We are getting close to the day where the concept of immigration would be ridiculous. We are working remotely. I live in Canada and my work is in England, and my roommate works in China. And this is just the beginning.
Pretty sure the countries these people sneak in from have one thing in common. Come on Bryan Caplan, open that mainframe you call a brain and explain to us, with your "statistics", why are these countries poor.
So many assumptions and little real facts to back it up. Talking about Puerto Rican immigration is a complete red herring with no historical context. For some reason there is facts to back up the idea that large scale immigration will lead to a doubling of world GDP. Just because people move from one place to another doesn’t mean they immediately become productive. The speaker refers to farmers however farming in the 1st world is largely mechanised and the other obvious fact is that economic migrants are largely unskilled.
> For some reason there is facts to back up the idea that large scale immigration will lead to a doubling of world GDP. Just because people move from one place to another doesn’t mean they immediately become productive. Yes, it does. Developed nations allow opportunism for the much more efficient TRANSLATION of skills into production. > The speaker refers to farmers however farming in the 1st world is largely mechanised and the other obvious fact is that economic migrants are largely unskilled. You've completely missed his argument and NOTHING in this portion refutes what he says
America could easily accommodate 100 million temporary resident workers. And I could support that. Cities 10 miles by 10 miles built up or even down... What I can't support is allowing them unfettered access to the whole of the United States of America. Which does have risks and adverse consequences. Diversity is good immigration is good. We need it American women don't want to have babies. Let us get to know them. Certainly many should immigrate to America 200k a year rather than a million. And day passes or even a month vacation or work should be given but not all everyday 24/7... I don't want to compete for land or jobs more than what benefits us. They are not making more waterfront. Not assigning current US cities but building up to 8-10 new cities that can each accommodate easily 10-20 million people fenced in on land listed as military bases falling under military jurisdiction. Of course Americans would be drawn to these areas to work to learn to contribute... Large businesses would set up manufacturing that had moved to China and other cheap labor markets. I'd even use them as cities of refuge to host families of certain classes of criminals like rapists. We should set visa limits at 7 years in total for every day you are in the USA you have to spend one day out of the US to reset it. When you hit 7 years total you lose your visa. After 40 years total you lose your visa. Ideally the American Bank holds your money and sets aside and agreed amount for you to take back to your own country when your visa ends. Money is held in investment account that pays a minimum of 8%. Walled off cities figure 8 trams no cars underground walkways rain shelters paths fields food manufacturing completely self sustaining... farms sports arenas housing manufacturing districts... maybe some have trains others airports. Immigration isn't a necessary evil but it has been used to control the populace and spread ideals...it is a weapon. The glint in the eyes of some politicians for new voters should scare you. We can best serve the world by making sure they go home and build their own countries.
This would be true if everyone in the world had the culture of western Europe. This model does not take culture into consideration, which means it in no way reflects our real world.
Culture doesn't exist. For example I am Indian, most of my 'cultural food' consists of chillies and potatoes, which came from Europe, and the most popular sports in India are European too. The concepts of nationalism, socialism etc that control politics worldwide came from Europe. Everyone in the world basically follows the same culture tbh.
@@suppandi1000 When we already see culture being a great predictor of parenting styles, government program usage, voting tendencies, etc., why would we care about superficial things like diet?
@@seanimpactanalytics9180 Because culture as a collective doesn't exist. People from third world states maybe are more liberal and progressive than people from the 'rich' countries. And let's be honest, since no one from the rich countries will force their 'less cultured' native population to emigrate to other countries. So why is a barrier being put against people from poorer countries?
I could further generalize your argument. Take the society of Norway, for example. To preserve their levels of progressiveness, Norwegians should hold a test on the values of people, and apart from the top 10,000 the rest should be stripped of their citizenship. Sounds fair?
@@suppandi1000 There is a huge Puerto Rican population in New York. This isn't because NY and PR are so similar; rather Puerto Ricans would rather be cold and surrounded by their countrymen than alone and in a southern state. Why? Most places that are not America are actually far more collective minded than their western counterparts, which is another drawback to bringing too many people into America if you don't want a collective society. I'd never suggest that completely cutting off people from any region is good, but thought needs to be taken to maintain a population capable of being a proponent of liberty as well as being able to live under liberty. As to your remark about Norway, creating some kind of extreme hypothetical isn't an argument. It would be the same if you mocked me for caring about a toe infection by telling me how silly it is that I think I need the toe chopped off after I suggested a series of antibiotics.
