter what
the current narrative tells you. This is a terrible, empty article.

>If lots of people migrated from war-torn Syria, gangster-plagued Guatemala or
chaotic Congo, would they bring mayhem with them? It is an understandable fear
(and one that anti-immigrant politicians play on), but there is little besides
conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.

Alright now this empty article turned insidious.

~~~
smrtinsert
The article doesn't purport to understand or comprehend cultural differences,
it's simply exploring the economic case. It's not call The Culturalist.

For an empty article, you've had a very strong reaction to it.

~~~
artursapek
> but there is little besides conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support it.

He had a strong reaction because he's tired of these kinds of lies being
perpetuated by our media. Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic
parts of the world brings a huge burden on the host population.

~~~
conanbatt
Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous
centuries?

~~~
pixl97
>> Everybody knows mass immigration from problematic parts of the world
__brings a huge burden on the host population. __

> Was that true for america when it had the immigrant influx in the previous
> centuries?

Lets ask all the dead native Americans about that.

~~~
conanbatt
Gotta be that apex predator, thats what all legislation is really about.

------
conanbatt
Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.

Think of how insane a proposal to limit people moving from a state to another
in the US would be, how many arguments would be concocted against that, but so
many arguments in favour of international restrictions.

I have no doubts that free movement would have drastic positive economic and
social effects. What is truly incredible is how adamant people can be to
categorize and justify creating rules to prevent other people from moving
around.

~~~
pixl97
>Any kind of immigration restriction is an act of oppression.

That seems quite naive, to the point of outright stupidity.

If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very
easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population
to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their
satellite states.

Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the
said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution, and
same supreme court system.

I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right
fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco
doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be
beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up
and claiming their area as new territory.

Free movement will have dramatic effects. Some may be positive, but you seem
to steadfastly think it will not be manipulated in horrible, horrible ways by
the nation states that already exist.

~~~
conanbatt
> If I was a large nation state with a very large population, it would be very
> easy to take over another smaller nation by just migrating a huge population
> to that country. This was used by the USSR post-takeover in many of their
> satellite states.

That is always true. Its called an invasion, and the rules of warfare and
immigration are pretty different.

> Looking at state-to-state movement restrictions is silly because all of the
> said population is under the same federal jurisdiction, same constitution,
> and same supreme court system.

When a foreigner enters the us, he is under the same federal jurisdiction,
constitution and supreme court system. There is no conflict of law. There is
conflict of interest, only if you portray the issue as an us vs them.

> I can promise you that the Netherlands doesn't want 20 million far right
> fundamentalist christians moving there and influencing policy. San Francisco
> doesn't want a few million Wahhabi Saudi's saying that gays should be
> beheaded. Small Pacific islands don't want a few million Chinese showing up
> and claiming their area as new territory.

The netherlands doesn't want anything, because it's not a person. San
francisco is a city, it doesn't have a will or a life. Individuals want things
and do what they can to do it. If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to
San Francisco, who the hell is a government official in san francisco to
forbid him to do it. Funny you mention SF that has a movement to kick out
software developers and startups, because it's "destroying the culture of the
city".

If 1 million saudi conservatives move to san francisco, they would pay so much
money to achieve such a ridiculous demographic goal that the residents will
have plenty of money to move and change another city to their own liking. That
is, unless they are forbidden to do it by another government official.

~~~
nostromo123
> If a bigot or an intolerant wants to move to San Francisco, who the hell is
> a government official in san francisco to forbid him to do it.

And if the bigot/intolerant guy then throws acid in the face of your sister
because she's wearing a skirt that's too short, for example? We see this quite
often in London and other enriched European cities.

------
Kazamai
This is only a good idea if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a
few months in an attempt to escape poverty. The results would be catastrophic.

~~~
ForHackernews
FTA:

> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge
> them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access
> to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of
> migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges

~~~
fche
FTA:

> open borders

also FTA:

> why not charge them more for visas

Someone forgot what "open borders" means.

~~~
ForHackernews
Does anyone on HN actually read the article anymore? They specifically address
this:

> To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work.
> It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the
> contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries
> are well-run and others, abysmally so.

You're using a different (and unspecified) definition of "open borders" than
the authors of the article.

~~~
fche
If his "open borders"' "free to move" does not include "free to move across
borders", then it's a troll piece. If it's "free to move, if immigration law
permits", then it's a tautological piece.

~~~
ForHackernews
Maybe you should try _reading the article_ to see what the article is about.

~~~
fche
Rereading did not help make the thesis any better founded, or its abuse of the
term "open borders" any more acceptable.

------
abhi3
> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge
> them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access
> to welfare benefits?

What do you do when after a couple of years those very same immigrants
starting protesting and rioting for civil rights like equal access to welfare
benefits, equal taxes, right to vote and attribute racism as a motive for
denying it to them rather than the original policy goal of making them pay
their way and not overwhelm the locals in elections?

