58 Comments

So to believe that our barriers to immigration are for the best, you have to believe in a lucky accident.

No, you don't have to believe they are for the best. You just have to believe they work better than the alternatives put out there, like open borders.

As an analogy, you don't have to believe that the layout of Boston's streets, based on old horse trails, is the best possible layout for a modern city. Rather you just have to show that ripping up downtown Boston is an even worse idea.

So, yes, one could argue that the border between Canada and the U.S. doesn't make much sense anymore. A good argument could be made that its just a historical accident. But that doesn't mean that the same argument could be made for eliminating all borders.

Expand full comment

However, family partiality seems to decrease dramatically in utility the further you get from a nuclear family. Partiality among huge extended families is a leading cause of corruption, and if you use a biological definition of race, racism is technically partiality among huge extended families.

It never ceases to amaze me that libertarians seem to think that letting in more people of different ethnic groups is actually going to decrease the importance of extended families/ethnic groups, with all the attendant corruption etc. that goes along with them.

Expand full comment

I think there is a certain threshold involved - on an individual level, any benefits to relocating have to overcome the costs of moving (both emotional and monetary). In the Fairfax example the neighboring counties are pretty much just as well-off so that's rarely the case, thus there's no real risk of a disrupting influx of "foreigners" and protectionist laws aren't typically needed. In real life, with the much larger differences between first and third world, strict laws are far more essential to preserve the status quo.

So while the sign may not switch in the two examples, we're still talking about the difference between a negligible societal impact in Fairfax and a massive one for the whole U.S.

Expand full comment

@matt

1. Partiality at the national or Ethnic level can be useful and is not always bad.Examples:A) The soldier who won’t fire on people of his own ethnicity/national origin is an important check on tyranny. How many Libyan fighter jets flew to Egypt rather than fire on their own people? More than a few.B) When another country attacks you own its wise to to have some feelings towards you fellow country mates, otherwise coordinated defenses don’t work too well.It can be, you can definitely find examples of pretty much any partiality producing good results if you know enough history. But on average national partiality has been harmful. In particular, in B) the only reason it's needed is because of the partiality the invaders felt towards each other, and the lack of partiality they felt towards us.

1. The US had a large amount of undeveloped land, both in the west and near its major population centers in the East. That made a large difference.It still has that. The US has a ridiculously low population density.

This is naive to say the least. How many examples, from my own life, people I know personally, have been affected by major demographic changes within their own countries, or by organization from demographically distinct groups within their nations. I know Christians from Lebanon, I have known folks who have had to flee their land in South Africa, Chinese friends whose families where butchered in Pogroms in indonesia.Those examples tended to occur in developing countries without strong rule of law to protect their citizens. In more developed countries it is quite possible for impoverished populations to live in the general vicinity of wealthy ones. Ann Arbor is only fifty miles from Detroit, but no one there seems terrified of those nearby impoverished populations.

Millions of people from the third world move here, but because of genetic, historical and cultural issues, they still are lagging behind white Americans, who hold much of the wealth and now live mostly in enclosed compounds protected by hired security. These new citizens vote in a new leader, Lets call him Chavez 2, who seeks to level the playing field, declares himself dictator for life.Restrictionists in my examples of the past did make arguments like this. In particular they feared that Catholics were inherently disloyal. They didn't pan out.

Another thing to consider is the Fairfax example again. Imagine Fairfax residents claiming that all the new workers coming in would mean they'd vote for different people and change the political landscape. The obvious flaw in this is that most of those new workers would still vote in their home counties. That's because with open borders between counties, there's no need to stay there as permanent citizens. With open borders between countries, there'd be less incentive to stay permanently, since there'd be no obstacles to return.

@Vladimir M.

Even when it comes to free trade, economists who aren’t ideologically committed to defend it against all objections will admit that it has lowered the wages of a great many, perhaps most, U.S. workers in recent decades. Now imagine just what would happen with free international labor mobility.As Ari T. mentioned, nominal wages are not really important, what matters is purchasing power. Cheap, foreign made products take much less money to purchase, so even if wages dropped, the result tends to be beneficial. Closing borders between counties, like Robin's parody suggests, would result in a titanic boost in wages for everyone in the county. However, it would also cause the price of everything to increase dramatically, more than balancing it out.

Of course there would be some losers. But that applies to the Fairfax county example as well, I'm sure some of the jobs I've been rejected from in my life have gone to people from other counties, but I don't want to close the county borders. And many of our institutions have winners and losers, and no one wants to get rid of them. If you suggested banning cars because of the losers they create (accident victims) everyone would think you were insane. I'm betting the difference is that people feel more in control in the case of cars, and less in control in the case of immigration. It could also be the status quo bias, of course.

