That sounds pretty unlikely right? About as unlikely as gay marriage seemed, say, six years ago? Or serving openly in the military? Or getting interest on your savings account? Things change pretty fast these days. The arguments against just opening the borders are highly emotional--and many are underpinned by disquieting ideas about protectionism and even racial purity disguised as economic self-interest. But a growing segment of economists believe there are good reasons to simply open the borders with few restrictions. And by good they mean it's a move that has both moral and practical value. Mathematician Vipul Naik, influential impresario of the open borders movement online, believes widespread adoption of the policy among the world's nation states would, as economist Bryan Caplan states, "double the world's GDP."
Advocates of "free labor mobility" claim that the fear of job loss by the immigrant-receiving countries (the default US position, of course) is unfounded. Any job loss, they argue, would be mitigated entirely by long- and short-term consequential benefits for incumbent residents. Supporters envision the policy as being a real step toward the elimination of global poverty. Openborders.info presents the case from numerous angles including "the practical case" and "the moral case" while addressing potential harms and practical and theoretical objections. It even features prominently the arguments of opponents like Mark Krikorian, the Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), who believes immigration is no longer necessary. It's all fascinating, because of the imagination required. Unforeseen consequences are the thorn in the side of all social engineers, economists perhaps especially. No matter how thorough the foregoing data, every experiment is a new one. Ask the people who designed the euro.
[Check out the "Most Interesting Finds" on Amazon ]