Otevřené hranice: Etika a ekonomie migrace

by Bryan Caplan, Zach Weinersmith (Illustrator), D. Vořechovský (translator)

Unikátní ekonomický komiks o přínosu otevřených hranic a ekonomické migrace obyvatel Země, jehož autorem je Bryan Caplan, jeden z nejpopulárnějších ekonomů současnosti a autor bestsellerů Mýtus racionálního voliče, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids a The Case Against Education. Spojil se v něm se Zachem Weinersmithem, ilustrátorem oblíbeného komixu SMBC.

Ve světě rostoucích bariér jde o výjimečnou a nadmíru potřebnou knihu. V ní autor předkládá v dnešní době odvážný argument pro uvolnění všech omezení, kterými státy regulují imigraci. Výsledkem takové politiky by bylo celosvětové vymýcení chudoby a s tím související rozkvět ekonomik napříč planetou. Dokonale udělaný komiks, který je dobře přístupný každému čtenáři, zároveň plný reálných dat, faktů a příkladů!

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Graphic Novels, Economics, Comics, Philosophy, History

268 pages, Paperback

First published October 29, 2019

About the author

Bryan Caplan is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He received his B.S. in economics from University of California, Berkeley and his Ph.D. from Princeton University. His professional work has been devoted to the philosophies of libertarianism and free-market capitalism and anarchism. (He is the author of the Anarchist Theory FAQ.) He has published in American Economic Review, Public Choice, and the Journal of Law and Economics, among others. He is a blogger at the EconLog blog along with Arnold Kling, and occasionally has been a guest blogger at Marginal Revolution with two of his colleagues at George Mason, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok. He is an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

Currently, his primary research interest is public economics. He has criticized the assumptions of rational voters that form the basis of public choice theory, but generally agrees with their conclusions based on his own model of "rational irrationality." Caplan has long disputed the efficacy of popular voter models, in a series of exchanges with Donald Wittman published by the Econ Journal Watch. Caplan outlined several major objections to popular political science and the economics sub-discipline public choice. Caplan later expanded upon this theme in his book The Myth of the Rational Voter (Princeton University Press 2007), in which he responded to the arguments put forward by Wittman in his The Myth of Democratic Failure.

He maintains a website that includes a "Museum of Communism" section, that "provides historical, economic, and philosophical analysis of the political movement known as Communism", to draw attention to human rights violations of which, despite often exceeding those of Nazi Germany, there is little public knowledge. Caplan has also written an online graphic novel called Amore Infernale.

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m very familiar with Bryan Caplan’s work and how provocative it is. This book was no different and it did change my perspective a bit on immigration. How often have you heard that immigrants lower wages, refuse to assimilate, commit more crime, and are a net-burden? This book debunks these points in a way that doesn’t sound condescending or puts anyone down. He even talks about taboo topics like national IQ and immigration.

His arguments can appeal to both conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, he argues that free immigration is consistent with supporting free markets, work ethic, merit-based work, and limited government. I found this arguments to be compelling but not quite strong enough to support free immigration. He still hasn’t made a solid argument against the claim that immigrants will vote to reduce economic or political freedom.

[Julian Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was looking forward to enjoying this book, but I left it disappointed. Maybe I'm not the right audience, because I'm already somewhat sympathetic to the idea of open borders, and Caplan approaches the issue as if he's arguing from outside the Overton Window. But in my point of view, the book's arguments are shallow and misguided.

The most amazing thing about this work is how much time it spends discussing the disparity in wealth and living conditions between the developed and developing world, without an inkling of insight on *why* this disparity exists. And yet, it presents open borders as a grand solution: a great generator of wealth and prosperity that can lift the living standards of the entire globe. How can you trust Caplan's solution to the problem when he gives absolutely no account of its cause?

Okay, to be fair, there is a section devoted to this issue. But the answer is offensively reductive: Culture. Caplan says (or rather, assumes) that the entire difference in prosperity between the first and third world is due to, essentially, "Western values," laissez-faire capitalism, and democracy. Never mind that one of the greatest examples of mass poverty reduction (which Caplan himself cites as an example of the benefits of free movement) was under the aegis of the authoritarian Chinese government. And never mind the long, bloody history of Western colonialism that ravaged much of the developing world leaving it at an enormous disadvantage. And never mind the current neo-colonial, capitalism-fueled world order which maintains a global pool of desperate, cheap labor to supply the consumerist and military demands of the developed world. I *would* say what "Western values" have done well for their societies is exporting the negative consequences of this order onto other countries... but in the case of my country (the USA), we have plenty of the suffering underclass right here at home.

So what does this mean for the arguments in the book? Again, you can only appreciate the impact of a change to a system if you understand the forces keeping it how it is. The world is not as simple as the economic model of independent actors making voluntary transactions. If the global underclass suddenly all had the ability to migrate into the developed world at will, the capitalist order that relies on their exploitation and desperation would be threatened, or at least reorganized. This could potentially put in jeopardy the global conditions that have facilitated the economic rise of the West whose culture Caplan lauds so much. And I'm not talking about conspiracies or anything — just forces of nature.

Consider the example of housing. In the USA, people are free by law to live and work anywhere. And yet many struggle to find jobs that can consistently put food on the table. Is it that there are no jobs? No: it's that people go where the jobs are. This increases demand for necessities (e.g. housing) and drives up their price. And since there is a large supply of desperate labor in certain sectors (particularly low-skilled work), the employers set the terms, and the result is a race to the bottom where wages are the minimum amount that can hardly support an individual. And the cost of housing doesn't go down because the housing supply is restricted: by the inherent scarcity of space, our system of property ownership, and especially local (democratic! Western!) laws and NIMBYism limiting what can be built and lived in, in order to protect existing interests and wealth. So the result is that you have many workers barely scraping by while commuting many hours to and from job centers like San Francisco or its South Bay every day.

So what would happen if the whole world's population could just up and move where the good jobs / living conditions are? Demand for housing in desirable areas would skyrocket and the issues plaguing San Francisco would be reenacted at huge scale. Local problems would become global problems. It wouldn't be as simple as workers walking out of desperation into paradise: unless something more fundamental and structural changes, there is reason to think the conditions of their exploitation will follow them. Perhaps it is not best to globalize the labor pool before we have figured out how to structure an economy that is fair to the laborer, or we will just globalize and perpetuate our mistakes, our market crashes, and our vectors of oppression. Perhaps it is better to have some isolation between economies so we can run more experiments and find better answers.

But I don't necessarily believe the argument I just gave. I just think it's an angle that needs to be addressed, and that's just one example. I also doubt his view that maximizing wealth is the right goal to have, especially considering the short-sightedness with which economies tend to do this: preferring immediate gains in private share value at the expense of trashing common goods like our natural resources and our atmosphere. Can we confidently say that tossing immigrant coal into the engine of the capitalist machine will maximize human happiness in the long term, after accounting for the potentially catastrophic externalities of climate change?

