User:EENavarro/sandbox

Political Debate
The modern debate around open borders is not clearly delineated into the traditional left-right political spectrum and party identification can be quite mobile based on the issue of immigration, but visible stances and differences between parties based solely on immigration and open borders became apparent after the Hart Cellars Act of 1965. Some groups traditionally seen as right-wing, like Libertarians, support unrestricted immigration, while nativists like Donald Trump oppose them. Similarly, some figures on the left wing, like Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders reject open border policies, while others support open borders (as shown by the slogan "no human is illegal"). In addition, the population of the democratic party has shifted from a massive white majority to almost an even split with non-white citizens since 1980, which has led some members of the democratic party to shift more towards the political right, and until then both political parties had been more or less aligned regarding immigration. The dividing line accords more closely with the libertarian-authoritarian political spectrum.

Arguments for open borders

 * 1) Open borders advocates argue that free migration is the most effective way to reduce world poverty. Migrants from developing countries can earn higher wages after moving to a more developed country, usually lifting them from 'developing world poverty' to 'developed world poverty'. They also send remittances to relatives in their home country, the flow of remittances being estimated to be around three times the global foreign aid spending reported by the OECD.
 * 2) A literature summary by economist Michael Clemens leads to an estimate that open borders would result in an increase of 67-147% in GWP (gross world product), with a median estimate of a doubling of world GDP. One estimate placed the economic benefits at 78 trillion.
 * 3) From a human rights perspective, free migration may be seen to complement Article 13 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
 * 4) American bioethicist Jacob M. Appel has argued that "treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary," is inherently unethical. According to Appel, such "birthrights" are only defensible if they serve "useful and meaningful social purposes" (such as inheritance rights, which encourage mothers and fathers to work and save for their children), but the "birthright of nationality" does not do so. Economist and writer Philippe Legrain argues that the countries of the world need migration to help global trade and reduce the occurrence of regional wars.
 * 5) Open borders cannot be dismissed as a utopian idea, argues Harald Bauder, because they do not propose an alternative way to organize human society but rather are a critique of closed or controlled borders. This critique, however, invites the search for practical as well as radical solutions to the problematic consequences of contemporary migration practices, including the deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea, the US–Mexico border, and elsewhere.
 * 6) Restrictions on mobility can only be justified if it can be shown that those restrictions prevent significant harm. Since research indicates that open borders will be better for both the natives and the migrants, and at the very least have not been shown to cause major harm, those restrictions are unjustified. The remote control methods used to keep hopeful immigrants out of wealthy nations (such as visa programs, flood lights at borders, or barbed wire fencing for example) slow down the avenues of legal migration and make other avenues of seeking asylum a more perilous endeavor.
 * 7) Immigrants are entrepreneurial with high labor force participation and have specialized skills giving them the opportunity to enter underserved markets and create businesses, increasing the number of jobs available in America. Author Thomas E. Lehman, has written articles on the controversial topic of opening Americas borders. In his article “The Benefits of Open Immigration” Lehman states that it is often thought that the policy of open immigration would lead to immigrants willing to work for less pay.
 * 8) Bryan Caplan has argued that in the U.S., which contains policies that favor high-skilled immigration, the overall long-run fiscal effect of immigrants is positive $58,000 for existing immigrants and positive $259,000 for new immigrants; thus, increasing immigration with the current ratio of high-and low-skilled workers could benefit social security programs and medicare. He states that a truly open borders policy would result in an altered ratio of low- and high-skilled workers where the productivity effect of immigration mitigates the negative fiscal impact of older low-skilled migrants. In addition to that, native-born populations also have a larger fiscal burden than comparable immigrants.
 * 9) Open borders would help save the lives of people who would otherwise have to wait for countries to decide the fate of refugees. As stated by author Sasha Polakow-Suransky, countries have enough to care for their citizens and others. Caplan has also shared that not doing anything and being a bystander is just as harmful to refugees. It is estimated that open borders would allow people to be safe and create a better world economy at the same time.
 * 10) Refugees who are in danger flee to Western countries which have provided safety and comfort. David Miliband argues that having open borders will rescue the lives of migrants who are constantly struggling to survive in inhabitable areas. According to him, accepting migrants into Western countries shows the acceptance for those in need and expresses that support and guidance is essential to saving the lives of innocent people.

It has been proposed that borders between the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries be opened. If goods and services and corporations can cross international boundaries without restraint, it is argued, then it does not make sense to restrain on the flow of people who work to make those goods and services. Some estimate that open borders where people are free to move and find work could result in 78 trillion dollars in economic gains.

Those in favor of a global migration policy advocate the adoption of a migratory regulatory system and new criteria to better guaranteed all rights (civil, social and political) for all immigrants. It is necessary to expand migration policy to create better management of global migratory system. Some propose a new meaning and understanding of global citizenship to establish a border global migration system. Migration is under the control and management of local governments and officials, but it is both a domestic political issue, and a global issue which needs joint efforts from different countries.

