Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration

Open Borders uses comics to make a compelling case for unrestricted or even "partially restricted" immigration. The authors counteract many of the anti-immigration arguments as either using bad math or scapegoating. They also provide alternatives for those concerned with too rapidly opening the doors. If we are concerned with immigrants consuming too many government benefits, why not charge immigrants for the privilege of coming? (Illegal immigrants pay huge fees to third parties to help smuggle them in. What if these immigrants were made legal and those charges went to the government instead?)
Negative arguments that low-wage workers depress per-capita income are countered with a basketball player example. A group of young children entering a room with NBA basketball players will lower the average height, but no NBA player becomes shorter. Similarly, allowing low-skilled immigrants may lower per-capita income of the new country, even while every individual sees an increase in their income.
Crime and lack of assimilation? Well, immigrants tend to have lower crime rates. (We just hear more about the "unusual"). However, they do assimilate to higher native-born crime rates. They also tend to assimilate into the language and culture, though it will often take a generation or two. The will also tend to come in waves. Puerto Rico has had "free" immigration to the US for decades. At first there were only a small trickle of immigrants. Gradually the numbers increased, before leveling off. Most went to areas where there was already a community.
The focus on the book is immigration to rich countries from poor countries. However, immigration of all types should be supported. People should be able to pick the different structure and services they desire. This has shown to be successful within countries. The United States has had many different waves of immigration. Even the abandonment of small towns provides benefit as it reduces them to a population that can be economically supported. China and India have experienced rapid economic growth coupled with a heavy migration from rural areas to cities. If this provides benefits within countries, why not without? Europe has done much of that with the European Union. I'm still amazed that the US and Canada do not have open borders. (I've got much more grief taking business trips from the US to Canada than to European or Asian companies.) Even the US once had very open borders.
The authors present compelling ethical arguments in favor of free migration. If it is unethical to discriminate against a potential employee on the basis of gender or skin color, why is it ok to discriminate based on where they happen to be born.
Open Borders make just too much sense. Alas, immigrants (especially illegal ones) are such an easy group to scapegoat. Rather than fix the problem with more free immigration, politicians of the left and right keep trying bandaids. They may regret it one day the US becomes like Japan and needs immigrants to prop up the economy, yet is not a desirable destination.