The Rationale of Open Borders

Immigration is one of the most contentious and controversial issues in America right now (perhaps only overshadowed by the recent covid-19 pandemic and the Trump impeachment). It divides well intentioned and well meaning friends & family members and mirrors the political ideology of whatever side one takes on the matter: Left = pro-immigration; Right = stricter immigration.

Added to the milieu is the myriad of vitriol, name calling, spin, gross abstracting, and nearsighted party-line rhetoric. The issue has sadly become one big meme-fest, and everyone, regardless of their education is apparently expert enough with "all the best" research undergirding their argumentation. It's sadly to the point where hard-researched opinions lose valuation because people are obstinate in their positions. It could be assumed that I too am rigid in my opinion with immovable certitude. So, before I begin, a brief statement on how I did move camps.    

***

Just four years ago, I took the contemporary conservative position. I argued the same biblical prooftext of Romans 13 as rationale for obeying the laws of the land (except that's bad exegesis and application). I truly thought that it was the biblical, Christian, and conservative stance to oppose immigration looseness. Two things happened to shift my understanding. First, I studied Scripture broadly on the matter and came to the contextual conclusion that God was more affirming of the alien and sojourner than he was of closed borders or border security. In fact, the idea of closed borders is really a recent invention. The context of borders in the ancient world was referential to nations as peoples and not nation-states with rigid borders. In fact, borders were largely referential to mere areas of dwelling where political power had only general control over than it was about prohibiting access or passage through a narrowly defined geographical line. I could go on, but that may be better for a follow-up blog... I have addressed this in prior blogs too.

Simply said, I changed my mind regarding the Bible on the nature of borders. That doesn't mean I want zero borders, but that I have shifted my understanding of borders from a closure to a line demarcating an area a government has responsibility for. And, I don't suggest that anyone crossing a border or habitating an area is entitled citizenship in that nation without some sense of mutual agreement. 

Added to this, I also wondered if I had simply been buying the party-line that I had been fed all of my Evangelical life. So, I began to study the history surrounding immigration. Knowing the pathology of immigration rhetoric (a big part of my MA thesis in fact) helped me understand how hollow and fear-mongering the rhetoric of the Right was and is. As hard as it may be to believe, I am a conservative, but I had to reject the modern expression of conservatism on this and a couple of other matters, all because the research disproved or at least counter-balanced what the rhetoric presented. 

Now, to the rhetoric I once believed and now reject...

***

We can't afford to let the world's poor in, because we have no room for them and we can't afford them. In other words, we cannot care for the world.

Economists like George Mason University's Bryan Caplan have suggested that US could house the entire world population if it were an urban sprawl like Los Angeles. In other words, space is not the issue. Additionally, not everyone will come. But, if people were allowed in legally, even the poorest will make up to ten times more than they would in their native lands at the lowest pay rates in the U.S. So, even if we paid immigrants unfairly low, it would be a boost to them. They would also feed back into the system in taxes and in consumption, raising our GDP. 

Interestingly, a lot of the rhetoric against increased immigration is based on the assumption that immigrants will simply take resources. Yet, more people means more market demand. This propels innovation and new businesses, which adds to the GDP. This means we can take-on masses of immigrants. This happened in late 70s-early 80s Miami, which absorbed waves of Cuban immigrants with general ease. And in the late 19th century, with the advent of the American industrial revolution, immigrants were the backbone of the burgeoning labor force. In short, immigration is good for the economy. 

Then, immigrants will want to send money home and many will not stay here permanently. As money and labor fluctuates between nations (ours and theirs), and with increased trade spurred by a healthier US economy, world GDP increases and global poverty decreases. This means that as the world economy rises, it won't be a population overload on America. 

This brings me to what Caplan calls "global apartheid." 

Global poverty largely perpetuates because nations restrict entry. In wartorn, crime ridden, and impoverished countries, people desire to move to where it's more prosperous and where opportunity abounds. Despite our border laws, people still cross illegally because it is their best hope. We demonize these folks as "criminal," though they have to spend months to years worth of their savings to come by way of coyotes -- to what, become the bad guys? We cannot, with any conscionable sense, degrade people in such a way, because they have given so much to get here. The risks of being caught and being permanently barred from the US shows, to me, that things are really "that bad" at home if this is their recourse. This suggests that the scales tip toward desperate people and not criminals composing the weight of illegal immigrants. 

We block these people from entering because we rest on the legitimacy of laws that were birthed out of late nineteenth and early twentieth century xenophobic conjecturing. What we actually do is push people into the illegal status and we keep many others from entering, who remain in their poverty and in dangerous countries. Furthermore, this means that in our dividing the world between us and them, we marginalize people to their detriment and we inadvertently contribute to lower global GDP. 

