I did a little research and was going to post it in a thread but got sidetracked into talking about the Roman Empire. The thread author then said he only wanted to discuss the constitution. I can't find a suitable thread for this discussion so I propose a new one. This is it.
Ian Goldin has a little book (I need to read his bigger works sometime which are far better ) which I will quote.
Divided Nations: Why global governance is failing, and what we can do about it (Oxford)
On page 36, he shows how many migrants there are presently.
In 2010 there were over 220 million international migrants, more than double the figure recorded in 1980.
The era of accelerated globalization since 1990 has ironically been associated with the proliferation of nation states and increasingly stringent border controls.
More migration but lots of barriers to bottleneck the situation. The benefits to consider are many.
The key benefit of migration to the receiving country is that, by allowing people to move, it improves the welfare of the society as a whole. In Exceptional People : How Migration Shaped Our World and Will Define Our Future my co authors and I show that migration brings many benefits to the migrants and also to the host country
.... As the US continues to demonstrate, the flux and mix of cultures leads to innovation. It is now calculated that migrants provide more than half of the innovation in the US, even though they are only around 12 percent of the population, with Silicon Valley perhaps providing among the most compelling evidence for the beneficial effects of high skilled migration.
I had some good mainstream media articles on the astonishing benefits of innovation from the immigrants but failed to post them. The issue of "sending countries" suffering a supposed brain drain is a false alarm and it is just not the accurate way of seeing what goes on. The real thing is "brain circulation" happening for the benefit of all including the sending nations. The dynamic is very mutually beneficial.
Look at the benefits of open borders.
The World Bank estimates that increasing migration by 3 percent of the workforce in developed countries between 2005 and 2025 would result in global gains of U. S. $356 billion, and completely opening borders over the next twenty-five years would yield the world economy an extra US $39 trillion and radically reduce poverty.
This is not an easy policy to implement but understand that the 40 trillion dollars in benefits to the economy would be at least 20% higher growth than would otherwise be the case. The world economy is under 100 trillion dollars now and not growing too much lately. The world wide growth benefits of these "open borders " are only based on free human travel and do NOT include the huge additional benefits of 100% free trade and tearing down the gargantuan and endless trade barriers. Both Europeans and Americans pay over $1000 more per person each year on food due to disastrous protectionism. The world wide benefits there are potentially limitless if we somehow managed to get the political will to do the right thing and put humanity above narrow and greedy special interests . Putting humanity first for a change and slaying nationalism and xenophobia would help us all - even the nationalist minded folk who are mislead into cutting their own throats (thinking in their own 1 dimensional way to be doing something good for themselves ).
Without major changes, the most rosy scenario doesn't have the world economy above $200 trillion by 2035. Opening borders (now!) alone would add over 20% (and probably much more to the economy. The growth (the added trillions above where we are now at the end of 25 years) would actually be much more than 20%.
You must see this Bret Stephens, Only Mass Deportation Can Save Us June 17,2017 artic
This controversial right winger demolished anti-immigration arguments in one of the best op-ed pieces that I have ever seen.
I am going to quote just a smidge
On point after point, America's nonimmigrants are failing our country. Crime? A study by the Cato Institute notes that non-immigrants are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of illegal immigrants, and at more than three times the rate of legal ones.
83% of illegal immigrants are Christian in identification while nonimmigrants are 70.6%
Twice the number of new business starts come from immigrants. In Silicon Valley and everywhere else.
Landmark study from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2016
The scientific research shows that immigrants cost us in the first generation but the costs are small.
1st generation immigrants cost U. S. taxpayers $57.4 billion a year.
2nd generation ddescendants of immigrants benefit us $30.5 billion a year.
3rd generation immigrants' descendants benefit the national tax treasures to a net tune of $223.8 billion.
We have 32 million legal and 11 millions first generation undocumented immigrant human beings presently.
Understand that the $71.5 billion defense budget increase ( will be a cost that must be paid for each and every year - NEXT year and for every year we must pay for ) that the Congress just proposed is only possible to pay for due to our small upfront investment in immigrants from the past few generations ( and longer back ).
If the American military is even 1/10 as vital to freedom as militaristic commentary constantly insists, then it is vitally REQUIRED that we increase overall annual immigration numbers by several orders of magnitude.
Do the statistics take into account any decrease in average earnings for any percentage of the global population or is it all a win/win? I fear that the bottom 20% would benefit, but I'm less sure if allowing cheaper labor into a country would help everyone.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
The dislocated folks are the types of economic consequences that get lots of attention due to the fact that hurting segments of a population will be politically active. There will be winners and loosers all over, but especially in the relatively rich countries that the poorer people will migrate to. The hurting folks will get their due attention regardless of what the studies look for.
That is the situation in the rich host countries.
As for the global population at large, the fact that you have a poorer part of the world (which will have folks who will migrate to the greener pastures like the United States ) means that there will be upfront costs to the host nation.
The question of the day is actually several questions about how much the respective parties will get from the deal and how long it will take. (As well as who gets hurt in the process ) The parties are the citizens of the richer host country, the immigrants, the state and federal coffers, the jobs, the economy, the employment rate, etc. Then the (not quite seen as "patriotic") concern about the overseas financial situation will be more relevant than many might think at first glance. The better off the world is, the less people will want to immigrate to the United States to start with.
The ironic thing is that the immigrants help our national economy, federal deficit, national debt, economic growth, employment, etc. But the average person thinks that the poorer people coming here hurts us so immigrant arrivals are (supposedly ) a "bad thing" .
I wish that there was a World Constitution that gave everyone rights ( like health care rights to see any doctor, anywhere, regardless of your national origin and residential address ) so this question of "who benefits more" is irrelevant.
But we see immigrants as "bad" so the fact that the wealth is going up in the rest of the world will reduce the amount of immigration to the USA so that is "good" (except it really isn't good really because the immigrants really do "help us " though it isn't really politically correct to admit that they are beneficial ).
Bret Stephens article on immigrants was popular with alot of folks (not just me )
From the June 25 New York Times
quote: 2. Only Mass Deportation Can Save America Published online June 16, this Op-Ed article by Bret Stephens remained popular for the entirety of last week. "I'm jesting about deporting 'real Americans' en mass. (Who would take them in, anyway?), Mr. Stephens wrote. "But then the threat of mass deportation has been no joke with this administration. "
The left had a fit over this conservative global warming skeptic being hired by a fairly liberal newspaper.
Just like the populist right will have a fit over his total demolition of popular anti-immigrant propaganda.
(Will his fact filled article get the coverage that anti-science theories get? )
The media likes to present the Global Warming skeptic arguments but will pseudo science coverage be matched in total airtime by the fact-filled evidence that demonstrates the benefits of immigrants (contrary to popular anti-immigrant lies that we have heard presented as truth ) ?