Given Weinersmith's role in this book, I had assumed (being a fan of SMBC) that some nuanced discussion of these kinds of issues would show up. But given that the real writer seems to be Bryan Caplan, it's no wonder that it's disappointing. You can never trust economists to do the kind of thinking that extends outside of their models, even when their models clearly don't fit the situation.

The sad part is: on balance, I think I might support open borders! Or something very close to it. But this book really made a woeful case.

[Einzige · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nicely illustrated but there are certainly some pretty serious troubles with its reasoning. The first and most significant is the issue than naturally pops up is that it simply equates increased production of wealth with progress and flourishing, which is view of reality that can only make sense if money in itself is treated as having an intrinsic moral value and human worth.

The other trouble is the author is fond of false comparisons. In particular there is a tendency to take the benefits of the current controlled system of immigration and simply multiply them by the increased quantity that would result from open borders.

Ill illustrate an example used in the book, the author claims that open immigration would have no burden on the welfare state as new immigrants would provide a net gain in tax revenues due to their productivity. He bases this argument on the fact that as immigrants to the US are predominantly of working age hence not incurring the same welfare costs that the very young and very old do. Hence the unjustifiable assumption is that the young and the old would continue to behave as though there were no open borders and choose not to seek a better standard of living. So essentially the author is pulling an intellectual sleight of hand.

Of course there are also some impressively dodgy hand waving - for instance when discussing the issues of democracy and socially conservative immigrants voting illiberally his response is literally that is not worth worrying about because "immigrants have low voter turn out" and that the government won't pay attention to them anyway.

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautiful stuff, perhaps the clearest economic argument I've ever seen, and more moving than expected. I've seen people dismiss it as narrowly economic ("people value more than money ya know") but this is stupid: fully half the book is about morals and culture. There are dozens of lovely little easter eggs in Weinersmith's art too (e.g. "Conspicuone Pecansumption" icecream).

The arguments:

1. Closed borders lead to incredible suffering - not just the obvious oppression of camps, raids, struggle and drownings, but also the unnecessary perpetuation of poverty.

2. He argues that it's a human rights issue: "If a foreigner wants to accept a job offer from a willing employer or rent an apartment from a willing landlord, what moral right does anyone have to stop them? These are contracts between consenting adults, not welfare programs." The regulation is an apartheid with comparatively little outcry and great popularity.

3. America had completely open borders until 1875 and comparatively-free undocumented immigration until 1924. It did pretty alright.

4. Immigrants on average have been fiscally net-positive. Doing our best to isolate the effects, moving to a rich country seems to multiply your productivity. (For a few reasons: more co-operation, a larger market for your work, no tropical disease, coastal trade, IQ gain if you're young.) This model predicts trillions of dollars of gain from open borders. If true, this massively reduces global poverty.

5. Immigrants are on average culturally positive, allowing the recipient country to select from the best of everything in the world. The first generation are quite a bit more law-abiding than average natives. (Nowrasteh estimates that just one in seven million immigrants turned out to be a terrorist.) Assimilation is high, usually complete within 2-3 generations. "Political externalities" (the idea that your good culture will be voted out by bad culture once you let immigrants vote) have not in fact been seen.

Residual points:

The data is mostly from our current highly-restricted high-skill-only immigration regime. It's not clear which effects would change in the dramatically different world Caplan promotes, though he does his best to look at saturation effects and the low-skilled who are currently persecuted-out. (For instance, a large part of his cultural argument depends on the low-skilled continuing to not vote, as they haven't.)

The biggest risk by far is the damage caused by irrational native backlash against foreigners. This produces things like Brexit and the Jobbik and Austrian 'Freedom' governments. Chapter 6 addresses some of this by suggesting ways to make things unfair for the migrants (limiting their welfare access, entry tolls, language tests, slow naturalisation) to mollify the local problems / backlash and so protect people's right to move in the first place. I glumly suspect this wouldn't work, because much of the backlash isn't based on real effects, and so can't be mollified by policy. (Indeed, he notes that most of the suggested hobbles already exist in US law in some form, and might have somewhat dulled anti-immigration sentiment.)

He sometimes implies that he'd open borders in one big bang - but this size of policy shift should basically never be done, just out of epistemic modesty and reversibility. His counter is that the magnitude of the gains is too large to be possibly less than zero.

It's mostly based on US data and US policy is the target, which is completely fine but limits the inference. This is sensible; general theory, general policy usually fail.

To my surprise he doesn't much emphasise the macropolitical benefits of immigration: if people could just leave countries with terrible policies, taking their taxes with them, this would be a new and powerful check on government abuse. Voting with your feet, and governments actually trying to attract and retain people.


Though its evidence checks out (as far as I can tell), it's still a polemic (like The Wealth of Nations before it!). As such it's simple, too simple. The Center for Global Development has a sadder, equivocal summary congruent to the limits of social science:

No case study or academic paper can—ever—spell out what “the” effect of “immigration” is. Asking this question has as little use as asking whether “taxes” are inherently “good” or “bad.” The answer depends on what is taxed and what the revenue is spent on. Those choices make the policy harmful or beneficial. The same is true of migration.

[Paula · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read a graphic novel about immigration policy written by an economist and if that doesn’t sound like compelling reading to you, allow me to SHOVE THIS BOOK AT YOU AND URGE YOU TO READ IT.
If for no other reason than it provides a rebuttal to that moronic Skittles argument.

[Chris Chester · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll preface this by saying that I've been a regular reader of Zach Weinersmith's webcomic for years. I would never have picked up a book like this normally, but since he specifically asked his normal readers to help him out with it, I preordered sight unseen because... you have to support the creators whose work you enjoy!

Having said that, this is a strange book and I'm not entirely sure who the audience is supposed to be. Obviously, Caplan is making an argument for open borders. The crux of his argument is an economic one. The developed world makes people more productive, he says, so if we allowed an influx of people into the developed world, they would produce more with an ultimate net benefit of doubling the wealth of the entire world.

That's it, really.

He spends much of the rest of the book addressing the natural criticisms of open borders. He argues that it would still be a net benefit for natives. That cultural assimilation usually takes more than one generation, but it does happen. That immigrants wouldn't actually vote much differently than citizens, and even if they did politicians wouldn't listen to them anyway. (It's true, but it's so strange that he frames it this way...)

On the whole, the arguments seem to be mostly with people on the rightward end of the political spectrum. See: the fact that he addresses concerns that immigration would lower the average American IQ, citing studies that show south Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa are less smart than the rest of the world. Yikes!

Arguments for immigration that I find compelling aren't even mentioned. For example: the moral imperative we have to support Central America countries that our foreign policies have largely destroyed. Or the simple fact that immigration restrictions let big businesses exploit migrants without fear of legal repercussions. Or the fact that global climate change, largely precipitated by the emissions, pollution and rapacious extraction of natural resources that we caused, will only make conditions less livable in much of the world.

Caplan is an economist, so most of his arguments are centered on economics. But it makes for a pretty ghoulish work on the whole that speaks to people with already ghoulish opinions about an idea that seems, even from a fairly liberal perspective, pretty pie in the sky. And that gets back to my audience question. If he's essentially arguing with conservatives and libertarians using this economic logic... what are the odds that those people are going to pick up a graphic novel with the title "Open Borders" at all? Slim to zero!