Yeah, so he's just treating all people as mostly interchangeable economic units that have different skills. The skills people have are less important than their cultural attitudes, religion, political ideas, race, etc.
+King Wewuz LXXXVIII I don't know why we should respect your culture war/SJW priorities as more important than impoverishing the world by about 100% of Global World Product. That significantly hurts billions of people and marginally hurts a smaller-but-still-sizable number of people in rich countries who would benefit from all that extra production. Economics isn't just money. Wealthy market economies are associated with/the cause of better protection of individual rights (usually), higher standards of living, longer lifespans, more choice, less corruption, less violence - you name it. That's why production matters, that's why open borders matters. Really and truly, if muh race and muh culture trump all of the above, then can you just live your own life in accordance with those values and leave the rest of us alone so that we can peacefully trade and live with the people of our choice?
Why should I care about people from other cultures/nations? This is why I would strive to improve my nation's economy, but not at the cost of the things I said I value more above. I can't live separately if people like you are forcing globalism on everyone in the world.
+King Wewuz LXXXVIII You don't have to care, and I don't expect you to care, but you haven't made a good case that your culture war justifies making the world so much poorer and less free. Stacked up against your race and culture issues, your concerns look fairly petty. And I'd say that generally the burden of proof rests on the person who is seeking to force his views to the detriment of almost all the world to show why his issues are so vitally important that all other goals and ethics pale in comparison, why violent and repressive force is needed. Noninterference isn't force, and I'm not forcing anything on you. You just aren't getting your way and equate that to some sort of forceful violation of your rights. I'm not sure what right you think you have to control how all of us live because your utopian vision of the Race isn't being fulfilled.
Mass third world immigration has been actively lobbied for by large employers as a means of containing labour costs. This is rent-seeking. It is enormously dependent on state involvement in the provision or subsidisation of welfare income transfers, public services and infrastructure. This violates the liberty of taxpayers. Though mass third world immigration is beneficial to particular employers, its wider economic benefits are uncertain. Research shows that the overall costs outweigh the benefits. A policy of open borders requires an economic and political system that relies on voluntary exchange with limited ( if any) government. Until this happy day arrives, the state must place restrictions on inward migratory flows, particularly those that originate in third world countries, which are associated with welfare tourism and cheap labour.
The GDP would double my ass... what would actually happen would be unrelenting ethnic and religious conflict. The lack of cohesion would create a global favela hahah His arguments ignore the fact that people are not just worker bees, but also carriers of cultures, ideas and conflict. Also consider that people already move from rural/poor areas to urban/rich ones. Imagine that on a global scale. That means that some countries will start concentrating more and more people while others will depopulate. If anyone in the world could move to the UK, the whole of the UK would become one huge mega-city. There wouldn't be a single green field left. There are other reasons why people are opposed to open borders and they have to do with overpopulation, environment degradation and honestly nobody wants to live like someone in tokyo, i.e. packed like sardines. We needs laws to stop urbanization and land consumption. A country should never expand its urban areas more than a certain threshold (10-20% of the total surface?), beyond that point all urbanization needs to stop, else your entire country will become one huge concrete slab.
Zwanzika Hatzel the alternative to urbanization is suburbanization and decreased density, leading to an increase in sprawl which decreases the “green fields” which you seem to value so much. if you genuinely care about the environment then you would be a proponent of urbanization and density as they are driving forces for reducing environmental impact
Do you see any evidence of racial conflict in Singapore, New York City, the bay Area? The people who move to other countries tend to be liberal in their religious affliations, why would a die hard wahabbi come to the US or a die hard communist North Korean jucheist?
@@aoeu256 Actually I do. There is a lot of racial conflict in New York City. Serious discussion about education is barely able to take place due to administration, parents, and communities CONSTANTLY focusing on the racial makeup of every school, every neighborhood, every family. "Why aren't more blacks and whites at these schools together?" "How can we fairly teach minorities when they have the legacy of slavery hanging over their heads?" Whenever there's a fight or riot in school, it is always racial. I'm not saying I disagree with open borders, but to turn a blind eye to the relentless focus on racial tension is a mistake.
