Let's start simple. There are two physically identical islands, Alpha and Beta. There are two agents, A and B. Initially, A lives on Alpha, and B lives on Beta.
Under "Open Borders", each agent has the right to move to either island, if he wishes to.
Under "Forced Emigration", each agent has the obligation to move to either island, if the other agent wishes him to.
Which is better?
If you like, you can assume they take turns to play the game, with one play per year.
Framing sucks.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
I assume identical technologies. There is no “uniquely mexican ” way to make anything industrial.
But there is a “uniquely mexican” government, “uniquely mexican” laws, “uniquely mexican” climate, “uniquely mexican” tax code, etc. There are also “uniquely american” technologies, for example, inside knowledge of firms, but that’s just piling on.
The fact that qualified labor gets paid more in US sort of empirically falsifies the “should” part of your statement.
And anyway, Stolper-Samuelson does not say that unqualified labor should get paid less in Mexico and qualified labor should get paid more in US. Wrong theorem. You’re thinking of the Factor Price Equalization theorem, but getting that wrong too. That says, that – again, under assumption of identical technologies – both kinds of labor should get paid the same even without migration and nobody should move anywhere.
The unqualified-labor-will-tend-to-move-to-where-it’s-paid-relatively-more-and-same-for-qualified labor proposition actually isn’t any of the standard trade theorems. It’s a bit too common sense and obvious to be called a theorem.
@ Nick & Frances
No one hates an immigrant like another immigrant!
Maybe, but the discussion would not be framed in racist terms as it most definitely is here in Europe. It’s less overt than in the ’30s but it’s certainly about keeping the uncultured -insert slur- out of the club. Whereas if the others are already club members / citizens, you’re going to have to find other arguments. Of which there aren’t that many. House prices.
Here in Switzerland, we also have about 20% foreign population. But it’s notoriously hard to get Swiss citizenship and, funnily, approval for far right parties is highest in regions with the least percentage of foreigners.
I know about buying Canadian passports. I used to live in Hong Kong and when the British refused to hand out their passports, the more affluent locals went to Aus, Canada and some other, more adventurous places, to hedge against the commie takeover. Torongkong and Hongcouver, mostly… Tongan passports sold for 10’0000.00 / pop :-).
“approval for far right parties is highest in regions with the least percentage of foreigners.”
Is that approval in general or approval among non-foreigners? I wouldn’t expect an immigrant to have a prejudice against immigrants in general.
That was my point. Only citizens can vote and not many foreigners have gained Swiss citizenship. It’s not necessarily about who gets to come in, but certainly about who retains control of the club. But Frances seems to disagree on that last point of yours.
sorry, that wasn’t clear. Those are 2 points, of course. One, I say foreigners are less likely to vote against their own. That may be true for Canada, although Frances disagrees. Over here it’s locals who vote because foreigners can’t get citizenship easily. That would be in line with the above point. As a separate point, it is also those who have the least contact with foreigners who are most likely to vite against them. Fear of the unknown is a theory that explains that.
Nick, I wonder if your post here is applicable to this comment from Benjamin Cole:
“How about the criminalization of robust new housing construction in almost any desirable neighborhood in the entire United States?”
I happen to live in one of those “desirable neighborhoods” (Goleta, CA, just next door to Santa Barbara) and I do support the “slow growth” local politicians, because MY quality of life is adversely affected by out of control construction. For one, we don’t have any water left… and yet just in the last year we’ve had two big hotels and five new housing projects go in, and an expansion of the air port. My two mile commute to work is starting to feel like driving through the cesspool that is Los Angeles. It’ll get somewhat better when they stop tearing up the streets, but sheez! I’ve had enough.
A contribution relevant to the topic (shameless self-promotion).
Click to access alexandrakis.pdf
Nick, I extended your analysis to a completely different field. This post will spawn a whole literature!
