Immigration
Posted by Scott Hughes Thu, 13 Apr 2006 04:16:00 GMT
Since I was away on vacation, I missed some of the details about these local protests (rallies?) against this latest immigration bill. I suppose the big issue is the provision to make it a felony act to be in the country without the proper paperwork. And I have to agree with the protesters: It is ridiculous to consider hard-working “Americans-in-spirit” as felons… And I’m more scared than anybody else when it comes to the idea of putting up a Berlin Wall between the US and Mexico. I’ve always been a supporter of open immigration, but thanks to Harry Binswanger, there’s now a good paper in defense of open immigration covering all of the important points. For example, on the claim that open immigration would cause overcrowding:
Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population–from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. That would make America almost as “densely” populated as today’s England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska, Hawaii, and counts only land area.
And contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a “doll hospital”–a store specializing in the repair of children’s dolls. Such a store and the many specialized, niche businesses require a high population density to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a “Secret Shopper” (2 jobs actually listed on Craig’s List). Not in Paducah.
I know that I, for one, would love to be able to afford to move into an even denser part of downtown Dallas than where I currently live… But more importantly, I welcome hard-working, freedom-loving individuals of any nationality (regardless of their paperwork status) to live in my neighborhood.
Articles Only
Scott, I agree that immigrants are good for the US. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants, and we should not abandon that heritage.
However, the density argument above borders on the absurd. If 1/2 of Earth’s population lived in the US, that would not make people want to live in the vast wastelands of the west. We can assume they would want to live “basically” where people want to live today. Since the US population is currently about 1/20th of Earth’s population, if we went to 1/2, a more reasonable model is that every area sees a local 10-fold increase in density. This would cripple almost every city in the US. There would be no way infrastructure, housing, power, etc.. could adapt to that density.
For instance, even a small town like Gainesville, FL would have millions of residents.
Clearly this could never happen overnight, but lets be honest, the fact that increasing density puts strain on cities is a real problem. I know some people from Bangladesh, I think they would tell you high density is not a bed of roses.
I know you lean towards the “market cures what ails ya” philosophy, but few Americans would welcome the adjustment (massive downward pressure on wages for instance) that completely open borders would bring.
I think you’re looking at it more from the perspective of an overnight flood of people, which is absurd on its face. I understand that population is focused on major city centers and I still don’t see a problem with that. I know England’s pop density isn’t spread out evenly across the hills and fields, but Singapore’s is very concentrated with more than 10 times their amount… 6 times the amount of Bangladesh. And my friends from Singapore all tell me that it is a bed of roses.
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on international politics, but I’m willing to bet that Bangladesh’s problems have less to do with population and more to do with upper management.
I do believe that individuals, if left free from government coercion and allowed to operate in a capitalist system, will achieve the best use of resources and achieve the greatest good (though it isn’t their motivation, they should only properly be concerned with achieving their own good). I suppose you can restate that to sound something like “the market cures what ails ya”… But on your point, as soon as the first million arrived in Gainesville, wouldn’t housing costs go up (in response to demand) enough to discourage that second million?