He seems to address this himself towards the end, by telling himself and his readers that part of the project is simply moving the Overton window for the immigration discussion. Don't tell us that, bro! It makes it seem like you don't even really believe the message that you're peddling, but are deploying it cynically for some other purpose.

I don't know. The Weinersmith art is still good, and there are some little SMBC-style nuggets to be found here and there. But the book isn't even really funny enough to make me overlook the major problems I had with the text.

This is the problem about working with economists, I guess.

[Srdjan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book itself is good, but not great. It's good because:
- It presents the standard arguments for open borders well
- It somewhat competently rebuts a number of common objections
- It's fun to read.

It's not great because:
- He [weak-mans](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12...) opposing arguments.
- His arguments in a few key areas are pretty weak or use bad evidence.
- There's nothing here that you won't have heard before if you're somewhat interested in libertarianism/migration ethics.

His Case:
Letting people move from poor, low productivity countries to rich, high productivity countries will make both the poor people and most people in the rich countries drastically better off. It's also good because borders are morally arbitrary and unjust.

The objections he tackles:
1. Immigrants destroy our culture
- They don't tend to commit more crime than natives
- Terrorism is a non-issue
- They tend to converge to natives language proficiency/values over time.

2. Immigrants are a drain on resources
- Migrants increase the supply of labour, but also increase demand for goods/services meaning they don't reduce wages or increase unemployment.
- High skilled migrants contribute more than they take.
- Low skilled migrants do so as well provided they're young.
- It's wrong to discriminate against net drain migrants because we don't do that for net-drain citizen babies. (It's a really weird attempt to conflate restricting reproductive autonomy with borders as both are stopping certain kinds of people from being citizens.)

3. Immigrants are low IQ
- They converge to higher IQ's when in rich countries.
- Even assuming no convergence and the worst case estimates for IQ/GDP correlation, global GDP would still rise by 88% with open borders.


Some of the weak-manning:
1. Culture
- The fact that immigrants integrate now does not mean that will continue to be the case when they form a far larger share of the population.
- His evidence for immigrants skills is largely based on data from the USA. The USA does a particularly good job of integrating immigrants. He's cherry picking evidence.
- He ignores the real concerns and instead focuses on easy to rebut things like immigrants not learning english. The real concern is immigrants respect for basic liberal values like individualism, free speech, freedom of religion, secularism etc...
2. Drain on resources
- It seems like a policy of accepting high-skill migrants and rejecting low-skill ones is a viable mid-point between open borders and the current system
- The assumptions about additional labour not reducing the price of labour is uncertain. In a country like spain, which already has 30%+ youth unemployment, it's not clear that the economy is constrained by labour supply and would grow if more were added.

I may write a more thorough, chapter by chapter rebuttal at some point later in the week.

[Jim Angstadt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration
Bryan Caplan

This graphic novel has a surprisingly large and thoughtful amount of analysis on the pros and cons of open borders. It doesn't read as quickly as one might expect with a graphic novel, due certainly to the content, but a lot quicker and more comprehensive that some other readings.

[Elizabeth · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5 stars.

I was really excited for this book. I'm very in favour of open borders and always eager to learn more theory. I enjoy SMBC comics so I was eager to see Zach Weinersmith do his thing. I enjoy most books I've read published by First Second, as this one is. I enjoy graphic nonfiction in general and I'm always up for seeing what I can learn in comic form. Honestly though, this book was largely a big disappointment with very few redeeming qualities and I was pretty miserable for a lot of it.

First, the limited positives. The art is solid and exactly what you'd hope for from Weinersmith, and that solid art is consistent throughout. The last two chapters were pretty well rounded, especially when it covered a pro-open borders point from several major philosophical perspectives. I enjoy reading philosophy in general, so this was interesting and helpful. The general way the book presents common arguments against open borders and then refutes them works well.

Now for the bad. First of all, this was an intensely pro-American pro-capitalist view that was painful to read, especially since I am not an American or a capitalist. Right from the start, I felt pretty lukewarm on it because of how American and capitalist it is, which was disappointing since it basically dimmed my excitement right away. These arguments basically make the assumption that western culture is the best culture and that socialism, communism, and anything that isn't capitalism is pure evil. Then it moves on to some real questionable arguments based on these core concepts. Basically, humans are only worth what they can contribute and accomplish and don't seem to have intrinsic value in this setup. Older immigrants aren't useful and disabled immigrants are ignored altogether. The arguments honestly just kept getting cringier and cringier. Don't have cultural fears because immigrants assimilate! Don't have political fears because immigrants don't vote and if they did no one would care what they thought anyway! It posits that the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is below 65 (anything below 70 is considered an intellectual disability) but that those IQs improve when they move to first world countries, especially through international adoption (and I can't begin to describe how much and in what ways I hated this chapter). The idea that a good way to reassure skeptics would be by charging immigrants from poor countries a lot of money to enter and remain and to deny them basic services was particularly heinous. This was framed as "better than banning them" but IS IT REALLY when it is effectively a ban on the poor and taxation without representation. It gets into some pretty hefty Islamophobia, both in idea ("Muslim-majority nations do desperately need to embrace western ideals of tolerance and universal human rights") and practice (burqa bans are better than outright Muslim bans, etc). I basically had a rage headache from at least two thirds of the book.

While the book did have a few pros, and it managed to end fairly strong despite its flaws, those flaws were too overwhelmingly awful for me to leave this book feeling positive about it. It was a chore to read, and it managed to give the most centre-right perspective of open borders possible. I would recommend this to none of my actual friends because the negatives are terrible (and anyone interested in experiencing the pros can largely just read the last two chapters to get the most out of this book). I might recommend it for like... your shitty conservative uncle who you are trying to persuade to have one fewer shitty opinion about anything?

[Thomas Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Open Borders, Bryan Caplan, drawn by Zach Weinersmith, comic book, 2019, 248pp., ISBN 9781250316967

Caplan wants open borders. His heart is in the right place. But he's an ivory-tower economist.

[My take, in brackets:

We already have open borders for money and goods--just not for people. Moreover, The US government subsidizes agribusinesses, that then dump commodities on the world market at less than cost, making it impossible for people to make a living in agriculture.

Immigrants work hard for low pay: we can buy more for less because they're here: they make us wealthier.

Immigrants mostly come when they're already ready to work: we didn't have to pay to educate them. Their country of origin is subsidizing the US, by raising them until they're ready to work. Age-group populations charts p. 60 show this.

Unauthorized workers pay taxes, including social security and medicare taxes, which they're NEVER eligible for benefits from.

Immigrants' kids are fully bilingual, and their grandkids are English-only. It's the same with today's Spanish- and Asian-language speakers as in past generations with Polish, Italian, German, Scandanavian immigrants.

Keeping workers unauthorized, ineligible for protections from wage theft, sub-minimum wages, mistreatment, drives down wages and conditions for all of us.

