Wow, this is an interesting economics concept. No wall, no immigration enforcement except to prevent terrorism and disease spread, and no immigration restriction worldwide. Borders across the world would be open free to emigration and immigration. Before you dismiss this concept as silly, know that there are a group of economists who think it’s a great idea. Their reasoning is purely economics even though, in reality, there would certainly be other considerations.
The premise goes back to the era of the Statue of Liberty’s erection in 1886. Lately there has been much spin using the quote about the tired and the poor, it’s the American way, and the statue itself. So in that spirit, by taking a look at that time period, immigration was quite free and open. Any restrictions were lightly enforced. Those who chose to, were free to leave and enter anywhere in the world if they had the means. This open border concept would return to that same practice, back to our roots so to speak. The current systems of border control were instituted about 100 years ago after WWI for several reasons: including racism, security, and protection of citizens in wages and the welfare state.
An estimate of how much immigration would take place uses the number 640 million people who want emigrate. Economists feel the number to be much larger in the long run so we’re talking several billion people over a couple of generations who would emigrate and settle in the West. America and other countries in the West would look much different. It would stimulate increases in the global economy through productivity and perhaps even double the economy. This boost would benefit the world’s poorest people basically eliminating poverty worldwide. Are you still doubting this concept?
This is where it turns from economics to ethics. Today’s most accepted moral and ethical philosophy is universalism and egalitarian, in other words, every human has the same value as any other. That belief fosters open borders. Another, called Utilitarianism, or happiness of the individual also would promote open borders. A hypothetical argument is: behind a veil of ignorance would any one of us design a world where everyone had an 80% chance of being born into poverty and trapped there or 20% of being born into a rich country? That would not be likely.
The argument against open borders rejects the idealistic moral framework, describing it as a pipe-dream. It protest that countries have existence value (losing their populations would eliminate the fabric of the culture and country itself), and most importantly, the world would lose the global goods supplied by developed countries. It fears that mankind would be all the worse.
Knowing these two approaches you have to ask, what makes one country rich and another poor? More importantly, how would mass movement affect global well-being? Geographers would argue that it’s the physical place itself. If so the movement would not have much effect on productivity. If it’s human potential then movement from one country to another would do little good. Or it may be the presence of high quality institutions and therefore a large influx could dilute and damage the strong institutes of the West. Consider two types of strong institutes for which the West is known: the financial and legal systems and social safety nets. In a world with open borders the government social safety nets would have be eliminated or pared down drastically to prevent the bankruptcy of the welfare state. Poverty would be more evident in the West where currently those in poverty are kept “comfortably” out of sight. However what the West considers poverty would be much better than what the new immigrants experienced in their old home. It seems that the wealth-fostering institutions would be able to operate at the same or greater levels. There are arguments for and against that premise, especially considering the sheer amount of mass movement expected. There is no proof in history of the effect of that amount. “So caution is reasonable.”
How much caution? Considering the messy, harsh situation in border security on the southern border now where families are separated, lives are in peril, deportation can lead to violence, government seems to have undue power over people’s lives, and outright mistakes made in deportation all seem to contradict caution. None of it keeps immigration from stopping. Also seeing what is expended to control immigration but does not stop it, shows the importance of coming into the country in humanitarian terms. Amnesty to illegals also promotes the desire to immigrate illegally making illegals hopeful for amnesty in the future. Politicians lean toward a middle ground but amnesty and illegal immigration seems to be “a slippery slope” to open borders. Economists either disdain the open border idea or love it and they disdain the idea of strict border enforcement or love it.
Arguments are made that citizens should have a right to control who comes into the country with border legislation and enforcement. On the other hand, open border advocates want to limit the power of government to regulate who enters. In their thoughts freedom is more important than democracy. And open borders is the expression of freedom, limited government powers, and strengthens rights.
This is an interesting concept and my thought as of now is border enforcement can’t continue as it is. We either need to go one way or the other: a wall or open borders. Both are extreme and opposite of each other. One protects life as we have it and the other proposes a drastic change. One is the ethical high road but leaves us unsure of the consequences. The other is less ethical in terms of universalism but the consequences are sure. I leave this dilemma as food for thought. I have no answer.
I would love to sit in on a discussion of this topic with other input beyond economics. What would politicians, religious leaders, business owners, bankers, law enforcement, ordinary citizens, etc. say about this? It would be an interesting discussion.
Dovetail 
Interesting ideas. What is the answer?? The attached article is written by Nathan Smith of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank funded by Charles Koch.
The articles I read to get different ideas are from Foreign Affairs magazine. They are nonpartisan and all sorts of persuasions are included.