Thats the point. The point is poor productive people move to where they are more productive and make more money. If no one moved anywhere open borders would be pointless.
Open borders is a corollary of respecting property rights, not a violation of property rights. Actually existing immigration restrictions prohibit property owners from inviting willing workers or tenants to their property if they can't get a bureaucrat's permission.
False dichotomy. One who respects property rights would be opposed to immigration restriction. The government doesn't respect property rights when it prohibits businesses from hiring foreigners. My money is not your property. My real estate holdings are not your property. If I want to rent my house to immigrants, you have no right to tell me I can't because it's my property. If I want to hire immigrants to work in or manage my business, you have no right ro tell me I can't; it's my property. THAT is what it means to respect property rights. If you were making a case that foreigners being in America w/ out the permission of Americans is a "violation of property rights" you didn't think it through very thoroughly. No one owns anything other than that which they have title. No one owns the United States. And please dont say "the American people do" b/c that is not true. Ignoring the economics of this topic and the constitutional enshrinement of individual rights, our byzantine election system pretty much guarantees that the American people have little control over the monopolistic entity that we call a democratic government. Speaking of economics, immigration happens to be a topic in which it's difficult to come out against if you understand the theory.
@Johnny Who wants millions of beggars in their cities. London, Birmingham and next Manchester are becoming hollowed out shells. Sold out to spiv developpers for the new alien arrivals and absent landlords, while the English flee to the countryside. Now we have racial politics coming hard to Britain à la the US. "understand the theory" LOL
We are getting close to the day where the concept of immigration would be ridiculous. We are working remotely. I live in Canada and my work is in England, and my roommate works in China. And this is just the beginning.
based bryan
@@IamAsaJ Why is he cucked? Immigration would benefit him, just as it would benefit any other native.
Pretty sure the countries these people sneak in from have one thing in common. Come on Bryan Caplan, open that mainframe you call a brain and explain to us, with your "statistics", why are these countries poor.
So many assumptions and little real facts to back it up. Talking about Puerto Rican immigration is a complete red herring with no historical context.
For some reason there is facts to back up the idea that large scale immigration will lead to a doubling of world GDP. Just because people move from one place to another doesn’t mean they immediately become productive. The speaker refers to farmers however farming in the 1st world is largely mechanised and the other obvious fact is that economic migrants are largely unskilled.
Very smug in his 'educated' self.
> For some reason there is facts to back up the idea that large scale immigration will lead to a doubling of world GDP. Just because people move from one place to another doesn’t mean they immediately become productive.
Yes, it does. Developed nations allow opportunism for the much more efficient TRANSLATION of skills into production.
> The speaker refers to farmers however farming in the 1st world is largely mechanised and the other obvious fact is that economic migrants are largely unskilled.
You've completely missed his argument and NOTHING in this portion refutes what he says
America could easily accommodate 100 million temporary resident workers. And I could support that. Cities 10 miles by 10 miles built up or even down... What I can't support is allowing them unfettered access to the whole of the United States of America. Which does have risks and adverse consequences. Diversity is good immigration is good. We need it American women don't want to have babies. Let us get to know them. Certainly many should immigrate to America 200k a year rather than a million. And day passes or even a month vacation or work should be given but not all everyday 24/7... I don't want to compete for land or jobs more than what benefits us. They are not making more waterfront. Not assigning current US cities but building up to 8-10 new cities that can each accommodate easily 10-20 million people fenced in on land listed as military bases falling under military jurisdiction. Of course Americans would be drawn to these areas to work to learn to contribute... Large businesses would set up manufacturing that had moved to China and other cheap labor markets. I'd even use them as cities of refuge to host families of certain classes of criminals like rapists. We should set visa limits at 7 years in total for every day you are in the USA you have to spend one day out of the US to reset it. When you hit 7 years total you lose your visa. After 40 years total you lose your visa. Ideally the American Bank holds your money and sets aside and agreed amount for you to take back to your own country when your visa ends. Money is held in investment account that pays a minimum of 8%. Walled off cities figure 8 trams no cars underground walkways rain shelters paths fields food manufacturing completely self sustaining... farms sports arenas housing manufacturing districts... maybe some have trains others airports. Immigration isn't a necessary evil but it has been used to control the populace and spread ideals...it is a weapon. The glint in the eyes of some politicians for new voters should scare you. We can best serve the world by making sure they go home and build their own countries.