Nick, here’s how my crazy brain interprets your scenarios:
1 = no restrictions on human migration
2 = the conquest of the source country by the government of the destination country
Yes, it is true that if Canada toppled the US government and took control of America, it would be exactly equivalent to if the US and Canada had an open borders relationship (at least, identical with respect to freedom of migration). We open borders advocates make that point all the time: Nobody objects to open borders between New York and New Jersey, so why object to open borders between Cornwall and Massena?
I’m famous for missing wit in blog posts, though, so it’s possible that you were trying to make the case for open borders all along. If so, forgive me for the thickness of my skull.
RPLong: my crazy brain works in a similar way. But if Open Borders is a good thing, why isn’t imperialism (or colonialism) a good thing too? Why not advocate imperialism instead? (Wouldn’t Mexican land be more valuable too, if it moved to the US?) And if imperialism doesn’t work, in practice, why would anyone expect open borders to work?
Well, that’s easy: open borders is preferable to imperialism for the same reason laws ratified through representative democracy are preferable to dictatorial fiat, even if the laws ratified are exactly the same in both cases. My econ professors always taught me that choice is valuable. Wouldn’t it be strange to say that Congress shouldn’t pass a good law based on the idea that, in practice, totalitarianism makes people miserable?
If I want (say) the US to annex me and my land, where is the totalitarianism?
Nick, unrelated but…
A rather funny take on your previous post on debt being a burden (to an extent, and to loanable funds)
Apples do not equal money. 😉
https://originofspecious.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/2420/
“because MY quality of life is adversely affected by out of control construction. For one, we don’t have any water left… and yet just in the last year we’ve had two big hotels and five new housing projects go in, and an expansion of the air port. My two mile commute to work is starting to feel like driving through the cesspool that is Los Angeles. It’ll get somewhat better when they stop tearing up the streets, but sheez! I’ve had enough.”
You may be interested in land value taxation – a tax on the community generated “location, location, location.” It automatically compensates for positive and negative externalities such as this.
Also, they don’t make land anymore. A LVT would not affect the supply of land, as it fixed.
“If I want (say) the US to annex me and my land, where is the totalitarianism?”
“why isn’t imperialism (or colonialism) a good thing too?”
That’s easy. It depends on the empire, doesn’t it? If by “imperialism” you mean something like “Latvia applies to join the European Empire and is accepted” then that is a good thing too. If by “imperialism” you mean something like “we march our army into your country, take away all your land and institute laws which discriminate against you” then that is a bad thing. The first one, at sufficiently abstract level is indeed similar to open borders. Ok, I support that kind of imperialism. The second one is not.
In other words, you’re equivocating.
(actually open borders has one advantage over the “voluntarily joining an empire” scenario in that it can accommodate hetereogeneity of preferences as to whether the joining should happen or not)
notsneaky: if the people in country A cross the border into country B (without needing the consent of the people in country B), is that Open Borders or Imperialism?
Open Borders and “good Imperialism”
notsneaky: is it always “good imperialism”? What if they outnumber the original inhabitants of country Beta, and change the laws(/language/culture etc.) of country Beta to be exactly like the laws in country Alpha? How is that different from forcing the original inhabitants of country Beta to emigrate to a foreign country?
What if nobody moves, but one half +1 of the original inhabitants of Beta decide to change the laws of the country Beta to be exactly like the laws in country Alpha? Did that one half +1 Betans just “force” the other one half -1 of Betans to move? Is this bad?
Nick, I don’t get it. The reason I mentioned totalitarianism is because “totalitarianism doesn’t work, so why do we expect democracy to work?” is not a reasonable argument against democracy – in the same sense that “imperialism doesn’t work, so why do we expect open borders to work?” is not a reasonable argument against open borders.
Now, your original blog post compared open borders to “forced immigration,” and that’s what I’ve been talking about. If you’re now suggesting that it’s not totalitarianism, meaning it’s not imperialism, meaning it’s not forced immigration, then why did you write a blog post about forced immigration?