------
rwz
As a legal immigrant myself I'm baffled at how little typical American knows
about immigration. Everybody's usually very surprised when you tell them that
even the in the best case scenario a highly-educated specialist with a degree,
5+ years or experience, and a job offer needs to eat a ton a shit, pay a lot
of money, go through nine circles of bureaucratic hell, and wait a few years
to fully immigrate and gain a permanent residency status. How many people get
visa rejections with no explanation. How many people can't enter their country
even temporary as a tourist.

In a world where low skilled workers get replaced by automation more and more,
where even local citizens are having troubles finding or keeping a job, where
the most common source of income for non-educated people is freaking driving
professionally, sure, let's let in 160m+ folks escaping poverty and running
from countries with no education, oppressive regimes and weird religions.
Surely it'll turn out just fine. Surely they all will find decent jobs real
quick, learn the language, integrate and bring huge benefits. Uh-huh.

------
0xbear
Open borders == immediate destruction of the low-skilled and unskilled labor
market due to oversupply of labor.

~~~
conanbatt
This is the exact same argument to have collective bargaining rights and
unions.

I don't think the tech-crowd is a fan of unionization in general.

~~~
0xbear
Tech crowd is doing pretty well as it is. Low skilled and unskilled workers
are already kind of f#$ed, with more to come due to globalization, and (later)
automation.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Enter raising taxes stage right. As long as productive and automation exists
and can be taxed, we'll be fine.

~~~
0xbear
Enter automation moving to China, stage left.

~~~
true_religion
Factories need consumers. Already trade agreements require a certain
percentage of American material on a product or allow import in exchange for
US export.

~~~
0xbear
But they're arguing for open borders, no?

------
21
> Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that ... 42m would move to Britain.

That's about 5 London's. Where would these people live? Will cities magically
appear from the ground?

UK favellas?

~~~
ben_w
I imagine the migrants would get paid by other migrants to build the
hypothetical cities. That is the way literally every US city happened after
all — well, migrants or their descendants.

~~~
programmarchy
Then why aren't the migrants doing that in the places they live now?

~~~
ben_w
A significant fraction of the builders in the UK are Polish.

------
hugh4life
All that money measures is the ability to entice someone else. It does not
measure wellbeing.

When it comes to migration, no one ever talks about the consequences of moving
from a high context to a low context culture.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-
context_cultures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-
context_cultures)

Aladair Macintyre: "Consider what it is to share a culture. It is to share
schemata which are at one and the same time constitutive of and normative for
intelligible action by myself and are also means for my interpretations of the
actions of others"
[https://toutcequimonte.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/macintyre...](https://toutcequimonte.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/macintyre-
epistemological-crises-1.pdf)

Low context cultures are more atomized and legalistic. Free migration is one
of major the things that justifies the national security state powers... which
ironically these days in the west there is no sense of a nation outside of the
state. There is a weakness in that notion because the internet has weakened
the state's ability to integrate minorities because those people can live
mentally in their homelands.

Aristotle on immigration: "Another cause of revolution is difference of races
which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of
a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident.
Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their
foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution;"

Aquinas on immigration: "Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted
entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a
certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship:
just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except
after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The
reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs
of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might
occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart
might attempt something hurtful to the people."

------
Mizza
The neoliberal $78 trillion is the same as the nationalist £350m-a-week. Don't
ever be fooled by these extrapolated figures.

~~~
MistahKoala
'nationalist'...

------
jarpschop
When I see a post like this I just remember this plot. No matter how much
wealth is produced if it is shared unequally. [https://encrypted-
tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyTbD6...](https://encrypted-
tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyTbD6T93Pd_8qE9cf-
mTlqa6kU3HbwXfP2lB2ect61K_tlj8sdo9qQA0_)

------
ilugaslifk
I'm already on _extremely_ high alert for an apparently rapidly-growing
political movement whose primary demand is that I be forcibly expelled from my
home and society for the crime of sharing an ethnic heritage with people who,
it is charged, were genetically compelled to impose even a fraction of this
onto an unwilling host society.

Let's not.

------
SomewhatLikely
The article says the world would be twice as rich. World GDP/capita is $16k.
Doubling this would make it $32k/person. U.S. GDP / capita is currently $57k.
Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries, then
Americans would need to get used to living twice as poor as today.

~~~
conanbatt
> Assuming open borders lead to an equalizing effect in all countries

That assumption is both onerous and preposterous

------
kawera
What if the flow happened from richer to poorer countries?

