Krugman is no doubt an idiot, but so is anyone clamoring still in the New Millennium for open borders. The surge of immigrants just a few short months ago should have been enough of a forewarning, but apparently not so. Byran Caplan and other idiots still walk among us.....
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:01 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > DECEMBER 5, 2014 > > *Krugman's Cursory Case Against Open Borders *Bryan Caplan > > Paul Krugman exemplifies > <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/opinion/paul-krugman-immigration-children.html?_r=0> > the standard progressive position on immigration. He strongly supports > amnesty for existing illegal immigrants, but strongly opposes open borders > <http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double>. > His case for amnesty is not novel: [T]oday's immigrants are the same, in > aspiration and behavior, as my grandparents were -- people seeking a better > life, and by and large finding it. That's why I enthusiastically support > President > Obama's new immigration initiative > <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html>. > It's a simple matter of human decency. > > Krugman's case against open borders, in contrast, is uniquely his own. > How so? Most thinkers who explicitly reject open borders are convinced it > would be an absolute disaster. Krugman, in contrast, opposes open borders > for the mildest of reasons. Read his sentences carefully: The New Deal > made America a vastly better place, yet it probably wouldn't have been > possible without the immigration restrictions that went into effect after > World War I. For one thing, absent those restrictions, there would have > been many claims, justified or not, about people flocking to America to > take advantage of welfare programs. > > Krugman hardly sounds convinced that immigrants would have flocked to the > U.S. to take advantage of the New Deal. "Justified or not" is awfully > agnostic. While Krugman says the New Deal probably wouldn't have been > possible without immigration restrictions, he doesn't say that immigration > restrictions were required to have some version of the welfare state. Nor > does he sound convinced that fear of "flocking" would have a high > probability of substantially curtailing the welfare state in some form or > other. "Many claims"? Name any major social program that fails to inspire > "many claims" about its dangers before, during, and after its adoption. > > Krugman continues: Furthermore, open immigration meant that many of > America's worst-paid workers weren't citizens and couldn't vote. Once > immigration restrictions were in place, and immigrants already here gained > citizenship, this disenfranchised class > <https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab11.html> > at the bottom shrank rapidly, helping to create the political conditions > for a stronger social safety net. And, yes, low-skill immigration probably > has some depressing effect on wages, although the available evidence > suggests <http://www.nber.org/papers/w16736> that the effect is quite > small. > > Notice: Krugman doesn't say that exclusion of immigrants was an essential > political condition for the welfare state to arise. He only says that it > helped create political conditions for a stronger welfare state. > > So let's sum up Krugman's case against open borders: > > 1. It's unclear whether immigrants would have flocked to the U.S. to take > advantage of the welfare state. > > 2. But many would hastily assume such an effect, somewhat reducing > domestic support for the welfare state. > > 3. Also, excluding non-voting poor immigrants somewhat altered voter > demographics in the welfare state's favor. > > Personally, I think that mass immigration does far more good for the truly > poor than the welfare state ever has. This isn't just a weird > libertarian view > <http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf>; Brad DeLong > agrees > with a few caveats > <http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/04/we_have_a_deal_.html>: > Increased immigration is superior to strengthening the welfare state. I > just don't think it will or can happen, so I will advocate the next best > thing. From a cosmopolitan world perspective, almost all of the costs of > maldistribution come from income gaps between nations and very little come > from within-nation inequality. Development is far more important from a > world welfare perspective than social insurance within rich countries. And > immigration is a powerful tool for world development. > > But maybe Brad and I are wrong. Suppose that if we faced an either-or > choice between the welfare state and open borders, we should choose the > welfare state. Krugman still fails to provide any decent argument against > open borders. How so? Because marginalism > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism>. Krugman claims nothing > stronger than, "Open borders would have somewhat reduced the strength of > the safety net." Why then is he so convinced that this marginal policy > change outweighs the massive harm > <http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.25.3.83> inflicted by > making almost all immigration illegal? > > This is no hyperbole. Joel Newman shows that the cost of immigration > restrictions were already catastrophic by the end of Roosevelt's second > term <http://openborders.info/blog/paul-krugman-immigration-act-1924/>, > when the U.S. turned away hundreds of thousands of people desperately > struggling to escape the clutches of the Nazis. And far more would have > applied if they had any hope of getting in - as millions did before World > War I <http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/08/immigration_mis.html>. > > About a month ago, Krugman ridiculed > <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/paul-krugman-plutocrats-against-democracy.html> > lingering right-wing fear of democratic expropriation: For the political > right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well > conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market > ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that > the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand > out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy. > > Krugman's right. This is a silly fear. Why? Many > <http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/why_is_democrac.html> reasons > <http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691129428>, > but the most obvious is that voters are far from selfish > <http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/e854/pc4.htm>. Most poor voters > would consider full-blown expropriation of the rich to be deeply unfair, all > incentive effects aside <http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebartels/homer.pdf>. > > What the history of immigration restrictions shows, however, is that > decent folk should nevertheless be deeply uncomfortable with democracy > <http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/majoritiesagainstutility.pdf>. > Why? Because most voters are nationalists > <http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/nationalism_won.html>, and > nationalist voters consistently do to foreigners what low-income voters > almost never do to the rich: Strip them en masse of their basic rights to > work, reside, and travel. Why? For the flimsiest of reasons. Flimsy > reasons like: Trapping millions of foreigners in dire poverty and bloody > repression probably makes our safety net somewhat stronger. > > To quote GMU econ prodigy Nathaniel Bechhofer > <https://twitter.com/bechhof>: Paul, you're better than this. > > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/12/krugmans_cursor.html > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
