Charlie Bulman
Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator and current contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has surged in the polls in recent months and won over many progressives for his campaign’s focus on addressing income inequality. But his latest comments on open borders portray a deeply misguided attitude toward immigration, shaped by an insidious nativist outlook and a lack of basic economic understanding that poses a threat to the economic welfare of both migrants and current U.S. residents.
Sanders attacked open borders — a policy that would peel back immigration restrictions for non-U.S. citizens, assuming they posed no security threat — as a “right wing proposal” that would “make everyone in America poorer.”
A narrow focus on the economic repercussions of more liberal immigration policies on current residents, however, leaves aside the millions of economic migrants whose wages would skyrocket if they gained access to the U.S. The chance to earn significantly higher wages is, after all, one of the main reasons the U.S. is such a prominent destination for relocation.
But even if you accept a vision of egalitarianism that ignores the welfare and upward mobility of some of the world’s most economically disenfranchised, Sanders’ math is simply off the mark. A remarkable consensus among economists of almost all ideological stripes holds that opening the proverbial floodgates and granting access to all would be a massive boon to both the U.S. economy and the real wages of those workers already in the U.S.
The logic of open borders is fairly simple: Removing barriers to immigration allows labor to flow to where it is most productive, spurring investment and innovation and lifting wages and living standards across the board.
A global open border policy would lead to a one-time boost in world GDP of 50 to 150 percent. This interpretation of immigration, however — that is, basic economic orthodoxy — flies in the face of Sanders’ own school of zero-sum economics, according to Michael Clemens, a fellow at the Center for Global Development.
Sanders’ prediction that large-scale immigration would impoverish the masses suggests he conceptualizes the U.S. economy as a fixed pie; more immigrants would simply leave fewer, worse paying jobs for current residents to compete for. This view, however, ignores both immigrants’ role as buyers of goods and services and the benefits “cheap labor” lends to all consumers.
As it turns out, immigrants buy stuff, and this added demand stimulates more investment, in turn creating new jobs for U.S. citizens and often boosting their wages. And because the workers Sanders derides as “cheap labor” allow businesses to produce goods and services at less of a cost, consumers’ wages go a lot further.
Economists also generally agree that immigrants and natives don’t directly compete with one another. Specialization can take root along linguistic lines, with laborers still mastering the local language, creating new managerial and communication opportunities for current residents. The warning that more immigration would lighten the wallets of those already here isn’t grounded in economic reality.
A genuinely egalitarian outlook wouldn’t value the welfare of present U.S. residents over that of migrants. Fortunately for Bernie Sanders, however, their interests are actually aligned when it comes to immigration. Instituting a policy of open borders would reinvigorate the U.S. economy and enhance the well-being of migrants and natives alike.
Charlie Bulman is a senior government and politics and history major. He can be reached at cbulmandbk@gmail.com.
