A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer
“Making Nigerians stay in Nigeria is as economically senseless as making farmers plant in Antarctica,” argue Mr Caplan and Mr Naik. And the non-economic benefits are hardly trivial, either. A Nigerian in the United States cannot be enslaved by the Islamists of Boko Haram.Trying to prosper among Nigerians is like trying to farm in Antartica. Thanks for the meme!
To clarify, “open borders” means that people are free to move to find work. It does not mean “no borders” or “the abolition of the nation-state”. On the contrary, the reason why migration is so attractive is that some countries are well-run and others, abysmally so.Right, you need to migrate the colonial armies into these resource rich nations full of people who are so low IQ they would try farming in Antarctica.
It is very hard to transfer Canadian institutions to Cambodia, but quite straightforward for a Cambodian family to fly to Canada.I disagree. We could have an African nation with functional Canadian institutions within one generation of colonization. We've done it before, we can do it again. Si, se puede.
The quickest way to eliminate absolute poverty would be to allow people to leave the places where it persists.True. Taking someone out of a poor economy and putting them in a rich one would immediately make them wealthier. But there are a lot of negative effects on the entire populations of the countries sending emigrants and those accepting immigrants. Whereas colonizing a nation has very limited downside. The losers are only the current ruling elites, and only if they fight. If they accept their new role as intermediaries between the colonial government and their people, it could be quite lucrative. Win-win!
In some European countries, such as Sweden, migrants are more likely to get into trouble than locals, but this is mostly because they are more likely to be young and male. A study of migration flows among 145 countries between 1970 and 2000 by researchers at the University of Warwick found that migration was more likely to reduce terrorism than increase it, largely because migration fosters economic growth.The Cathedral propaganda works wonders.
Would open borders cause overcrowding? Perhaps, in popular cities like London. But most Western cities could build much higher than they do, creating more space.Building up increases population density. Higher population density = overcrowding.
And mass migration would make the world as a whole less crowded, since fertility among migrants quickly plunges until it is much closer to the norm of their host country than their country of origin.After a couple of generations. Wouldn't it be easier for the colonial government to enforce forced contraception?
Look at the way America has changed, mostly for the better, as its population soared from 5m mainly white folks in 1800 to 320m many-hued ones today.Nope. The many-hued people didn't show up until the 1970s. America's space program went into the crapper shortly thereafter. Peak America was overwhelmingly white.
Newcomers from illiberal lands might bring unwelcome customs, such as political corruption or intolerance for gay people. If enough of them came, they might vote for an Islamist government, or one that raises taxes on the native-born to pamper the newcomers.But think of the GDP.
If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This may seem harsh, but it is far kinder than not letting them in. If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits? Such levies could also be used to regulate the flow of migrants, thus avoiding big, sudden surges.Do they ever think past one generation?
“Open borders would make foreigners trillions of dollars richer,” observes Mr Caplan. A thoughtful voter, even if he does not care about the welfare of foreigners, “should not say...‘So what?’ Instead, he should say, ‘Trillions of dollars of wealth are on the table. How can my countrymen get a hefty piece of the action?’I think they've made a really strong case for colonization here. Let's put those Scots-Irish to work. First, figure out how not to repeat the past 100 years of decolonization. If our descendants feel guilty and destroy everything, including their own nations, then it is better to do nothing.