This would be true if everyone in the world had the culture of western Europe. This model does not take culture into consideration, which means it in no way reflects our real world.
Culture doesn't exist. For example I am Indian, most of my 'cultural food' consists of chillies and potatoes, which came from Europe, and the most popular sports in India are European too. The concepts of nationalism, socialism etc that control politics worldwide came from Europe. Everyone in the world basically follows the same culture tbh.
@@suppandi1000 When we already see culture being a great predictor of parenting styles, government program usage, voting tendencies, etc., why would we care about superficial things like diet?
@@seanimpactanalytics9180 Because culture as a collective doesn't exist. People from third world states maybe are more liberal and progressive than people from the 'rich' countries. And let's be honest, since no one from the rich countries will force their 'less cultured' native population to emigrate to other countries. So why is a barrier being put against people from poorer countries?
I could further generalize your argument. Take the society of Norway, for example. To preserve their levels of progressiveness, Norwegians should hold a test on the values of people, and apart from the top 10,000 the rest should be stripped of their citizenship. Sounds fair?
@@suppandi1000 There is a huge Puerto Rican population in New York. This isn't because NY and PR are so similar; rather Puerto Ricans would rather be cold and surrounded by their countrymen than alone and in a southern state. Why? Most places that are not America are actually far more collective minded than their western counterparts, which is another drawback to bringing too many people into America if you don't want a collective society. I'd never suggest that completely cutting off people from any region is good, but thought needs to be taken to maintain a population capable of being a proponent of liberty as well as being able to live under liberty. As to your remark about Norway, creating some kind of extreme hypothetical isn't an argument. It would be the same if you mocked me for caring about a toe infection by telling me how silly it is that I think I need the toe chopped off after I suggested a series of antibiotics.
Not all people are interchangeable cogs made for the sole purpose of increasing GDP. Wealth isn't the most important thing in the world.
Watch starting around 6:35 for where he addresses this in the video
Yeah, so he's just treating all people as mostly interchangeable economic units that have different skills. The skills people have are less important than their cultural attitudes, religion, political ideas, race, etc.
+King Wewuz LXXXVIII I don't know why we should respect your culture war/SJW priorities as more important than impoverishing the world by about 100% of Global World Product. That significantly hurts billions of people and marginally hurts a smaller-but-still-sizable number of people in rich countries who would benefit from all that extra production.
Economics isn't just money. Wealthy market economies are associated with/the cause of better protection of individual rights (usually), higher standards of living, longer lifespans, more choice, less corruption, less violence - you name it. That's why production matters, that's why open borders matters.
Really and truly, if muh race and muh culture trump all of the above, then can you just live your own life in accordance with those values and leave the rest of us alone so that we can peacefully trade and live with the people of our choice?
Why should I care about people from other cultures/nations?
This is why I would strive to improve my nation's economy, but not at the cost of the things I said I value more above.
I can't live separately if people like you are forcing globalism on everyone in the world.
+King Wewuz LXXXVIII You don't have to care, and I don't expect you to care, but you haven't made a good case that your culture war justifies making the world so much poorer and less free. Stacked up against your race and culture issues, your concerns look fairly petty.
And I'd say that generally the burden of proof rests on the person who is seeking to force his views to the detriment of almost all the world to show why his issues are so vitally important that all other goals and ethics pale in comparison, why violent and repressive force is needed.
Noninterference isn't force, and I'm not forcing anything on you. You just aren't getting your way and equate that to some sort of forceful violation of your rights. I'm not sure what right you think you have to control how all of us live because your utopian vision of the Race isn't being fulfilled.