Expand full comment

Ari T,

Re: free trade, I probably shouldn't have opened another can of worms. Note that I'm not claiming that free trade doesn't increase the overall wealth produced, or that it doesn't benefit workers in poor countries, as well as some percentage of workers in rich countries. However, there is simply no support for the claim that it must benefit everyone and that there aren't also losers, namely workers in rich countries whose wages fall as the result.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of protectionism, or that this outcome is unfair, or anything like that in this context. I'm merely pointing out that unlike the ideological absolutist position that more free movement of people and/or goods simply must benefit everyone as if it were a law of physics or logic, in reality there are always at least some losers along with the winners -- and it's wrong or dishonest to pretend otherwise. Regardless of any concrete ideological or political implications of this fact, this is simply a matter of recognizing reality.

As for the concrete studies, if you just google "free trade us unskilled wages" (without quotes), you'll find a bunch of papers arguing over how large the negative effect on unskilled wages might be. What you will not find, however, is a unanimous statement that this is a non-issue because it follows from pure logic that nobody can be a loser.

(I also remember that a few years ago Paul Krugman dropped this bomb in a column. He wrote that "it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that growing U.S. trade with third world countries reduces the real wages of many and perhaps most workers in this country [U.S.]." It was funny to read Krugman's repeated frantic assurances that he's not a protectionist in that column, as well as the outraged reactions of his colleagues that followed.)

Also, regarding that article of mine that you cite, have you read the part where I comment on the state of the art in economics?

Expand full comment

Robin, I don't think the issue is binary. Just like regulation, the jump from most regulation is bad to all regulation is bad is quite a leap. Voluntary trade between two parties is generally fine and great, but saying that all trade has to be allowed is quite a leap (explosives and radioactive material for starters). To give your analogy a counter-example, if we switched the happy Fairfrax population and Somalia, why do you think the Fairfax wouldn't look more like Somalia?

I think I would pull up the Tyler Cowen card and say: "it depends". A lot of knowledge is context-dependent. The problem with analogies is that they go only that far. Look at Lebanon, a massive conflict between Christians and Muslims. Now that is a massive coordination failure, and unlikely to happen in Western world but things like this show that there are many ways you can look at and avoid coordination problems. If you run an inefficient economic policy, at least you can reverse it at some point, but you cannot reverse demographics.

But I like your analogy though. There seems to a lot hostility to open borders in US, and most of its probably based on F.U.D. There's an anti-immigration movement in my country too. However what are missing is, thank god, the exceptionalism / nationalism which I find completely silly, and a bit dangerous.

However as a matter of public policy open borders are great. I think all human things become corrupt over time: people, institutions, software etc. Competition keeps such things in a check. The ability to vote with feet is probably the best thing that there is to efficiency. The welfare state would probably come to an end quite fast.

As a side no I used to work in Ireland, I just went there with a job and done. Going to US to work ... well that is another story. You have to fill about 100 papers, do all kinds of interviews and tests. The process takes from months to years. Someone also recommended not to criticize US foreign policy to avoid being on the short list for AR.

Expand full comment

A few notes:

On partiality, thank you for trying to engage but you miss the point.1. Partiality at the national or Ethnic level can be useful and is not always bad. Examples:A) The soldier who won't fire on people of his own ethnicity/national origin is an important check on tyranny. How many Libyan fighter jets flew to Egypt rather than fire on their own people? More than a few.B) When another country attacks you own its wise to have some feelings towards you fellow country mates, otherwise coordinated defenses don't work too well.

2. My point about partiality isn't that it is good and it justifies a closed border, my point is that it exists and understanding open borders conflicts with a basic human universal moral principal, should be reflected in your arguments. Instead you ignore the moral intuition of the vast majority of your co-nationalists and are somehow surprised when they are horrorified.

3. Some folks feel more partial then others, this mix of personalities helps society stay dynamic, increasing and decreasing our circle of friends as circumstances dictate and the power moves from one direction to another. People like Robin need to realize they suffer from being on the extreme tail of the low-partiality spectrum. Their lack of ability to place the hardships of co-nationalist above gains for others is not going to be received well. This is why I say Robin's thinking is utopian.

On gains in GDP"I think Robin’s calculus implies a gain for everyone."1. Aggregate gains aren't the same as a gain for everyone. There are winners and losers. 2, If both GDP doubles and the population doubles it doesn't follow that I am personally better off. Most goods I'm interested once my material needs are satisfied are positional, Those goods become even more out of reach. 3. All the problems with open borders are immediate, any gains, assuming there would be gains, will be in the future. How long is my life crappy before it gets better? Status quo anyone?