Arguments against open borders
See Also: Criticism of Multiculturalism

Controlled borders restrict migration by non-citizens. Several arguments for controlled borders and against open borders are as follows:


 * 1) That controlled borders encourage responsible policies in relation to population and birth rates for countries by preventing high population and high birth rate countries from disgorging their people onto other low population and low birth rate countries.
 * 2) Large-scale immigration from poorer countries into richer countries can create a "brain drain" in the source country, where educated professionals leave their home country to live elsewhere, depriving their home countries of an educated workforce. For example, in 2010 there were more Ethiopian doctors living in Chicago than there were in Ethiopia itself.
 * 3) The realism of open borders has been called into question, given that it could potentially require a world government.
 * 4) It has been argued that increased immigration will cause increased backlash from the white population who carry 75 percent of the political vote, which can possibly prevent immigrants access to basic forms of governmental or community support as well as create policies that specifically criminalize immigrants, based on studies demonstrating the inclination for the white vote to shift towards conservative republicans in favor of more restrictive immigration policies as the democratic party generally leans more toward a positive view of immigration.
 * 5) The influx of low-skill immigrant labor that open borders would bring into higher-skilled economies like the United States is feared to cause the standard for the average worker to decrease. Progressives such as Senator Bernie Sanders reject open borders as a loss for the American worker. Additionally, economic models that resemble the Nordic System operate in a way that rewards high-skilled work and seeks to avoid bolstering domestic and low-skill work that would make employment more accessible to refugees.
 * 6) It has been argued that an open border could cause a great replacement of traditional values and ideals of the receiving country, claiming that multiculturalism is not possible in certain countries. For example, the President of the National Front, Marine Le Pen, says that France should not cater to Muslim ways of life because they go against French liberal ideals. Others, such as Reihan Salam, have argued that low-skilled immigrants in the U.S, have formed a racialized class distinct from Americans, and that the implementation of open borders will create and deepen a cultural and economic clash in America due to differing ideals and values. Fear of losing traditional values has also been a contributing factor to the rise of the populist parties, which are greatly concerned with the social, cultural, and ethnic conservation of the majority, but the need to keep a certain ethnicity as the majority has spawned anti-immigrant beliefs within particular parties; thus, it has been observed that some populist party’s views depict immigration as a negative, even as widespread immigration causes the composition of the population to change, due to the ethnic differences that immigrants bring.

Attitudes toward immigrants
The Pew Research Center has indicated that there are generally more people who perceive immigrants’ effect on their country because of their work and talents as an advantage rather than a disadvantage across 18 countries (including the United States and several European countries with the largest migrant populations) containing a combined 51% of the world’s migrant population; there are generally more people in favor of deporting immigrants living in their country illegally across the same parameters. While there are more people on the ideological left who have a positive view of immigrants and more people on the ideological right who are in favor of deporting illegal immigrants, there is no necessary correspondence with what most people on each end of the political spectrum are inclined to support.

The media is a major influencing factor for attitudes towards immigrants. It has been documented that the more the media portrays immigration negatively, the less white Americans will vote in favor of open borders and the more likely they will continue believing in the Latin American immigrant threat narrative. This narrative claims the more Latin American immigrants there are, the bigger the threat there is to the native culture, language, homes, jobs, and even political offices. An analysis of three decades’ worth of articles in the New York Times found their coverage increased the negative lens of immigration far more than the positive by focusing their articles mostly on negative aspects and images of immigration. It is significant to note studies show white Americans largely do not distinguish between American-born Latin Americans and immigrant Latin Americans when thinking about immigration issues, voting, and choosing partisan ties.

Native-born individuals report slightly more positive views when asked about impacts an immigrant may have on their country, especially when considering their contribution to cultural life. However, when it comes to the labour market, half of the native-born population hold no particular view when it comes to immigrants taking or creating jobs.

It should also be noted that attitudes towards immigrants shift over time, much like any political issue. Using California as a case study, Manuel Pastor found that the views of immigration in the state have been fluid at best. While many view California as a liberal haven that is accepting and tolerant of immigrants today, much of the state’s history has had opposite views towards immigration. Pastor makes the point that even in societies where immigration is looked upon as negative, values are able to shift, and if the ultra-liberal thriving economic state of California can radically change the perception it has on immigration, then it is quite possible for other states or nations to shift their perceptions.

Integration
Integration has been defined as the process of immigrant and native born populations changing to resemble one another as a result of the influx of people into a particular territory. There is a split on the degree to which individuals living in countries with the 18 largest migrant populations would want immigrants to integrate and the effects of integration on both immigrant and non-immigrant populations are varied. In the United States, for example, integration is successful in terms of education, employment and earnings, occupations, poverty, language, health, crime, and family patterns; however, successful integration does not necessarily entail improvement on well-being.

Integration can even lead to further backlash against immigration by non-white populations who have assimilated successfully. It has been found that more than half of Hispanics support increased security among the border in order to reduce illegal crossings and that countries with a high share of immigrants may be more susceptible to favor right-wing policies such as strict immigration; thus, it has been suggested that successful integration does not guarantee continued patterns for future generations.