If we want to earn living wages, the only way we do that is by making sure /everyone/ gets living wages--in this country and everywhere goods are produced that enter this country.

We need to:

1. Authorize the unauthorized workers, get them decent pay and conditions.

2. Stop issuing visas that tie people to a particular employer. That's an invitation to abuse, up to and including slavery.

3. Stop subsidizing agribusiness to dump US-Government-funded cheap commodities on the world market at below cost.

4. Import only from countries that ensure decent pay and working conditions, and environmental protections.

But all of the above is me talking.]

Here's Caplan:

Caplan trots out 7 worldviews that he says all argue for open borders (p. 165):

1. Utilitarianism. J.S. Mill: Maximize the sum of human happiness. [No. Making a majority happy by preying on a minority is wrong.]

2. Egalitarianism. John Rawls. Inequalities must benefit the worst-off. [This is much closer to the mark.]

3. Libertarianism. Robert Nozick. "From each as he chooses. To each as he is chosen." [No. Laissez-faire is a licence for the powerful to prey on the rest.]

4. Cost-benefit analysis. Richard Posner. Maximize the total value of social resources. [No. A high maximum that accrues to a few barons, while the masses suffer, is bad.]

5. Meritocracy. Lee Kuan Yew. The best job for the best person. [That person had the benefit of an expensive education, paid in part by working people's taxes. He's able to to that best job /only/ because everybody else is doing all the other jobs that have to be done, to keep him and all the rest of us alive and comfortable and provided with what we need to have, to do what we do. Being a surgeon or lawyer or banker should not be a license to pile up unspendably ever-increasing wealth, while the working people you rest on have too little.]

6. Christianity. Jesus. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Wouldn't /that/ be nice!]

7. Kantianism. Immanuel Kant. Treat every person as an end in himself, never as a mere means. [Amen.]

Now Caplan says how, in his view, each of these ideas supports open borders:

1. Utilitarianism. p. 167. Caplan has J.S. Mill say, open borders increases global GDP: therefore increases the sum of human happiness. [Ever-increasing global GDP doesn't equal happiness. In the last 60 years we've gone from around 3 billion to near 8 billion humans; caused the extinction of half the species of plants and animals on Earth; started a self-reinforcing polar melt, increasing storms, floods, droughts; and continue destroying the last natural areas, faster and faster. As Naomi Klein says. /This Changes Everything/. Caplan and his profession don't get it. Plus, maybe I could earn a higher wage in Japan or Norway. I'd be away from family and friends; I'd be forever seen as a stranger; I wouldn't know the language; I wouldn't even like the food. Migration costs the spirit a lot. Even the higher wage would be worth little, where a hamburger is $25, versus $5 in the U.S..] Caplan's J.S. Mill also says, open borders decreases inequality, so it's good. [Immigrants who find work here may survive in the U.S. where they wouldn't've at home. So their migration does /decrease/ inequality. Yet it's /still/ true that the /entire increase/ in wealth, more or less, accrues to a few people who have no use for it but inflating speculative bubbles and increasing their dominance.]

2. Egalitarianism. p. 168. Caplan's John Rawls says, do what's best for the worst-off. [Yes, open borders would help the global poor. But there's a lot else that would help too: Stop using the U.S. military & CIA to prop up governments that subjugate the people to multinational corporations & banks. Stop using trade agreements for the same purpose. Stop dumping U.S. government-subsidized agricultural commodities.]

3. Libertarianism. p. 169-170. Caplan's Nozick says, property owners should rule, with no government curbing them. [That's a vile world, the aristocracy of wealth, that we were supposed to have left in 1776.] Caplan's Nozick would support the liberty of a plantation owner to import all the low-wage or no-wage labor he wants.

4. Cost-benefit analysis. p. 171. Same as utilitarianism, but unconcerned about inequality. Whatever piles up the most dollars is best, regardless of the suffering and destruction. Open borders would double global GDP, so go for it. [Again a vile world: despoiled land, water & air, people worked to enrich a fat cat.]

5. Meritocracy. p. 172. Hire the best person for the job, wherever they're from. [One more "what's best for wealth" perspective. The employer & immigrant are happy. But the working American will work harder for less, if he can get a job; and pay more for housing, if he can afford housing at all.]

6. Christianity. pp. 173-174. Whom would Jesus deport? [This simple moral statement is Caplan's strongest argument. But we need to recognize there are winners and losers. Open borders lets those with money buy more with less. It forces those who work, to compete with hardworking, low-paid, frugal people, and so earn less for more work. In Caplan's fantasy world, Americans mostly manage immigrants, not compete with them. p. 38. Outside the ivory tower, unknown to Caplan, most Americans work for a living. And increasingly in low-paid, no-benefit, gig-economy jobs. Open borders gives those who /collect/ rent or mortgage interest, more, in a tighter housing market. Open borders extracts more from those who /pay/ rent or mortgage interest.]

7. Kantianism. pp. 175-180. Here Caplan equates borders with a "collective" claim to "own the whole country"--which he says is (prepare to be scared!) "socialism!" (illustrated by the Red Army on parade, amid immense pictures of Lenin). [Nazis & Soviets /called/ their politics socialist--but really they were just dictatorships. Real socialism is public schools, public universities, public fire departments, public parks, public roads, public transportation, public post offices, public utilities, public hospitals. We still have some of that; we could use some more. Caplan's equation of socialism with military dictatorship is irresponsible. Several places in the book he has Communists holding "Property is Theft" signs as an example of scary, unhinged immigrants. It would not occur to Caplan to realize that property /is/ theft. p. 25.]

In Caplan's world, life is better in the U.S. because of efficient production. p. 30. [He doesn't consider the extent to which the U.S. economy rests on plundering resources and exploiting labor of the rest of the world.]

p. 5 In 2013, there were only 800 million people living on $1.90/day, down from 1.8 billion in 1993. [is that inflation-adjusted?]

Caplan says there's plenty of room: everyone on Earth could move to the U.S., and it'd only be as densely populated as Los Angeles. [Yikes. Caplan says it without irony.] p. 8.

You /can/ have open borders and a welfare state, as immigrants /more/ than pull their weight. p. 75.

Caplan says immigrants have lower IQ, [without recognising that IQ /measures/ cultural assimilation, privilege, and wealth]. p. 127

People with /least/ contact with foreign-born neighbors are most xenophobic. Maps of Britain, p. 203.

"The Overton window," Joseph P. Overton. There's a vast range of possible policy options. Only a small slice of which is considered politically possible at a given time. Constant pushing your take on it, shifts the window. p. 208. [The all-for-the-rich crowd has moved the window far its way in recent decades. This book is a worthy attempt to push for more humane immigration policy. But it's also pro-wealth policy, which is why servants of wealth, Presidents Reagan & Clinton, both granted amnesty to unauthorized immigrants.]


Here's Nathan J. Robinson's review of Caplan's book:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2... in Current Affairs magazine, 2020.04.