Mass third world immigration has been actively lobbied for by large employers as a means of containing labour costs. This is rent-seeking. It is enormously dependent on state involvement in the provision or subsidisation of welfare income transfers, public services and infrastructure. This violates the liberty of taxpayers. Though mass third world immigration is beneficial to particular employers, its wider economic benefits are uncertain. Research shows that the overall costs outweigh the benefits. A policy of open borders requires an economic and political system that relies on voluntary exchange with limited ( if any) government. Until this happy day arrives, the state must place restrictions on inward migratory flows, particularly those that originate in third world countries, which are associated with welfare tourism and cheap labour.
Spouting too much horseshit without any evidence. You are a clown.
The GDP would double my ass... what would actually happen would be unrelenting ethnic and religious conflict. The lack of cohesion would create a global favela hahah His arguments ignore the fact that people are not just worker bees, but also carriers of cultures, ideas and conflict. Also consider that people already move from rural/poor areas to urban/rich ones. Imagine that on a global scale. That means that some countries will start concentrating more and more people while others will depopulate. If anyone in the world could move to the UK, the whole of the UK would become one huge mega-city. There wouldn't be a single green field left. There are other reasons why people are opposed to open borders and they have to do with overpopulation, environment degradation and honestly nobody wants to live like someone in tokyo, i.e. packed like sardines. We needs laws to stop urbanization and land consumption. A country should never expand its urban areas more than a certain threshold (10-20% of the total surface?), beyond that point all urbanization needs to stop, else your entire country will become one huge concrete slab.
Zwanzika Hatzel the alternative to urbanization is suburbanization and decreased density, leading to an increase in sprawl which decreases the “green fields” which you seem to value so much. if you genuinely care about the environment then you would be a proponent of urbanization and density as they are driving forces for reducing environmental impact
Do you see any evidence of racial conflict in Singapore, New York City, the bay Area? The people who move to other countries tend to be liberal in their religious affliations, why would a die hard wahabbi come to the US or a die hard communist North Korean jucheist?
@@aoeu256 Actually I do. There is a lot of racial conflict in New York City. Serious discussion about education is barely able to take place due to administration, parents, and communities CONSTANTLY focusing on the racial makeup of every school, every neighborhood, every family. "Why aren't more blacks and whites at these schools together?" "How can we fairly teach minorities when they have the legacy of slavery hanging over their heads?" Whenever there's a fight or riot in school, it is always racial. I'm not saying I disagree with open borders, but to turn a blind eye to the relentless focus on racial tension is a mistake.
Thats the point. The point is poor productive people move to where they are more productive and make more money. If no one moved anywhere open borders would be pointless.
What about Canada or USA which have large swathes of land ?
Probably the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Most retarded take challenge.
> calling yourself ancap
> not respecting property rights
pick one.
Open borders is a corollary of respecting property rights, not a violation of property rights.
Actually existing immigration restrictions prohibit property owners from inviting willing workers or tenants to their property if they can't get a bureaucrat's permission.
False dichotomy. One who respects property rights would be opposed to immigration restriction. The government doesn't respect property rights when it prohibits businesses from hiring foreigners.
My money is not your property. My real estate holdings are not your property. If I want to rent my house to immigrants, you have no right to tell me I can't because it's my property. If I want to hire immigrants to work in or manage my business, you have no right ro tell me I can't; it's my property. THAT is what it means to respect property rights.
If you were making a case that foreigners being in America w/ out the permission of Americans is a "violation of property rights" you didn't think it through very thoroughly. No one owns anything other than that which they have title. No one owns the United States. And please dont say "the American people do" b/c that is not true. Ignoring the economics of this topic and the constitutional enshrinement of individual rights, our byzantine election system pretty much guarantees that the American people have little control over the monopolistic entity that we call a democratic government.
Speaking of economics, immigration happens to be a topic in which it's difficult to come out against if you understand the theory.
@Johnny
Who wants millions of beggars in their cities.
London, Birmingham and next Manchester are becoming hollowed out shells.
Sold out to spiv developpers for the new alien arrivals and absent landlords, while the English flee to the countryside. Now we have racial politics coming hard to Britain à la the US. "understand the theory" LOL
@@fredcrump8804 thus called antiforeign bias.
This man is moroon
coming from the guy who can't spell "moron" correctly
You are the moron.