I also reject the motion of “Let anyone work anywhere.” In this (not short) response, I have argued the effects to the non-migrants, particularly in developing economies, is of primary importance to understanding the particular policy advocated in the motion. I suggest Nigeria and similar economies, not the U.S. or even Europe, as a model for testing the effect of an open-boarder policy because their inherent disparity in productivity are better representations of the disparities between nations of the world. I use Nigeria and specifically, Lagos state as an example model to show the possible population explosion and consequences on public infrastructure in the receiving area, as well as the blight experienced by the non-migrants left behind.
While I do not think Anonymous1 is saying moral shortcomings in any area of policy justify the complete disregard of morality in all areas of policy, I think it is a sufficient rebuttal to Anonymous0’s poor attempt at an emotional argument (“If one truly cares about about inequality or poverty, how is it not morally reprehensible to favor immigration restrictions that trap millions of people to the Third World?” - tsk tsk Anonymous0, good try but I expected a little more from you.)
Regarding the economic argument, it sounds like the difficulty of showing that everybody would be worse off, is why the objections have been based on showing that the people in the First World would be worse off. Thus, Anonymous0, channeling Clemens, correctly shows that in fact, GDP in these receiving economies will grow and biff! bamn! pow! case closed. I like Anonymous1’s rebuttal that even with increasing GDP, a rising tide does not raise all boats and there will be losers at the margins if such a policy is adopted. However, I feel charitable. Let us agree that opponents to that position will concur that there will always be losers on the margins. Let us also buttress their position by offering that despite distribution inequality, the losers would have access to some benefits of an increasing GDP and therefore are not too bad off.
The debate can now be posed as a utilitarian argument: Do the individuals at the margins (i.e. the losers) represent a sufficient sized (in whatever measure) bloc as to direct, or have their positions highly weighted in policy negotiations and decisions?
I hope to support my position on the motion with two arguments: (1) The discussion, as currently framed, ignores a significantly numerous bloc of “losers”, effectively skewing the utilitarian calculation, and (2) The dominance of Western nation-state models also skews the analysis of effects of an open boarder policy.
In terms of contribution to global productivity, it is not hyperbole to think of the entire continent of Africa (minus a couple of city-states) as being on the economic margins. It is understandable then that the perspective of the First World will be the driver of the prevailing narrative on global issues. However, due to the large numbers (as a current and future proportion of world population) in the bloc of developing economies, I believe it is important to explore, and highly weigh the effects of such policies on them. This is in contrast to my position on the relatively small numbers in the First World who were also on the economic margins. Both groups are potential “losers” and the effects should be summed. In his paper, Clemens talks about studying the effect of migration on the non-migrants but in my opinion, does not actually end up saying very much. There is no debate that, were such a policy as in the motion be adopted, labor would move from areas of low economic potential. Clemen’s position on this is a scientific, albeit purist one amounting to “if you can’t measure it, it does not exist.” This is what Anonymous0 more tactfully references in his distinction between “one’s concerns” and “actual research.” He [Clemens] remarks that if there are negative effects of migration on non-migrants, they “are difficult to observe, their theoretical basis remains unclear and their use to justify policy remains shaky.” I can understand that, but what does that mean in the context of the motion at hand. Does the burden of proof fall on the non-migrants to show clear negative effects or a sound theoretical basis? Do we now adopt the open boarder policy until negative effects are proved in a measurable way? Given his remarks that there is scant research on the potential effects (which I understand as positive and negative) on non-migrants, I doubt he has offered any justification to advocate for an open boarder policy, especially as understood from the perspective of the non-migrants in developing economies. I only raise this last point to highlight the double standard in requiring evidence in a measurable way without actually offering any. Again, I am specifically referring to a perspective from developing economies.
Without the perspective of developing economies in this conversation, I can see the argument and might even buy it. I mean, take an economic system like the U.S. or the E.U. There is practically an open boarder system there. Yes, some states are more prosperous and more populous than others, but in general, everyone is doing okay. However, I suspect we cannot extrapolate such systems globally because of the incredibly high disparity in productivity between countries. I suspect the reality of adopting such a policy is actually more similar to what is going on in a place like Nigeria versus in the U.S. or even the E.U.
In Nigeria, due to the combined effects of a port, well developed industries (vestiges of colonialism) and a highly educated labor force, Lagos state produces over 25% of the countries GDP. The consequence is that Lagos state, the smallest of all the states in Nigeria supports over 15% of the nation’s populations and 38% of the nation’s urban population. It is hard to imagine the incredible pressures this over-population has on public resources and infrastructure. There is significant urban decay everywhere and in everything! I have been able to talk with a number of big wigs in urban planning during my time here and they repeatedly maintain the problem of the state is simply over-population. Yes, people earn higher wages here, but the cost of living is higher and a direct consequence of supply/demand is that over 66% of the population live in ever growing slums, despite having jobs and in some cases, good incomes. In fact, Lagos is purported to be in the top five of the fastest growing slum dwellers in the world. The other side of the argument is what is going on in the states people are migrating from. The rural to urban flight is wrecking havoc on the country. Entire areas that used to be major producers and exporters of agricultural products are deserted. The communities are devastated by loss of their young, most skilled and capable residents. There is resurgence of thirteenth century diseases like polio, small pox. The education landscape is those areas are bleak, creating a generational wedge of inequality. I can really go on and on, but I think the point is clear.
To spell out the analogy, I believe with an open boarder policy, Africa and other developing economies, like the states people are migrating from in Nigeria, will experience an incredible rate of resource and labor drain. Even with the strict immigration policies of western countries, the continent already experiences a high exodus of their talented and capable. This has real effects in the governance and capacity of the people left behind. I believe the receiving countries will experience an overtaxing of public resources. Infinite population growth is impossible and although an equilibrium will eventually be reached, it might be at the cost of quality of life measures (e.g. slum cities).
All bad things. Do not do it!