Do “Open Borders” Harm the Pro-Immigration Cause?
Rethinking "open borders" as a policy goal
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
A political issue I’ve wrestled with extensively is immigration. There is broad consensus among economists that immigrants are a net positive for national economies. A survey of the economic literature indicates that immigration, even large, sudden inflows of immigrants, do not have significant negative effects on the employment or incomes of native residents (one exception: George Borjas, who argues that immigration can have large effects for certain parts of the native population). Immigrants are more entrepreneurial. Immigrants commit less violent crimes than their native counterparts. High immigration can offset declining population growth in developed countries. Immigration allows us to select the highest quality researchers and academics, improving the United States’ university standing. Immigration boosts economic growth. American immigrants are even more patriotic.
Beyond economics, there’s a strong moral case for open borders. Immigration is the best, most effective, means of addressing global poverty. There’s a strong argument we should care more about the global poor by giving them the opportunity to move to wealthy countries. We should potentially even care about the global poor than poor Americans. There’s no real ethical justification for caring more about the people geographically closer to you than those further away. I have bought fully into these ethical arguments for caring about immigration, and I have a deep, personal moral commitment to creating a world where America can be a shining beacon on a hill for all those escaping poverty, corruption, violence, and oppression.
And yet, despite this mountain of data detailing the positive effects of immigration, even high immigration, immigration faces a real political battle. High levels of immigration in the United States and Europe are associated with backlashes against immigrants, leading to harsher crackdowns on immigrant populations and further restrictions on any migration across the border.
What Does the Data say?
If we care about the global poor and economic growth, we have to find a politically feasible platform that makes immigration not just acceptable to the general population, but genuinely popular. This may not seem like a problem on the surface. Pew Research polling finds that 59% of Americans view immigrants as a benefit to their nation, not a detriment. The Cato Institute’s 2021 Immigration and Identity National Survey found that Americans view immigrants’ motivations for coming to the United States to be favorable, with 72% of Americans believing immigrants come to the US to “find jobs and improve their lives”.
Despite this broadly favorable view of immigrants, Americans are still split on whether immigration should be increased, decreased, or maintained at current levels. Gallup poll data finds that Americans are almost perfectly evenly split on this question, with 33% believing immigration should be increased, 31% believing it should be decreased, and 35% believing it should be maintained at current levels. Americans also harbor concerns about illegal immigration, with 60% of Gallup poll respondents stating that they worry about it either a “great deal” or “fair amount”. A majority also believe that a large number of illegal immigrants entering the country over the next 10 years is either a “critical” or “important” threat. Similarly, the majority of Americans believe the situation at the US-Mexico border is either a “crisis” or “major problem”, although this could indicate humanitarian concerns about ICE detention camps. Finally, the vast majority of Americans support hiring more US border patrol officers.
Americans Hate Chaos
Or, at least, the perception of chaos. What the above data indicates to me is not that Americans are particularly concerned about immigration for nativist or xenophobic reasons, but more that Americans are made uneasy by the perception of disorder. Illegal immigration is a problem not because of the people coming in, but because it indicates that the US government has very little control over the influx of people across the border, Similarly, many Americans want to see increased border enforcement and are also in favor of making legal immigration easier to achieve.
For proponents of actual open borders; however, this poses a problem. The solutions many of us want to see - the complete decriminalization of “illegal” immigration, full freedom of movement, etc. - will not be easy to sell to the public. Instead, those of us concerned about the free movement of people on economic and humanitarian grounds should shift their proposals to sound more appealing to the public. This can be done without violating our core principles and commitments.
A Solution
Our policies should be focused on making legal immigration much easier. The average wait time to legally immigrate is anywhere between 1.5-3 years. The process is nightmarish, especially for individuals already balancing work and family commitments. The US places quotas on nationalities, immigrants struggle to find sufficient legal counsel, and bureaucratic mismanagement and lag have led to a massive backlog. This means many who have applied for green cards may never see them and end up falling through the cracks. David Bier at the Cato Institute has published a great report documenting policy changes to simplify the immigration system and incentivize people to immigrate to the US legally.
The hardest bullet to bite for many pro-immigration advocates; however, might be more money for immigration enforcement. I am no fan of ICE or CBP, but the agencies are broadly favorable in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, symbolic policies towards immigration enforcement and control make passing stronger pro-immigration policies more feasible. If Americans perceive the situation to be under control, they may be more accepting of other policies, such as drastically increasing the number of immigrants entering the country, removing quotas, and providing visas for entrepreneurs.