Now, consider this... Our nation was founded on the principle of liberty -- inalienable rights that are inherent to all people, which we elevate as life, property, happiness, and health. These are the principles of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, who in turn influenced our founding fathers. We expand on this and trust Thomas Jefferson's words that all men are created equal and entitled these rights. Political philosophy calls these negative rights, not because they are bad, but because than cannot be reduced. The adverse is positive rights, which are created and applied by government and can change or be added to pragmatically. If life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights that cannot be taken away, then it follows that the liberty of movement is also a natural God-given right that cannot be reduced or added to. Yet, our immigration laws function in a positivist or progressive manner, because they assign definition to the right of immigration (odd for a conservative ideology). We basically tell the world that the right of movement is not guaranteed by God as a component of pursuing life and liberty and happiness. What we are saying is that we don't truly practice what we preach and that the government is the final arbiter of what constitutes a right. 

If the Right-wing truly believes it can restrict the freedom of movement, then they could easily discount other inalienable rights. It is my philosophical opinion and my Christian position that the whole world is God's and that borders as we know them today are contemporary constructs. God owns the land and has created all people in his image. He has told humans to populate his earth and care for it. The freedom of movement is inherent in being his creation on his rock, so there exists no right of a nation to limit movement (save dire temporary emergencies, perhaps), though it may be the right of a nation to protect its people from real and not inflated perceived threats. People wanting to legitimately be here are not a threat nor are they an invasion. They are people exercising the right of movement and the desire to participate in and contribute to our society. To bar them is simply cruelty. 

In the end, if we are to be true to our own political philosophy, we must have more flexible borders. And open borders, which we essentially had in some form or other before 1882 (see the Chinese Exclusion Act), does not mean people come without papers, but it means relaxing limits and overhauling the bureaucratic machine (open borders is not dissolution of borders). This raises objections though, such as crime and terrorism. Would streamlining border entry mean increased risk to these things and are these enough to make things more rigid? Since stats show that most people aren't criminals and truly want the betterment that comes with the liberty of movement, it's likely that crime and terrorism are low (not absent) risks and that using these as the rationale for  restricting immigration is not only overkill, but illumines the nationalist rhetoric that undergirds American political belief against others.  

Illegal immigrants bring in crime and they murder Americans.

A 2015 state of Texas finding shows that immigrants, legal or illegal, are 50% less likely than natives to face criminal convictions. Current anti-immigration spin pushes the fact that 60% plus of federal incarcerations are illegal immigrants, yet this is largely or even nearly all for the misdemeanor of crossing an imaginary line in search for liberty. These are not hardened criminals, though it is true that there have been illegals guilty of murder. To place blame on immigration merely steers the conversation away from the motives of criminal illegals. Would stricter borders and walls have prevented these murders? When considering that tightened border access likely contributed to illegal crossings, we can assume that even stricter access would push more people to cross without documentation. This includes violent and non-violent immigrants alike. It is more than likely that there would have been no change in crime. And a wall would likely not have changed much, since most illegal border activities actually come through legal ports of entry. In the end, using the crime rationale amounts to little more than rhetoric. Crime is crime, regardless of who commits it, and studies show that it is natives who are the most violent and criminal. Most immigrants want to stay beneath the radar, wanting to simply remain in-country.  

Terrorism.

Between 1975 and 2015, 88% of terrorism deaths in America were caused by foreign born terrorists. At face value, this is enough to convince anyone that we ought to close our borders down tighter. Yet, it doesn't answer how these terrorists entered or the impact of these acts.

Between 1975 and 2015 there were 772,000 murders in the U.S. Of that .44% were caused by terrorism (3,397)... Just under 3,000 (the majority) occurred on 9/11. There has been no significant foreign-operative caused terrorist act in America since 9/11. Americans' annual risk of dying by terrorism is 1 in 3.2 million (getting hit by lightning is 1 in 1.71 million). Terrorism succeeds when it affects culture via fear and apprehension. And borders have not been the pathway for the majority of foreign terrorism. It is again a point of fear mongering.  

Entering illegally disrespects law and shows the criminal nature of immigrants... If they want to come, they ought to come the "right way."

It certainly is ideal that people come in the right way, so I argue that we ought to change the way. If the right way is part and parcel to pushing people to risk everything just to cross illegally, then it is right only legally and not morally. I've established already that more immigration is good for economies, so wouldn't it benefit us to address pathways more than restrictions? Once comprehensive reforms are made, the reality of illegality is reduced. Just because a law exists doesn't make it right. When considering plights that drive people to cross illegally, it becomes a human story about survival more than about obstinate law breakers. Again, it's rhetoric language that reduces the human factor into a matter of us vs. them and they become what sociology calls the other.  

Immigrants burden the economy and abuse the welfare state. In other words, they don't pull their weight.

