3 ms·

Informed arguments for increased immigration are the exact opposite of climate-change denial primarily because they're based on actual evidence. Falsely equatin

Informed arguments for increased immigration are the exact opposite of climate-change denial primarily because they're based on actual evidence. Falsely equating the two is the height of folly. Economists have spent enough time considering the issue to suggest that the anti-immigration concerns (they'll take our jobs) are largely incorrect. As for long-term implications, when you start to consider the impact of second-generation immigrants, the negative costs of the first-generation are balanced out. I'm thinking of a couple studies in particular, but I don't have time to track them down at the moment before I run out the door (though those keywords ought to help you find them). In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for "unlimited" immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants. Setting aside the question of where the lines would be drawn under any systematic reforms, there are a number of factors that affect whether a person chooses to immigrate (time, expense, tradeoffs of moving, etc.). The simple fact that the entire population of Mexico hasn't already absconded for the United States would suggest that the fears of an endless horde of immigrants are as unfounded as worry over the population of the Ukraine running for Germany because of European border laws.

greeneggs 12y ago
"In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for 'unlimited' immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants." You might find this article of interest [1], since it counters both these points. Here are a few quotes, first advocating for unlimited immigration, and second suggesting that there is a practically infinite supply of immigrants. 1. "The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital... For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world GDP. For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP." 2. "The Gallup World Poll finds that more than 40 percent of adults in the poorest quartile of countries “would like to move permanently to another country” if they had the opportunity, including 60 percent or more of in Guyana and Sierra Leone... The size of these constraints is apparent in the annual U.S. Diversity Visa Lottery, which allocates permanent emigration slots mainly to developing countries. In fiscal year 2010, this lottery had 13.6 million applications for 50,000 visas (U.S. Department of State, 2011)—272 applicants per slot." Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the paper: "We can check these calculations on the back of the metaphorical envelope. Divide the world into a “rich” region, where one billion people earn $30,000 per year, and a “poor” region, where six billion earn $5,000 per year. Suppose emigrants from the poor region have lower productivity, so each gains just 60 percent of the simple earnings gap upon emigrating—that is, $15,000 per year. This marginal gain shrinks as emigration proceeds, so suppose that the average gain is just $7,500 per year. If half the population of the poor region emigrates, migrants would gain $23 trillion—which is 38 percent of global GDP." [1] Clemens, Michael A. 2011. "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3): 83-106. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83

greeneggs 12y ago

"In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for 'unlimited' immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants." You might find this article of interest [1], since it counters both these points. Here are a few quotes, first advocating for unlimited immigration, and second suggesting that there is a practically infinite supply of immigrants. 1. "The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital... For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world GDP. For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP." 2. "The Gallup World Poll finds that more than 40 percent of adults in the poorest quartile of countries “would like to move permanently to another country” if they had the opportunity, including 60 percent or more of in Guyana and Sierra Leone... The size of these constraints is apparent in the annual U.S. Diversity Visa Lottery, which allocates permanent emigration slots mainly to developing countries. In fiscal year 2010, this lottery had 13.6 million applications for 50,000 visas (U.S. Department of State, 2011)—272 applicants per slot." Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the paper: "We can check these calculations on the back of the metaphorical envelope. Divide the world into a “rich” region, where one billion people earn $30,000 per year, and a “poor” region, where six billion earn $5,000 per year. Suppose emigrants from the poor region have lower productivity, so each gains just 60 percent of the simple earnings gap upon emigrating—that is, $15,000 per year. This marginal gain shrinks as emigration proceeds, so suppose that the average gain is just $7,500 per year. If half the population of the poor region emigrates, migrants would gain $23 trillion—which is 38 percent of global GDP." [1] Clemens, Michael A. 2011. "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3): 83-106. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.83