"How about the fact that the US once accepted huge influxes of third world people in the past, and its institutions have survived?"1. The US had a large amount of undeveloped land, both in the west and near its major population centers in the East. That made a large difference.2. We were moving from an agricultural economy to an industrial one and need many more workers. There were fewer losers, but they were still vocal. 3. Our institutions didn't survive, and it is a mistake to think they did. They changed a great deal in response to the new population and their values. Mostly for the better in this case, but to argue change won't happen is kind of silly, it also ignores the great contribution to social change made by immigrants.

"There’s not really a comparison between and armed invasion by a foreign power and letting people peaceably come to an established nation to work."1. This is naive to say the least. How many examples, from my own life, people I know personally, have been affected by major demographic changes within their own countries, or by organization from demographically distinct groups within their nations. I know Christians from Lebanon, I have known folks who have had to flee their land in South Africa, Chinese friends whose families where butchered in Pogroms in indonesia.

2. Here is a scenario for you. Millions of people from the third world move here, but because of genetic, historical and cultural issues, they still are lagging behind white Americans, who hold much of the wealth and now live mostly in enclosed compounds protected by hired security. These new citizens vote in a new leader, Lets call him Chavez 2, who seeks to level the playing field, declares himself dictator for life. Do you really think this couldn't happen? Our institutions can't survive more inequality then we have, and in your examples of the past they didn't have too.

Expand full comment

Before you go tearing down walls, you have to ask why the walls were built in the first place.

Ari writes: "For developing countries, cheap labor and free trade is historically their best way out of poverty and to living standards of the Western world. I don’t think I have right to condemn them to poverty."

Some folks disagree with this. Go read some Ha-Joon Chang. He argues that protectionism is the key for establishing new industries and that free trade and cheap labor benefits the first world countries more than the third world countries. Is he right? Who knows. But he is a respected economist who disagrees with your statement.

Or go read this guy who argues that "hyper- connectivity can crash a system, and has, and even how this can be charted." http://www.signonsandiego.c... When you tear down borders you are encouraging more hyper-connectivity.

I would also agree with Vladimir M. that globalization has lead to the lowering of wages to workers in the United States or at least to their stagnation.

So be careful what you ask for, because you might get it.

As we've seen over the last several years there is a lot of space between the economist's theories and models and the real world.

Expand full comment

Well then this calculus is clearly inconsistent with reality. Even under the most optimistic assumption that the quality of the existing institutions remains unaffected, and under the spherical-cow assumption that there won’t be any non-pecuniary externalities, it’s plain as day that the owners of land and capital would profit, but wages would plummet for all but a minority of specialized high-skill labor (and also various rent-seekers whose rents are masqueraded as wages).

Even when it comes to free trade, economists who aren’t ideologically committed to defend it against all objections will admit that it has lowered the wages of a great many, perhaps most, U.S. workers in recent decades.According to which study? Yes nominal wages can and will drop but economy as a whole will be better off (double the GDP possibly) which means purchasing power will rise (discounted to labor hour for example).

For developing countries, cheap labor and free trade is historically their best way out of poverty and to living standards of the Western world. I don't think I have right to condemn them to poverty.

I would love to see a prediction market here, so we would see who is really wrong. Given that last time I checked my textbook, most economists (90% or so) agree that tariffs decrease economic welfare I'm curious to know where Vladimir is getting his data, because I remember someone named Vladimir M writing:

When looking for information about some area outside of one’s expertise, it is usually a good idea to first ask what academic scholarship has to say on the subject. In many areas, there is no need to look elsewhere for answers: respectable academic authors are the richest and most reliable source of information, and people claiming things completely outside the academic mainstream are almost certain to be crackpots.

Expand full comment

Evan:

I think Robin’s calculus implies a gain for everyone.

Well then this calculus is clearly inconsistent with reality. Even under the most optimistic assumption that the quality of the existing institutions remains unaffected, and under the spherical-cow assumption that there won't be any non-pecuniary externalities, it's plain as day that the owners of land and capital would profit, but wages would plummet for all but a minority of specialized high-skill labor (and also various rent-seekers whose rents are masqueraded as wages).

Even when it comes to free trade, economists who aren't ideologically committed to defend it against all objections will admit that it has lowered the wages of a great many, perhaps most, U.S. workers in recent decades. Now imagine just what would happen with free international labor mobility. And all this doesn't even start to address the issue of unemployment, which shouldn't even exist according to the simple micro models used in these studies that get bandied around.

As for the institutions, I think the inferential distances are too great to allow for a productive discussion here. There is simply too much difference between all the relevant factors in the historical mass immigration from a century ago and the (far more massive) one that would follow with an open-borders policy nowadays to draw any pertinent analogies.

Expand full comment

I think the bad guy bias is a definite player here as well. People are happy to build houses in Tornado Alley and farm on the slopes of Vesuvius. But even suggest allowing scary poor people to move to the same country as them and they go crazy.