Picture a hospital maternity ward and a dozen baby beds lined up in the viewing room. Each baby, in that moment is helpless and reliant on the welfare of nurses, parents, and doctors. None of the twelve children present is able to adequately care for themselves for some time, but as the children mature they will fill various roles in society. Most will contribute something, even if menial, but some won't. We recognize that this is a natural process of becoming for humans. Immigrants fulfill a macro form of this. It is true statistically that immigrants are more likely to use some forms of welfare than citizens (but not all or even to detrimental levels). Yet, successive generations (the maturing into adulthood) will more than pay back anything consumed in getting immigrants stabilized. Very few immigrants will become or remain welfare burdens. Immigration is a net gain and not a permanent drain. Welfare abuse is really just a hyperbolic scare tactic that looks at some forms of welfare and measures the immediate costs, but rarely are the net or long term gains calculated. We wouldn't dismiss babies for their unknown potential; why dismiss immigrants because they pose a perceived risk, when the preponderance of research suggests that they boost economies (regardless of skill or education)?

As for welfare, research by George Washington University professors Leighton Ku and Brian Bruen shows that overall, immigrants use less welfare than natives. This doesn't mean immigrants use less in all areas, but generally speaking, they are no more problematic and are probably less so than natives. Afterall, legal immigrants cannot take advantage of many benefits for five years of establishing residence and illegals are not permitted benefits, save life saving emergent care and some care for children. Ultimately, it is a myth that immigrants come to bilk the system and get freebies. They are instead attracted to America for economic opportunity -- jobs and starting businesses. 

Immigrants take American jobs.

Sometimes, but it usually affects low skilled high school dropouts. The vast majority of American workers are not affected. The majority of low-skilled migrant workers tend to take seasonal construction and agriculture jobs. Americans who enter these fields tend to become supervisors. And it's been this way since we took the southwest into the United States. If all the illegal migrant workers were made legal, they'd be fully vested tax payers and even better for the GDP. Many would likely strive for betterment with increased opportunities, spurring-on an increased supply chain because of new demand, which means innovation and new business. It's a cycle-up and not a spiral down. 

Immigrants don't assimilate. 

Stats show that this holds true to a degree for older first generation immigrants, but largely in language only (science has proven that it's easier to learn languages while younger). Subsequent generations are fully assimilated. And history shows that this has been normative throughout our immigration history and is not a recent phenomenon. Again, using this as anti-immigration rationale is conjecture and othering in its purpose.

***

Solutions

I recognize the wariness of open borders to a society that has never known them. This status quo is not an excuse to dismiss the idea however. Bryan Caplan and others offer what have been called keyhole solutions. A keyhole is a small opening that leads to big results (opening a door, for example). In other words, we can start incrementally in our reforms and makes concessions or compromises that provide a buffer for disbelievers in open or more open borders.

Solution Idea One: Temporary Higher Taxes on Immigrants

It might seem unfair to apply higher taxes on immigrants, and it is; however, if the fear of immigration is an economic drain or adversity placed on the American populace, then this could be an offset to pitfalls immigration may or may not bring. It could also function as a stimulus to citizens to increase the supply side to new demands brought in by new settlers.

Solution Idea Two: Admission Fee or Immigration Tariff

Many immigrants spend huge chunks of their savings to come here, and illegals often employ coyotes at $4,000 to $10,000 a pop to get in. Why not capitalize off of this, undercut the criminal element, and boost our economy in ways like idea #1 above.

Solution Idea Three: Reduced Government Services Until Permanency or Citizenship is Established

Limiting access further to non-vital or routine services. Essential welfare services that are vital to maintaining life would not be hampered, but more specified forms of welfare would be witheld until permanency. 

Solution Idea Four: Educational and/or Service Probation

Just like many Roman citizens became so by military service, one measure of permanency or citizenship that can be applied to newcomers is a mandatory probationary period whereby people could demonstrate their commitment by what they give. Earlier US immigration policy actually demanded that people establish permanent residence for a certain number of years before being granted citizenship or permanent legal status. In the same sense, a show of allegiance and longevity can be gained through service and/or education requirements. This need not be the military, but could be the peace corps, a private civic organization, or instead of service it could be night classes that educate beyond what current candidate-citizens receive, and would last for the number of years required for permanency. 

***

We simply need to think of paths to prosperity for people and the nation well before nationalist restrictions that actually create protectionist bubbles that prolongs the status quo.

There are my thoughts. Blessings.   

HELPFUL LINKS

The Immigrant "Welfare Queen" Myth

Immigrants are Attracted to Jobs, Not Welfare

Immigration Myths and Facts

Rethinking Crime and Immigration

Why Open Borders

The Economics of Immigration

Amazon: Open Borders Book Suggestion

Immigration Effects on American Jobs