The Case for More Immigration

It seems obvious to me that American immigration have been too high for too long, and drastic measures are needed to curb it. In fairness, I listened to this podcast:

Alex Nowrasteh and Bryan Caplan: The Case for More Immigration

Immigration experts Alex Nowrasteh and Bryan Caplan make the case for significantly more and easier immigration to the U.S.

One of the very first things that Donald Trump did after being sworn in as president was to make good on promises to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. He even issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the Constitution's 14th Amendment. That order has already been blocked by a federal judge, and its fate may well end up being decided by the Supreme Court. But calls for less immigration are super popular, with 55 percent of Americans saying current levels should be decreased, the highest since 2001. Reason's Nick Gillespie disagrees with that—he believes that immigration is a good thing and that we should have more of it, done in an orderly, peaceful, efficient fashion.

So on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration, Gillespie asked George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan and Cato Institute analyst Alex Nowrasteh to make the libertarian case for more immigration at a live event in New York City. They've written extensively on the topic and answer every question and concern you might have about immigration. The goal here is to steel-man critics of immigration and explain why more newcomers are good for our culture, economy, and country.

These are smart and informed economists, and they claimed to be steel-manning the critics.

Their main argument was that rich men and certain businesses profit from immigration, and so do the immigrants. The businesses get cheap labor. Others get more choices in exotic restaurants.

These benefits are broadly shared, via a trickle-down theory.

They wanted to open borders, where 30 million immigrants would come in. Maybe eventually a billion more would come.

They admitted that the large majority of Americans have wanted to cut immigration, and that has been true for decades. Being Libertarian economists, I thought that maybe they would suggest that those benefitting from immigration pay compensation to those being hurt by immigration. If each immigrant causes $1 million in damages, then visas could be sold for $1M.

No, they were of the opinion that those wanting immigration cuts should suffer the consequences, with no compensation.

I do not see how there is anything libertarian about forcing most people to suffer harms they do not want.

To give examples where immigration is clearly desirable, they mentioned Einstein and MLB baseball players.

No, those immigrants are not desirable. Einstein never did any productive reseearch after coming to the USA. He joined Communist front organizations, and was a generally malevolent influence. The MLB baseball players take valuable positions away from Americans, and add nothing to American productivity. These are all examples of immigrants who waste resources and make America worse.

All of their arguments were stupid or silly. They said that illegal aliens, subject to deportation orders, try hard not to get arrested. They said that if a shoe-shine boy comes from Haiti and shines Bill Gates' shoes, then that is more productive that what he would be doing in Haiti.

Go ahead and listen yourself, and tell me if you heard anything convincing.