See also Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move, Reece Jones https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

permalink:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Arend · Rating 2 out of 5]

Skeptical of any book that leads with a solution (not a problem), but more than willing to be convinced about open borders, I was mostly turned off by the relentless rhetoric, the weird libertarian/jehovas witness vibe, the breathless American exceptionalism, the condescending lecture on numeracy, the reductive treatment of socialism, the simplistic economic world view, and the characterization of free movement in the EU. Exhausting.

[Rod Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bryan Caplan makes a persuasive case for deregulating immigration and opening borders. I'm not sure it will change the minds of those dead-set against immigration, but it's good debate fodder for those of us who would like to see a loosening of immigration restrictions. And, hey, it's all in graphic novel format, so even the math and statistics bits stay breezy and light.

[Melania 🍒 · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5|5

“ (...) open borders is a fantastic opportunity for all humanity. Realizing this fantastic opportunity will be a long journey. But when we get there, you won’t believe your eyes “

[Stewart Tame · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating!

Bryan Caplan, with the help of ace cartoonist, Zach Weinersmith, makes the case for open borders. He makes a fairly compelling case, actually. He addresses the standard arguments against open immigration, and offers plenty of evidence in support of their groundlessness. He also offers what he calls “keyhole solutions” that address some anti-immigrationist fears in ways that are less restrictive than outright closed borders.

Admittedly, even before reading this book, I was in favor of more liberal immigration policies, so it's not like I needed much convincing. I suppose it's possible that there are flaws in Caplan’s logic, and I’m just not knowledgeable enough on the topic to spot them.

Anyway, I enjoyed this book. It's a shining example of how to do non-fiction comics well. Recommended!

[Bethany (Beautifully Bookish Bethany) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Open Borders is a graphic novel about immigration from the perspective of economics and policy. It advocated for Open Borders and lays out a case for why people on both sides of the aisle in American politics should also support it. I had mixed feelings about this one. I like what it's trying to do and think that much of the information in her is interesting and useful. However, it really reads more like a graphic version of a textbook and the organization doesn't always work that well. It can be a little dry to read and jumps around a lot. I appreciate the inclusion of humor, but sometimes that resulted in jokes that feel elitist and low-key racist. This was definitely a mixed bag, but I do think they make the case well. I received an advance copy of this book for review. All opinions are my own.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Caplan and Weinersmith make a strong case for open borders that doesn’t belittle the views of their detractors. I would consider myself a strong proponent of increased immigration, but there are some arguments in this book I hadn’t heard of before such as the reply to concerns of lowered national IQ.

The Overton window on immigration policy has been too narrow for too long. I hope this book changes that.

[Jerzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick, easy-to-read tour of the main arguments for and against open immigration. However, it skimmed over some concerns about immigration too superficially. Even though I agree with the conclusion that the USA's borders should be much more open (full disclosure: I'm an immigrant here myself!), I would have liked to see a more sincere engagement with several of the arguments against immigration. (See also this review by Julian Michael for better-stated criticisms of the book.)

In particular, Caplan claims that more immigration should lead to vast economic gains overall / on average, and his argument sounds reasonable enough. But as a statistician, I know that averages can hide a lot of variation at the individual level.

First of all, pages 30 and 187 repeat the argument that "While progress always hurts someone, the secret of mass consumption is mass production... Consumers' living standards rise when workers produce more stuff." The book ignores the problem of who gets hurt by progress, and how badly. Sure, if we can make widgets 5% less expensive for everyone by hiring more immigrants or outsourcing overseas, the net effect "improves" the USA's living standards on average -- but what about the local widget factory that has to shut down, killing the factory town, destroying an entire community? (That basically happened here in my town in Maine...) The economists' utopia of mass consumption sounds like a nation of bland strip malls and Walmarts, where most of us get to buy tons more unnecessary plastic crap at cheaper prices, while the rest of us have our livelihoods completely destroyed but it gets swept under the rug.

Caplan does sort of address this on p.38 by graphing the effects of immigrant competitors vs immigrant consumers, but it rings hollow from my vantage point here in a collapsed mill town, where low-skilled locals used to have safe jobs until the mills closed. We're unlikely to get a flood of low-skilled immigrants here, but if we did, it's hard to see how the local low-skilled workers would be managing and training them. Maybe that argument works better in a big city, where there's more flexibility to shift careers gradually or more resources to retrain yourself for an entirely new line of work. Or maybe my intuition is completely wrong and Caplan's is right -- again I'd have liked to see more detail here.
(And his claim to be in the same boat thanks to near-open borders for professors, on p.39, rings completely hollow. The difference between Caplan working at Harvard vs at George Mason U is nothing compared to the difference between having a low-skilled job vs having no job at all.)

Besides, it's true that most of us now have access to vastly more goods at lower prices, but do we actually need all that crap? Does it actually improve our quality of life? I don't know if the alternative nostalgic vision (mostly prudent spending on what you actually need, in vibrant downtown Main Streets all throughout small town America) ever really existed, but I wish the book had actually addressed these real harms of economic efficiency, instead of glossing over them in half a sentence.

Finally, Caplan emphasizes the benefits of mass consumption partly in terms of new technologies like refrigeration and antibiotics, which seems like a completely separate argument, not actually a point in favor of mass production itself. (The new tech argument does still favor open borders, as more immigrants should lead to more people with bright ideas and new inventions -- but it just seems like a separate point.)

Okay, one more complaint -- even if nobody were to be economically harmed by open borders, where would the benefits accrue? On p.34-38, Caplan argues that open borders could double the gross world product, and average natives would reap much of the benefit. I'm more cynical about this, and I suspect that if there is indeed a lot of money to be made by opening borders, that money will accrue mostly to the wealthy, as it so often does. For instance, as I understand it (though I might be wrong), Google and other San Francisco tech startups have caused a zillion dollars to flow through the area -- but those dollars are going largely to the well-educated elites running or working for these companies, while the average residents are getting priced out, and very little trickles down to the poor or homeless. Admittedly, Caplan's argument rests largely on the benefits that accrue to immigrants themselves by moving to a country with more opportunities and higher standards of living, which might be a bit harder for monocle-wearing capitalists to exploit.

So... Immigration might lead to real harm such as job losses for many typical natives. And the folks who do benefit most from immigration might not be the typical natives, but rather the wealthy natives as well as the immigrants themselves. Even if we should still open our borders for ethical reasons, we should be more honest about the economic shortcomings, not gloss them over with averages. If we want to push open-border legislation through, we'll need to understand -- and address/alleviate -- the typical native's realistic concerns about immigration.

All that said, though I worry about the details, I do agree with the book's central tenet: Opening borders isn't charity to immigrants at the expense of natives, generally speaking. Enough of the immigrants would pay their own way (and more!) in terms of taxes and increased prosperity, so that economic arguments shouldn't delay us from correcting the injustices that closed borders cause.

