Why are people so much against open borders when free immigration is the number one alleviator of poverty in the world?

Why are people so much against open borders when free immigration is the number one alleviator of poverty in the world?

Don't believe me? Here's the proof

cgdev.org/files/1425376_file_Clemens_Economics_and_Emigration_FINAL.pdf

"Eliminating the planet’s remaining trade barriers would increase global GDP by around $US100 billion.
Eliminating immigration barriers, by comparison, would as much as double world income: that is, increase global GDP by $US60 trillion.
This added wealth would be shared, but the overwhelming beneficiaries would be people who now live in poor countries."

- Lant Pritchett explains this notion in details in his book:Let Their People Come: Breaking the Policy Deadlock on International Labor Mobility.

Ben Powell Immigration:
youtube.com/watch?v=B4GcF_Jl7zU&t=1018s
The Case For Open Borders:
youtube.com/watch?v=jk8J9OGQH50


GEM conference: youtu.be/kqyXIe5up68

There was a study in Denmark about the effects of immigration after the Yugoslav wars, Iraqi and Afghanistan war refugees. The wages of the less educated natives actually went up. Contrary, to the convential wisdom of supply and demand. The explanation was that low skilled natives gradually moved towards more complex occupations and a fraction received formal training to increase their complementarity with the manual jobs performed by non-EU immigrants.

nber.org/papers/w19315.pdf?new_window=1

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw
youtube.com/watch?v=6_a2lCTq70A
theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10072567
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Only in a free market, not with massive welfare state.

fuck off neoliberal

national economy > gloablized world economy

saged

Why should I pay taxes for the welfare of someone from Africa? When it's rape, crime, murder and Allahu- Akbar is what I'm gonna get in the return.

Nationalized economies are unnatural. Border and immigrations restrictions are a modern idea that held no water, traditionally if people needed to migrate for a better life they could and as long as they behaved they were embraced. Free movement is really a return to the traditional order. People did not make their countries into museums.

Dude Your country encompasses 14 percent of the world population, if anything there are more Indians trying to emigrate than immigrate.

But we too are facing immigrants problem, from Bangladesh, Myanmar and Nepal.

And the people who migrate from India to Other nations are seen as ideal migrants which is why we are globally loved.
70% H1B in US are Indian.

>Border and immigrations restrictions are a modern idea
So are many of your rights and upward social mobility, I bet you wouldn't like return to the traditional ways.

>if people needed to migrate for a better life they could and as long as they behaved they were embraced.
Maybe if there were few of them or the land was vast and sparsely populated. Massive waves of migration often led to bloodshed ifresources in a given area were scarce.

GDP doesn't mean shit when your daughter is afraid to walk outside alone. Bringing in the entire 3rd world is a death sentence for the West.

Yes, it's good for global GDP, but it's bad for the average wages of the US worker. Why should I be required to dilute the wealth of my country because some spics couldn't create a functional government of their own?

common misconception, only 10 percent of the population is on minimum wage and their wages don't have to go down especially since they can get promoted to deal with the demands of new immigrants bring into the country. Lower educated natives have higher abilities than the natives and are in a better position for advancing.

open Trade borders =/= open actual borders/free immigration, retard

> This added wealth would be shared

>free immigration is the number one alleviator of poverty in the world?
I'm pretty sure robbery is even better, but we are against it, too.
I don't care about any poverty but my own. does immigration help with that? because it seems it only helps migrants.

A free society means you are free to leave it and come back.

If you can’t walk where you want to, you are not free

>open Trade borders =/= open actual borders/free immigration, retard
this. plus: increase of gdp != the poor get more money.

i think theres just one more step omitted here

Society is not a mathematical formula you spergy fuck.

We need the sweating guy who has to pick one of two buttons meme with, "Open borders to flood countries with low skill, low education workers" and "Automation is the future! Learn to adapt, go to school and get a higher education, engineers, scientists, and doctors will be the only jobs one day!" as the options.

>Society is not a mathematical formula you spergy fuck.
but it will be if everybody by whose fault it is not gets sent to the gulag.

youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

>watch this video you faggots
>they breed faster than anyone can take them in
>something needs to be done where the problem starts

Sweden agrees kek

There is more to a society than an economy

>Why are people so much against open borders when free immigration is the number one alleviator of poverty in the world?
Why are you against open doors for your house when it would enrich your neighbours ?

desu, i kind of want society as we know it to collapse. So I am actually pro open borders.

