Comments on: Is a wall to keep people out better than a wall to keep people in?

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:24:11 +0000

I used to be an "open borders" advocate, but I actually now find the view very implausible that citizens and non-citizens should be treated equally (although they may deserve equal consideration). Here is a parallel to the argument you gave. The benefit of the U.S. stimulus package, if spent outside the U.S. rather than within, would be many many times greater for non-citizens than if it were spent on citizens. But nobody thinks that any government should just spend its money in any way that maximizes utility. There is a social-democratic contract between the government and the governed. And part of this contract means explicitly giving priority to compatriots. So I think the question is, given that states should give priority to citizens over non-citizens but some consideration to non-citizens, what are just levels and circumstances under which immigrant admission should occur? Owen replies: Thanks Scott. You seem to glide between what it is realistic to think that governments will do, given the pressures on them, and what you think they should do. The word "should" is not a prediction about what will happen, but a statement about what would be right. I agree that it does not seem likely that governments will act the way I think they should, but it does not follow (as you seem to imply) that therefore they should not. I do think that all of us should put pressure on governments to act in a way that maximises total utility. And as it happens, I have indeed argued on this very blog that part of the stimulus package should be used for people in other countries. So the fact that you think it unlikely does not in any way deter me from believing that the government should take account of the interests of people outside the country, nor from arguing vigorously for this point of view.

By: Liam

Liam — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:32:32 +0000

Jess Benhabib and Boyan Jovanovic at NYU have a working paper that comes to a similar conclusion:

http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/benhabib/mig_40g_NYU.pdf

By: Roving Bandit

Roving Bandit — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:54:32 +0000

Younotsneaky crunched the numbers on this a while ago:

How much of a jerk do you have to be to oppose immigration?

“we should care more about native workers – the citizens – then the migrants – the non-citizens. Ok. But how much more? …

How much do you have to weight the native’s welfare relative to that of the Mexican immigrant in order to oppose moving this migrant into US?…

each native worker counts about 26 and a half times as much as a migrant.”

http://notsneaky.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-much-of-jerk-do-you-have-to-be-to.html

Owen replies: Right. Yet there seems to be such widespread consensus that it is OK to take more account of the existing population than the migrant.