And I do think this book did a great job of pulling together many other pro and con arguments, especially the ethical ones and historical ones:
* The US had pretty much open borders until the 1920s and still managed to be prosperous.
* Forcibly barring people from crossing the border to a country where they can escape poverty and starvation is not morally different from forcibly placing someone into poverty and starvation.
* If a qualified foreigner wants to accept a job offer from a native employer, these are contracts between consenting adults -- why does the government have the right to stop them?
* Yes, some immigrants commit murder, but so do some redheads -- should we punish all redheads, or only the guilty ones?
* Adult immigrants don't always learn the local language and culture well or assimilate completely, but their kids pretty much do.
* If we're not ready for full-fledged open borders, there are many partial (Caplan call them "keyhole") solutions to specific concerns about immigration. We can still give advantages to natives without completely locking out immigrants. Some of these approaches are already partially in place -- for instance, immigrant college students pay higher out-of-state tuition than in-state residents -- so expanding these keyhole solutions could be a politically feasible starting point.
* Chapter 7 does a nice job of presenting some philosophical frameworks for ethical decision-making and how they might view the question of open borders.

PS -- page 116 shows some charts of US natives' vs immigrants' political opinions using General Social Survey data, and page 203 shows some maps comparing the foreign-born population share to percent voting for Brexit across the UK. These seem like interesting datasets -- I should try to find them for students interested in this topic in my Intro Stats course.

[Naomi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Disappointing. I'm definitely not the target audience for a right-libertarian polemic in favor of open borders, so this was hard to read. I agree with the moral argument, but I couldn't get over a very standard economist sleight-of-hand: if you are worried about the impact on precarious or poor citizens, don't worry, the wealth overall created is so large you could theoretically redistribute it to them! For decades, economists have been offering this kind of argument with one side of their mouth and arguing against that same hypothetical redistribution with the other. However unlikely America is to open its borders, it's even less likely to implement effective social services or progressive wealth redistribution.

[Kate Ringer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a practical book. Being the radical progressive that I am, I found myself sometimes veering into thinking that this book isn't radical enough, that the concessions being made were a disservice and an insult to the humanity of immigrants and future immigrants. But then I'd remember how persuasive the "blame all of our problems on immigrants" rhetoric is, and I could see why Caplan approached this the way that he did.

I want to memorize all the facts and rhetoric that make up this book. Here are the key points:

1.) By limiting the right of people to live and work in the country of their choosing, regardless of their nation of origin or citizenship, we have created a system of "global apartheid." This system makes all citizens of first world countries complicit, and leads to unnecessary poverty, famine, and death of third world peoples. The freedom to immigrate is an issue of basic human rights. Honestly, this point alone would be enough to convince me, regardless of the consequences. Luckily, this isn't the only argument for those who have a different perspective.

2.) In terms of economic benefit, open borders are a no-brainer. They would raise the global GDP enormously and raise the average income of foreigners and natives. Think a second industrial revolution in terms of progress.

3.) Immigrants are not a financial burden on the natives of a country. In fact, they are almost always a financial asset.

4.) Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than natives.

5.) The fear of immigrants changing the culture of their new home to match the culture of their old home is not valid. "When first-world countries welcome the 'tired and poor' from even the most backward and authoritarian nations, these immigrants quickly acculturate enough to become productive members of our society. And whatever 'old country ways' their parents teach them, the children of immigrants who grow up here deeply acculturate to their new home" (122). Cultural immersion is a powerful tool.

6.) Right now, any time there is a problem in our society, immigrants are scapegoated and the proposed solution is to close or strengthen our borders. However, there are lots of potential solutions to the fears or problems that people have with the idea of open borders and more immigration that still allow us to reap the economic and human rights benefits of mass immigration. These are called "keyhole solutions." This is the part of the book that made me feel a bit icky. I don't want to have to compromise on this, but at the same time I recognize that any of these solutions are far better than our current situation. Example solutions are:
- Charge immigrants an entry-fee or higher taxes, and use that money to lower the taxes on low-skill native workers.
-Restrict immigrants' access and eligibility to government services, such as free public education, food stamps, etc. Implement a mandatory waiting period.
-Require that immigrants pass an English-fluency or cultural competency test.
-Limit immigration for those with a criminal record or without a certain level of prior education.
-Award citizenship cautiously.
The list goes on and on.

7.) There is this idea that immigrants are a burden on the countries that accept them, but that is a false narrative. Immigration is not charity. When people are given the right to work where they choose, they are a net financial asset. They can help save programs such as social security in an aging country, and they can provide the labor to fill much needed positions. There are so many benefits to allowing more immigration - it is more just and it creates economic abundance.

[Kaleb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comic book, but it still counts for Goodreads purposes. Tbh the illustrations were fun and added some character. The argument is that open borders allow migrants to move where their labor is most valuable, leading to an explosion of wealth that benefits everyone. It's a good framing, open borders isn't like, a charity project that takes wealth from non-immigrants and gives it to migrants, it's a win-win that makes everyone better off. Caplan is a libertarian, but he does a good job of arguing that open borders are appealing to liberals, conservatives, Christians, utilitarians, etc etc.

Caplan then goes through and addresses some common counterarguments to open borders, mainly with data. Immigrants culturally assimilate within a generation, they commit less crime than non-immigrants, and they are net positive taxpayers/contributors to social services. Immigrants also don't lower wages; even though there's an increase in labor supply, immigrants become wealthy, increasing demand, which ends up in wages increasing. Caplan is a fan of complete open borders, but he also proposes "keyhole" solutions, or reforms that could appease anti-open borders people while still keeping the benefits (having immigrants pay more taxes or not have access to social services for a few years). These are unfair, but are much better than the status quo and MUCH more humane than deportation or detainment, which Caplan (rightfully) views as an extreme solution to people's concerns about immigration.

It's a bit sad to read this book today. Immigrants have obviously become a big scapegoat and even Democrats are campaigning on tougher border security and whatnot, which all feels insane and hysterical after this book. Sometimes, you need a libertarian to knock some sense into people, I am loath to admit.

[Max · Rating 4 out of 5]

Caplan's and Weinersmith's comic is "the sort of thing that you hear about and you're like, 'I can't believe that doesn't exist already. That's just the perfect thing to exist.'" - Julia Galef in her podcast interview with Caplan [1]

Overall, I think Caplan makes a very compelling case, but my conservative gut could still spit out enough "but"s to keep me dissatisfied. Mostly because I don't live in the U.S. and wonder about how much his arguments apply to the EU. But there are also some other things where I'd like to hear his response:

A) He uses the opening of the borders between Puerto Rico (PR) and the US around 1920 as evidence that immigration would start slow if you'd open your borders today. When I looked into the history of PR during the 1920's, I found that PR's economy boomed during the time after the opening [2]. And my rough model is that economic hardship would be, next to fear for safety, the most common reason to leave your homecountry. And people today already risk their lifes by the thousands to enter western countries, so I still wouldn't expect a slow takeoff.

B) At one point he suggests people are egoistical if they oppose open borders because of the fact that they don't want to see the misery associated with poverty. I understand where he is coming from, I would love if people would start recognizing the misery and started donating and doing political advocacy against poverty. But, I also understand that you don't want to be confronted with poverty. Poverty is sad and bad and I, too, would prefer living in a society where everybody has more than enough. I would've preferred more empathy for this.