Look at me. Your house is now my house. You now pay my bills.
My religion forbids me to work like a scum Westerner. Also, I can take as many wives as I want of any age I want.
So all your single female relatives under the age of 20 are now my wives. And you will also pay their bills.
And the cost of the many many many children I will fuck into them. And they will also share my non-working for a living religion.
So your descendants will be paying for them also (the ones I don't marry or decide to kill because of some "religious emergency").

If you have any problems with this you are a monstrous bigot and Nazi.

Borders protect us.
Our borders define our shape, and without borders and distinction we will be assimilated into environment.

Any living form must recognize it's own body from all intrusion. Failing to reject foreign parts leads to death and dispersal, assimilation into environment.

All energy is driven by the difference. When there is no difference, there is no flow, no "live", it's called "thermal death".

We, white males have created this civilisation, laws and wedlock to protect our women from gorilla alpha-males, to protect us weak intelligent men from strongest ruffians.

The world is going to be overcrowded and in next few decades, few billion of people are going to perish, and it will not be us, it's not our guilt either.

It's crime against The Planet to overbreed, fertility rate over 7 is just catastrophic (regardless of race, but more so if the most primitive inferiors overbreed the most), and the Mother Nature is going to protest. The irresponsible ethnics are going to pay the Collective Karma Guilt to the Nature, because she respects principle of Collective Guilt most of all...
It's not possible to solve all consequences and guilt of overbreeding by moving this menace elsewhere. It's not only as extinguishing fire by catching smoke in bags, it's rather as "releaving" from fire by tossing burning objects arround... They're not going to carry their ecological overbreed consequences to us, unless we allow our irresponsible and witless women and traitor judases invite this menace to us... (Now it's just a matter of time, when will we say: "Enough was enough!")

>if we make everyone poor then poverty won't statistically exist.

So your suggesting an elimination of all form of welfare.

kek yeah it's working out great for Europe.

>>Nationalized economies are unnatural. Border and immigrations restrictions are a modern idea that held no water, traditionally if people needed to migrate for a better life they could and as long as they behaved they were embraced.

People can emigrate by artificial means, they can fly or take a vehicle or boat.
Nation states by definition can control/defend their borders based on their best interests.

Your argument is against the idea of nation states.

>lets open the borders without abolishing the welfare state
>what could go wrong

The Nation-State was always a necessary evil not an end to itself

Of course, I like the Milton Friedman approach to immigration

The economy is just human action, there is nothing more to society than the accumulation of all human action.

/thread

The only thing that differentiates a first world economy to a third world economy is production. If you double production everybody benefits, If an entire segment of the population retires like the baby boomers are currently and production falls then everybody loses.

I'd be lying if I'm not just a well hidden pyro at this point. Tell me more about this eternal fire and window breaking.

What a load of shit. Look at any country that has immigration and see that immigrants push out natives from various industries.

Look at:
Poles in Britian
Mexicans in the US
Ukrainians in Poland

KYS

Private borders > Public borders
you commie

90% of Americans were farmers before 1850 and the invention of the tractor. The tractor took away all of those jobs, did we have 90% unemployment since then?

Every innovation is bad for somebody. Does it mean innovation is bad, hell no. Just like every immigrant is bad for somebody, does it mean immigrants are bad, far from it. Immigrants also have demands and require necessities to survive so they create jobs with their spending, not only do they add to production by increasing efficiency they also increase the spending of their employers.

There are never a finite amount of jobs in the world and to suggest otherwise is illogical and unempirical

Free market economics has been abused to become chaos market economics. Enoch Powell himself replied, when it was remarked that Thatcher was a convert to Powell’s monetarist policies, that it was ‘A pity she did not understand them!’ For Powell, monetarism was not a moral endeavour: it was a necessity of national economic independence.

1. neoclassical econ is a farce
2. bringing in people from foreign cultures lowers social trust and increases crime
3. relative poverty causes crime, bringing in poor people will do that
4. we don't live in a libertarian paradise, we live in a welfare state, and legal minorities are a net fiscal negative because of their use of government resources

to sum up, immigration (in this case, from Mexico/S.A. to the US) decreases social trust and bonding, increases crime, and leaves the original inhabitants worse off than before.