Developing and undeveloped countries are notoriously protectionists, specially
of their visa/labor markets. What would happen if they opened their borders to
all, presumably including qualified/entrepreneurial people?

~~~
conanbatt
I dont know how protectionist poorer countries are in general, but in south
america there arent strong restrictions, because it is considered that people
from developed countries are a lot more productive, precisely the effeect you
are looking for. Sometimes there are rules meant to mimic the other ones as a
deterrent (you dont let mine, i dont let yours kind of thing. Brazil and
Argentina do this)

------
tastythrowaway2
Did I miss the part where they discuss the economics of having a larger worker
pool? like how that would affect existing workers? that seems like an enormous
question to not address fully.

~~~
conanbatt
It would not affect everyone equally, and wages in many areas would definitely
go down. For example, if the US recognized medical degrees from other
countries, the influx of doctors would be so large that the income for a
physician would drop tremendously. So the physicians that are already employed
should (if they represent their own interest) be very against such a policy.
But the aggregate would end up being that the total salaries earned by doctors
in the us would go up.

i.e. if you had 5 doctors at 500k, and you opened up, maybe you would have 10
doctors at 300k. This is a natural economic progression. Same with software
engineers: open borders would definitely have a stark impact on median income,
but there would be more startups and more work and more people employed in the
sector.

~~~
maxerickson
The US does recognize medical degrees from other countries and leans on
foreign doctors heavily.

We require them to go through a US residency.

Something like 1/4 of doctors in the US are foreign born.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/health/12chen.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/health/12chen.html)

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-
value...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/the-value-of-
immigrant-doctors/515694/)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-d...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2016/07/12/25-of-
docs-are-born-outside-of-the-u-s-can-immigration-reform-solve-our-doc-
shortage/#ff3cf5a155ff)

~~~
conanbatt
Residencies are one of the most grueling experiences for human beings ,and a
restriction that makes doctors go through that process twice (in their home
country and then in the US) amounts to a strong restriction.

Asking an experienced doctor to go through a residency is worse than asking
software developers to get a doctorate if they want to write code in the US.

~~~
ghufran_syed
Also, it's not that easy to actually get a place in a US residency, even if
you are willing to go through it again.

------
panic
It's worth remembering that before the 20th century, the US had more or less
completely open borders. And we turned out OK, didn't we?

~~~
pixl97
>And we turned out OK, didn't we?

I'm going to have to ask if this was a monumental failure of thinking on your
part?

First there are some theories that huge numbers of native Americans died from
disease leaving the US a very large empty land mass.

Second, the native Americans that were left got a real bad deal from European
immigration.

Third, the US depended heavily on slave labor in the south, something that has
left a terrible 170 legacy of racism on our country (so much so our crime
demographics look nothing like western Europe's.

Lastly, because the US was a large and empty land mass for one reason or
another, it look a long time to 'fill it up'.

Attempting to make any future assumptions based on past assumptions that are
very different from now is not going to work out well at all.

------
abhi3
Sounds good, doesn't work.

A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm
developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more
protectionism than existed before (Brexit).

Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass
migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies
(Puerto Rico).

~~~
pmarreck
Article conclusions are based on evidence and reason.

Your comment is based on speculation and belief.

You are awarded no points

------
simonsarris
A world of free economist articles would be _____ richer.

Yet they built the paywall.

There seem like a lot of obvious objections that are not addressed and raises
more questions than it asks.

> Workers in rich countries earn more than those in poor countries partly
> because they are better educated but mostly because they live in societies
> that have, over many years, developed institutions that foster prosperity
> and peace

What are these institutions, and would they be damaged at all by free
movement? If the people in good_country made the institutions, and they get
demographically boxed out by people in other_countries, what happens? What are
"institutions," exactly? Why did other_countries grow bad institutions? Would
emigrants damage those countries further? The article semi asks these
questions then drops the thread.

I think articles like this tend to simplify or handwave the caveats in
unrealistic ways, so their result is always a lopsided analysis. Example of
such a simplification:

> But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more
> space.

Yeah they could, but most won't. See: The bay area, Boston, NYC. (A few do:
Montreal, or Tokyo, which added more housing than all of California last year)

~~~
pram
These guys basically believe in magic soil, and that the inhabitants of "rich
countries" are inherently interchangeable. The institutions just magically
appeared separate from culture and demographics.

~~~
ForHackernews
Institutions are mostly policies, procedures and process.

What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one? Would you
rather work in a team of geniuses with no process, or a team of average
developers who follow best practices?

~~~
shard972
> Institutions are mostly policies, procedures and process.

Which are influenced by culture

> What's the difference between a well-run company and poorly-run one?

Mostly culture in my opinion

------
drumttocs8
Is this article assuming an infinite supply of jobs in any given location?

------
ben_w
The world will be richer, I personally will be poorer. I'm OK with that if it
was evenly distributed, but I doubt my fellow rich caucasian men will be.

~~~
fche
Even distribution is not appropriate when work value is so terribly unequal.