C) He suggests "keyhole solutions" that should significantly reduce the supposed negative effects of open borders. I think it's great practice to suggest ways to ease everyone's worries. But, I found some of the keyhole solutions unconvincing. He suggests that immigrants could pay more taxes, or that you could ban certain groups of people from crossing the border, for example muslims. Caplan himself finds those solutions unfair, but still fairer and better than no open borders at all. In my mind, these keyhole solutions are so unfair, even if their implementation would comfort the doubters, the doubters should really not expect the solutions to be implemented.

D) I was surprised to see him arguing against the importance of trust, and I found his arguments rather unconvincing. Before the book, I thought that trust would be one of the key variables that will weigh on the overall merits of open borders. Trust, here, is measured as the percentage of people that respond positively to the question "Can most people be trusted?". He grants that wealthy nations have higher levels of trust, but argues that
a) people coming from poor/low-trust gradually adopt to the level of trust in their new country
b) too much trust is inefficient! When plotting percent GDP growth against the level of trust, the maximum lies around 40% of people saying they can trust others.

a) is not really interacting with the worries about the trust decreasing effects on the rest of the population. b) looks kinda weird to me. The curve he draws through the data looks a little bit like fitting noise, but... I trust Caplan that it's a reasonable model for the data. [page 103] But! If one would take this seriously, shouldn't we decrease the level of trust in places like Sweden, the Netherlands or Norway, in order to increase their GDP growth? That sounds absurd to me and suggests that the reason for the connection between higher trust and slightly lower GDP growth lies somewhere else.

Caplan also links this supposed inefficiency of high levels of trust to studies that show that people that are "overly trusting" are performing worse in the economy and get cheated more.
1) This seems sloppy because "overly trusting" does not mean that this is a person living in a society with high trust, but a person that gave the highest responses to roughly the question "From 1 to 10, how much can you trust other people?"
2) The study he cites from Butler et al. [3] links the economic underperformance of high-trusters to "[assuming] too much social risk and to [being] cheated more often". I don't know what exactly they mean with social risk, but reading the OWID article on trust [4], I came away with the impression that high trust leads to people being more entrepreneurial, and this being great. So this leads me to believe that the levels of trust are not the reason for the lower levels of GDP growth.

Finally, this his concluding slogan about trust: "We need so much trust to make credit cards work". It seems like he doesn't consider what I see as central: Even if trust were not economically relevant, I *want* to live in a high trust environment. And I can imagine that many people find the idea of decreasing trust in their community painful. At least I think I would.

E) This last point about trust is connected to a topic where I would have loved to hear his opinion: right wing populism. How does the strategy of championing open borders interact with the increasing popularity of right wing parties? I would be much more comfortable with increasingly open borders if we hadn't so much resentment against immigrants in Germany, which seems to lead to hordes of dissatisfied people voting for a very not good party. In the podcast with Galef, Caplan mentioned that immigration works less well in Europe compared to the U.S., due to less efficient labor laws. My gut feeling also says that Germany is doing worse in cultural integration, which may come down to the same thing, as a job seems to be a main gateway into a new culture.

I feel like I am probably pretty biased by my own wealth in and living in a first world country. But... I still don't feel like I can trust Caplan's arguments enough to be able to trust a country like mine to deal with open borders.

[1] http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...
[3] https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article...
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/trust

[Diz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Economist Bryan Caplan presents his arguments for open borders in graphic novel form with the help of artist Zach Weinersmith. The arguments are well presented and the artwork is light and friendly, which makes this heavy topic more approachable for younger readers. It is worth reading in this age of anti-immigration furor.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Open borders is one of those ethical questions, like slavery, that people in the future will back look back on with order. How could everyone convince themselves it was okay for one group of people to draw an enormous line and use force to keep other people out? How could they debate the economic and cultural effects, argue over the morality of minor policy changes, while taking for granted the validity of the whole evil premise? My political views have changed a lot since I was a 14-year-old anarchist, but this is one thing they get absolutely right.

This book actually captures the somewhat surprising continuity of that shift really well. Bryan Caplan is not the sort of person I would have taken seriously until a few years ago. He's a libertarian economist, the most pro-capitalist you can get. He's also not the sort of person that the contemporary online Left would respect, mostly for that same reason but also because he takes IQ seriously. I know someone both sides of that political split might not see it this way, but I moved to a place where I see both Caplan's camp and my online Lefty pals as right on some issues and wrong on others but fundamentally well-intentioned and prepared to fight for things that make the world better. So it seems natural to me that we should converge and focus our efforts here, on an issue that is an ethical no-brainer and a high political priority for all of us. I hope that this book can make a big enough splash to catalyze that cooperation.

As for the book itself, I think it's fantastic. It covers a lot of ground, addressing a lot of common objections and presenting a range of possible policies but never losing sight of the fundamental goal of human justice and the enormous economic opportunities presented by free movement of labor. It was preaching to the choir for me, of course so I don't know how persuasive actually is. I'm curious to give it some of the people in my life who I've been appalled to hear anti-open borders arguments from and see what they think of it. It's a very quick read, enthusiastic for its points and entertainingly stylized by Zach's quirky illustrations and visual gags, but never shallow. The depth and breadth of Caplan's reading on all different dimensions of this issue are always apparent, especially in the range of experts he brings into the comic to speak on aspects they study. Now that I think about it, the presentation actually kind of reminds me of the MO of Leftist YouTube, too--breaking down anti-immigrant propaganda patiently and reasonably with the nagging worry that only people who already believe will be convinced. Except now after years of watching Left YT, I'm aware that isn't true, and have a greater appreciation for the way simply reframing the debate with such a clarity of purpose can build new communities that advance your cause more than you might think. I'm pretty optimistic that this book will do that.

[Jason Furman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this. A graphic novel that is a sympathetic polemic for Open Borders—exploring the economics, ethics, and policy of it in a way that is meant to move and persuade without shaming or condescension. It manages to convey a lot of information and arguments in a format that is easy to absorb and sometimes amusing. The core argument is that world would be about twice as rich if people were free to move from less productive countries to more productive countries, this would also be more moral under a variety of approaches (Bryan Caplan emphasizes the libertarian argument that you should not deny people the freedom to locate where they want, but also goes through how this follows from a variety of other moral frameworks like utilitarianism, Kantianism, Rawlianism, and more. Caplan goes through all the potential objections, generally finds them wanting, but also offers what he calls “keyhole solutions” that he argues would accommodate these objections (e.g., make immigrants pay an entry fee or temporarily higher taxes, delay citizenship and make it conditional on a tough test, delay access to government benefits, etc.—in many cases he views these as compromises that are better than the current system which is denying people entry).

Caplan’s book definitely filled in some holes in my understanding (especially on the cultural assimilation side) and provided some new powerful moral arguments (e.g., if someone was starving, wanted to buy food in a store, and you forcefully turned them away and they died that would be like murder—but it is the equivalent of turning people away at the border who are willing to trade labor services for money and voluntarily exchange that money for housing and food in America).