>open borders to everyone
>the entirety of the third world floods in for gibs
>society collapses
>somehow this alleviates poverty and makes everyone more wealthy

Also, you could eat the cheapest food, sleep very little, we could kill seriously sick people, people could decide not to have kids, to have more money and more and more. But people aren't just after material wealth, in fact we sacrifice tremendous amounts of productivity to enjoy life. Paying people to act in movies, theaters makes zero sense, who couldn't value the joy of drama. I like my own people, my own country and the culture we share and I'm willing to make sacrifices for it.

The trust stemming from secure borders is worth more than the gain from importing tons of niggers to serve as cheap labor.

Yeah but when it comes to labor there is a case to be made that the net benefit (to society as a whole from the lower production cost) is less than the net cost to the original society (not including the new immigrant worker)

>There are never a finite amount of jobs in the world and to suggest otherwise is illogical and unempirical
stupid

Every immigrant has demands too, new jobs will come from the spending of immigrants and the savings of consumers. That is the argument, but overall 90% of americans who make above minimum wage are guaranteed to benefit.

T H I S
H
I
S

That is the argument, but overall 90% of americans who make above minimum wage are guaranteed to benefit.
not true at all. 3rd world immigrants whose kids collect welfare and go to public school and bully the native kids do NOT benefit anyone except for democrat politicians

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/

>overwhelming beneficiaries would be people who now live in poor countries
wow I can't wait to plummet my people's quality of life to barely raise a bunch of darkies out of a poverty they'll find their way back into that sounds fucking choice m8

civilization is unnatural but I guess you've got a point about free movement - a lot of new nations have been started up by invaders, in the corpses of old ones

Ron Paul: "Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism"

youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw (Ron Paul: "Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism")

"'''Libertarian is the enemy of all racism''', because racism is a collectivist idea. Its that, '''you put people in category, you say "Well blacks belong here, and whites here, and women here", but we don't''' see people in forms, or, uh, or gays, you don't have rights because you're gays or women or minority, you have rights because you're an individual. So '''we see people ''strictly'' as individuals''', and we get these individuals in a natural way, so its exactly opposite of all collectivism, and its absolutely anti-racism, because '''we don't see it in those terms.'''"
"What to Do about Immigration: Full Debate" | LearnLiberty

youtube.com/watch?v=6_a2lCTq70A ("What to Do about Immigration: Full Debate" | LearnLiberty)


Ron Paul: Immigration not solved by barbed wire, guns
theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10072567
>Paul blasted politicians who blame immigrants for causing the country's economic problems. He compared the situation to Nazi Germany's targeting of Jews in the 1930s.

...

Because i dont want to live with certain people in my country.

Ron Paul is Anti-Racist
theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/10072567
>Haaretz: In the past, you have been accused by various groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, of accepting the support of racist and anti-Semitic elements and of not doing anything to distance yourself from them. What is your reaction to this accusation?

'''Ron Paul:''' I have always made it clear, and will continue to do so, that my message is based on the rights of all people to be treated equally.
'''Any type of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy.'''
'''Ludwig von Mises''', the great economist '''whose writing helped inspire my political career''', '''was a Jew''' who was forced to leave his native Austria to '''escape the Nazis'''.

> Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals.
> Therefore, '''for me to advance anti-Semitism in any way would be a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.'''

>Nation and race do not coincide; there is no nation of pure blood. All peoples have arisen from a mixture of races.

- Ludwig von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy, page 10

>The fundamental discrepancies in worldview and patterns of behavior do not correspond to differences in race, nationality or class affiliation.'

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, page 87
>It is neither natural nor necessary that the members of the same race or the inhabitants of the same country cooperate with one another more closely than with members of other races or inhabitants of other countries. The ideas of race solidarity and racial hatred are no less ideas than any other ideas, and only where they are accepted by the individuals do they result in corresponding action.

- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, page 81
>There cannot be the slightest doubt that migration barriers diminish the productivity of human labor.

- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, page 139
>The closed-door policy is one of the root causes of our wars.

- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, page 263
>Libertarians have generally welcomed immigration, and on very simple grounds. According to the "non-aggression axiom," it is wrong to aggress against the person or property of anyone who has not himself committed such aggression. To restrict the free movement of peoples across borders is thus to engage in unjustified aggression, and is therefore anathema.

- Tom Woods, Liberty and Immigration
>We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

- Official Libertarian Political Platform, 2004 election cycle

then why is the point of leftism to get rid of all the things people actually work for?

...

Foreign poverty is not our problem.