In regards to matt's comments on partiality, I think a good way to solve the dilemma of when partiality is good or bad is to look at what types of partiality cause good and bad results. Family partiality seems to be positive, it makes people happy and encourages them to work hard, also it is genetically ingrained, attempts to discourage it (such as kibbutzim) cause more harm than help. Family partiality does have some problems like nepotism, but they seem to be outweighed by the benefits. However, family partiality seems to decrease dramatically in utility the further you get from a nuclear family. Partiality among huge extended families is a leading cause of corruption, and if you use a biological definition of race, racism is technically partiality among huge extended families.

Partiality in response to friendship and people you know seems to be positive, people like having friends and hanging out with them, and this rarely hurts other people. Partiality in response to traits people have some control over, like talent, occupation, criminal background, etc, are positive as well, as they create positive incentives. Partiality in response to traits people can't control (other than family membership), such as race and sex, by contrast leads to negative things like (obviously) racism and sexism.

So it seems like partiality is good when:1) It applies to people you know.2) It applies to immediate family members.3) It applies to strangers based on traits they have some control over.

Partiality is bad when:1) It applies to strangers based on traits they have no control over.

Nationalist partiality is therefore bad. You're judging strangers based on something they have no power to control. This is very similar to partialities like racism and sexism, which have been amply demonstrated to have had negative effects in the future.

@Vladimir M

Most first-worlders aren’t keen on lowering their living standards dramatically and destroying the fabric of their societies, even if your utilitarian calculus says that this would result in an aggregate worldwide gain. I think Robin's calculus implies a gain for everyone. That's what drives me nuts about restrictionists. It's like someone's trying to give a trillion dollars to charity at no cost to them, and they're trying to stop them.

There is no proof, nor even any common-sense reason to believe, that first-world institutions would remain high-quality under an overwhelming influx of third-world people.How about the fact that the US once accepted huge influxes of third world people in the past, and its institutions have survived? It even accepted groups that everyone "knew" were innately criminal, had low IQs, and would never amount to anything, like the Chinese and the Jews.

@Dave

I am a proud resident of Navaho Tribe,and I I want to warn my fine fellow tribesmen: we interact too promiscuously with White men! There's not really a comparison between and armed invasion by a foreign power and letting people peaceably come to an established nation to work. The best comparison I could think of of really negative effects to an established nation from immigration would be the case of Mexico in the 1800s, huge swarms of American illegal immigrants (who were also slaveowners) rushed in and outright stole a huge chunk of land. However, Mexico has tons of illegal immigrants in the US today, and they don't appear to have any such ill intentions. Other countries might want to think twice before they let Texans immigrate, though.

Expand full comment

I am a proud resident of Navaho Tribe,and I I want to warn my fine fellow tribesmen: we interact too promiscuously with White men! For example, we are allowed to buy things made outside the tribe like whiskey and guns and even sell land to Whites.There are too many whites moving in. Look what they did in Africa!

College Boy Indian "Shut up.You are a racist.You are not logical."

Expand full comment

Robin, I find the standard economic argument for open borders to be straightforwardly convincing. I love the Fairfax analogy! It concisely illustrates the hopeless incogency of many of the typical arguments one hears on this topic. (Including, ironically, as you have repeatedly pointed out, many of the ones in these comments.)

Expand full comment

It sounds like you are saying that Ramone's argument is as good as the usual anti-immigration argument, except that since the differences are smaller the gain from his preferred policy is smaller, and except that he wants to change a status quo, where we should generically prefer to keep status quos.

Expand full comment

Robin Hanson:

These arguments don’t have a threshold, to justify applying them only if places aren’t “sufficiently similar.” Bigger differences might imply bigger effects, but the effect sign would stay the same.

Now you're nitpicking without addressing the main points. If someone drops a feather or a piano on your head, the effect signs are also the same -- and indeed there is no exact threshold where a thing dropped on your head suddenly becomes a problem if its weight is increased by epsilon.

This doesn't make it outrageously wrong to say that the reasons why it's bad to have a piano dropped on your head don't apply if the weight of the thing being dropped is sufficiently small. The same goes for these differences in the case of open borders.

Expand full comment

Sure clever folk can think up arguments that apply better to nations than to states or counties, just as they can think up reasons why it is better to let in goods or investments than workers. But it seems quite unlikely that such arguments are actually the main reason most people more easily accept exchanging people between counties and states than between nations, or accept outside goods and investment more than workers.

Given the above, I'm not exactly sure what it is you want. You already acknowledge that townships, counties, states, and nations can be legitimately differentiated, so...what do you want? I guess you think it's all just stealth racism, so...what do you want? Why ask a question when you already know the answer?

Expand full comment