Caplan de-emphasized some of the ambiguities about the impacts of immigrants on wages and definitely did not fully grapple with how his arguments would expand to the very rapid and large-scale immigration that might occur with open borders (he does address this and based on previous experience thinks it will take a while to build up). He also is overly dismissive of the notion of nation states, even though it is hard to ground them in any abstract philosophy (although Rawls did think Rawlsianism stopped at the border, a point Caplan didn’t make), they are a unit that allows a greater degree of sympathy and sharing than humans seem capable of doing at the unit of the entire planet.

Personally, any amount of expanded immigration within what is politically possible would be fine with me. I’m not sure if advocating open borders is more likely to freak people out and if it is better to reassure with a combination of expanded immigration, legalization for people here, and tougher border enforcement. But Caplan makes a good case for the importance of expanding the Overton Window and if he succeeds in doing that it would raise the odds of any outcome I would personally find desirable.

[Jordan Webber · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was pretty excited to read this when it got picked in my book club but I was extremely disappointed with the book as a whole. His argument is centered almost completely on profits and counter arguments are riddled with logical fallacies. his suggestion that everyone should have the opportunity to enter the US as a great solution to global poverty misunderstands many of the root causes of poverty . The impoverished starving people in other countries aren’t starving because there’s no food to be had in these desolate places (his references to non-western places and people as inferior and hopeless are offensive). The problem is multitrillion-dollar financial bailouts, speculation and the destructive effects of free trade–related dumping of food products into hungry. A history of colonization and geopolitical systems of economic exploitation and oppression has created seemingly insurmountable wealth gaps. The fact that capitalism emerged along side the industrial revolution allowing millions to step above abject poverty does mean that unfettered capitalism is the solution to poverty.

Deregulating all economic borders has demonstrably benefited the rich more than it does the masses in terms of social justice. Which he specifically calls out lowered poverty as more justice, but then also suggests that it would be okay if we gave these immigrants no rights?

Would some people benefit, sure, the very rich in the West who are able take advantage of people willing to work with no benefits and those living abroad who have the means to make it to the west, but what about the billions left behind. What about the working class in the west or those living in poverty in our own countries. Don’t get me wrong I am pro immigrants but I’m not a fan of his oversimplified magic bullet solution.

The only thing I can commend is that book is trying to take a complex topic and make it digestible to the general public and his argument explaining why people who fear terrorism increases from immigration are wrong. Do I agree that ICE is overfunded and immigrants should be allowed to come here, yes, but he proposes this as solution that ends poverty and provides justice of which it does neither.

[MundiNova · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fully support the argument, but the execution made it too easy to poke holes in the proposal.

This book is best used by liberals to educate themselves on how to have immigration conversations with their conservative family members over Thanksgiving. The talking points are easy to understand and light enough to banter but lack depth for meaningful discourse.

Economic theory is fascinating! So finding a comic book about immigration economics was a delightful surprise. While I agree with the ideas, the way Caplan makes his case is less than satisfactory.

First, let's focus on the good:
- Highly complex ideas are (somewhat) successfully distilled into comic book form
- Art style, pacing, and arguments are well organized
- THERE ARE SOURCES!! For each statement or example, Caplan has a wealth of sources listed in the back, broken down by page and panel. So tired of reading pop nonfiction that excludes sources.
- It's delightfully entertaining!

The concerning bit:
- His arguments can be easily picked apart by asking basic questions. Each one had me mentally saying "but this doesn't apply to your argument of unskilled labor" or "The data sources are different! This is a generalization."
- There's very little on how open borders will impact the distribution of wealth, which is a global concern. All talk of increasing wealth is by GDP.

If I were more invested, I'd use the sources listed in the back of the book to dive deeper into my concerns. Maybe the original sited authors already answered my questions or addressed my concerns. But I'm not that invested and I'd rather read the epic fantasy novel I've got lined up instead.

Message: 4 stars
Argument: 2 stars
Writing/Art: 3 stars
https://readingbetweenthestitches.wor...

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

This ARC was provided by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.

I actually read a lot of middle grade and YA nonfiction comics, so I’m well aware there’s a decent audience who reads NF GN for fun and not just formal academic purposes. With that in mind, this had a good narrative thread and is very reader friendly-from my perspective as someone who dabbles in Econ and politics podcasts but has no background in this area at all.

Charts and graphs are sprinkled throughout to support the author’s perspective, and he does a good job of disassembling anti-immigration arguments that I hear commonly. I wish the author had done more to present data that immigration opponents use and dissect why he feels their interpretations are wrong—it’s easy to make one side of an argument lack credibility if you don’t let those folks speak for themselves.

That said, I’m pretty sold on the idea of open borders after reading this, and the massive humanitarian good it can do for the world. I did feel that the retelling of the parable of the Samaritan was ineffective, because nothing shuts the mind of a conservative Christian than having an outsider quote the Bible at them. So there’s that.

I highly recommend everyone who’s thinking about how they want to vote in 2020 give this book a read to see if maybe they could view our current debate over immigration in a different light.

[Keen Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Immigration laws don’t merely allow discrimination. They require it!”

Welcome to the world of immigration through the eyes of an economist. Caplan places great emphasis of the importance of numeracy, which really has an effective way of putting many of his arguments into perspective, for example, “Americans’ annual risk of dying from terrorism was 1 in 3,200,000. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning.” And what about “The foreign born are less criminally inclined than natives.”

There is a lot of great stuff in here, particularly the likes of the chapter on keyhole solutions, which threw up all sorts of excellent and useful ideas on how to approach immigration. This is up there with other great political and economic graphic depictions like “Hyper-Capitalism” and “Verax” which really harness the potential of the graphic form to its full potential in order to make some clear, powerful and articulate points, which show you something you thought you might know or understand in a totally different light.

[Flora R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is both hilarious and informative. I’ve been slowly coming around to the idea of open borders since 2016 or so, at first on the basis of, “If Republicans want to tarnish HRC by falsely claiming she’s in favor of it, it’s probably a good policy.” While I doubt that I’d agree with the authors on everything with regards to politics and economics, the arguments in favor of open borders seem smart, as do the examples of how to overcome arguments against them. I think the authors give short shrift to how powerful out and out racism and xenophobia will be in terms of fighting against the common sense benefits of more open borders (see Brexit), but I think that’s a bad reason not to advocate for them at all. I think regardless of where you are on immigration as a policy, this book is worth a read and the novelty of its presentation makes it very much worth the price to pick up your own copy.

[Shannon Appelcline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd expected this book to be about the advantages of immigration in the modern day. What I hadn't expected (probably because I don't remember where I got the recommendation for it) was a full-throated call for entirely open immigration, with no borders to work or to live in any country. It was an interesting premise that I had never even considered, but Caplan did a good job of first of all presenting it as a moral issue or freedom and second of all doing his best to knock down many fears about open borders (and third of all offering halfway suggestions to get us partway there, for the fearmongers). Overall, an intriguing, thoughtful, well-considered argument, in a nice graphical format.