Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

Poll

If America becomes the only industrialized nation to completely open its borders to uncontrolled immigration, as Ian suggests, how many people would move here?

More than 4,000,000,000
- 22 (32.4%)
More than 3,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 2,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 1,000,000,000
- 2 (2.9%)
More than 500,000,000
- 6 (8.8%)
More than 250,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 100,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 50,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)
More than 25,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 10,000,000
- 7 (10.3%)
Less than 10,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)

Total Members Voted: 30


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: If we had open borders ...  (Read 34134 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2007, 01:43:48 PM »

Well, just remember this:  For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years. 

This means - by a factor of five - the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now. 

You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands.  Traffic, hospitals, welfare/social security, the school systems, the utility network into metro areas, all would be maxed out, and that doesnt include the other 300,000,000 who will be breeding the whole time. 

I'd like to see some progression tables of population.  I'll bet we're looking at a total population of around 3/4 of a BILLION people by around 2060, maybe 2070 - and thats not taking into account longevity due to scientific breakthroughs.

Sounds like a hoot.  I'm glad I'll be dead by then. 

This doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting that if we close the borders right now, the current illegal immigrant population would grow five-fold in 50 years, and then you double this figure for some reason, and then you compare that to the rest of the population as it is now, without the same growth of 50 years. Are you suggesting that every pair of illegal immigrants who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring will equal ten or so within fifty years, but every pair of legal American citizens who are capable of producing offspring will not equal ten or so within fifty years? And if you double the illegal population, why don't you at least double the current legal population (let alone what the legal population would have grown to in the same 50 years)? If you closed the border right now, the illegal population as a percentage of the entire population would remain approximately the same (or lessen considerably if you consider current rules of naturalization by birth).

Jason Orr

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2007, 02:03:18 PM »

India has over a billion people right now on a landmass about a third of that under the control of the United States.  This is what happens when there are problems:  we cope with them, we adjust for them, we solve them.  Long term population growth is not a reasonable factor when considering current border policy.  The fear is of a short term population influx that will shock the system.
Logged
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

--Alexis de Tocqueville

Free_Marketeer

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2007, 03:07:42 PM »

Well, just remember this:  For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years. 
[...]

Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years.  A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice. 

The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child.  As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.
Logged

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2007, 03:18:07 PM »

What the fuck is wrong with you people?  Grow a pair.  I mean, if you cannot compete, kill yourself now.  Thanks.

That's not quite fair. Alex was not expressing concern about his own ability to compete but about what those who couldn't would do instead of killing themselves.

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2007, 04:15:23 PM »

Well, just remember this:  For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years. 

This means - by a factor of five - the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now. 

You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands.  Traffic, hospitals, welfare/social security, the school systems, the utility network into metro areas, all would be maxed out, and that doesnt include the other 300,000,000 who will be breeding the whole time. 

I'd like to see some progression tables of population.  I'll bet we're looking at a total population of around 3/4 of a BILLION people by around 2060, maybe 2070 - and thats not taking into account longevity due to scientific breakthroughs.

Sounds like a hoot.  I'm glad I'll be dead by then. 

This doesn't make any sense. You're suggesting that if we close the borders right now, the current illegal immigrant population would grow five-fold in 50 years, and then you double this figure for some reason, and then you compare that to the rest of the population as it is now, without the same growth of 50 years. Are you suggesting that every pair of illegal immigrants who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring will equal ten or so within fifty years, but every pair of legal American citizens who are capable of producing offspring will not equal ten or so within fifty years? And if you double the illegal population, why don't you at least double the current legal population (let alone what the legal population would have grown to in the same 50 years)? If you closed the border right now, the illegal population as a percentage of the entire population would remain approximately the same (or lessen considerably if you consider current rules of naturalization by birth).

It makes perfect sense.  Two people have children, take the cliche of 2.5 kids per family.  Those 2 people now equal  4 or 5.  So, those 2 or 3 children, 25 years after birth, each have 2 kids.  That is eight to ten children and grandchildren plus the original immigrants.  Given some benefit of the doubt, it is simple to have fifteen million people turn into 75 million within fifty years, if thats too hard to understand, just go to a family reunion some time. 

Now.  If theres fifteen million here now, I think its safe to assume the influx of immigrants would double the current number of illegals...  or "un-illegals" if the borders are open.  So, fifteen million doubles, and so do the number of siblings in fifty years, which would total 150,000,000 as opposed to the 75,000,000 in my scenario. 

Its really not that difficult. 

And if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses, you'd easily see the 300,000,000 is factored into the total.  Fifteen to 30 million cannot suddenly become 750,000,000 without the help of the segment of the 300mil that are of the child bearing age, which I figured at about 25 to 30%.  Old people dont reproduce, neither do children. 

So, before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects, you should consider that these were obviously rubbery numbers to begin with, but they are certainly sizeable no matter how close they are to the truth, and I'm sure its not TOO far afield. 

The end result is a huge population shift, period.  So, better start saving your pennies, because you're gonna be paying some pretty steep taxes over the next few decades, as well as not having the social security returned to you that you've paid into for five decades. 

Well, just remember this:  For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years. 
[...]

Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years.  A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice. 

The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child.  As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.

Bullshit.  Sorry.  If you are trying to tell me there is a slower population growth in areas of economic instability, you are completely wrong.  It is equal or faster than the average middle income two parent household.  I can think of three grandparents who are 40 or younger right off the top of my head. 

Name them?  Sure thing.  Michelle, Morris, and my acquaintance Jen's mom.  Three seperate families. 

Secondly, Latinos are predominantly Catholic.  This means they are less likely to view abortion as an option.  This has major significance over that large a population.  Birth control is sketchy at best in underprivileged economic situations, and sex is recreational at a younger age, school dropouts are high, and this equals street education versus formalized education.  Sex Ed doesnt happen until puberty begins normally around 9th grade, and this is when dropouts begin in any numerical significance.  This means street sisters are looking up at older more experienced chicks to learn their lessons from, and that is the most dubious form of education there is. 

You need to understand one thing, these people do not take day trips to the Misses institute for kicks, they lead hardscrabble lives for years until they finally get their shit together.  They gravitate to the inner cities where rent is cheap or they seek out day labor to scratch by on.  They come here on a wing and a prayer and struggle their asses off, having kids they can't afford, its a shitty life.  Maybe better than where they came from, true. 

But they rarely have the privilege of hitting up a college buddy that has a pull out couch in the basement they can call home for a few months.  People who have no actual address cant get good work, and they cant get a home without having employment.  Its a vicious cycle. 

Logged

bonerjoe

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2007, 04:23:08 PM »

If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.
Logged

Jason Orr

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2007, 04:35:07 PM »

If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.


ZING!
Logged
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

--Alexis de Tocqueville

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2007, 04:37:36 PM »

It makes perfect sense.  Two people have children, take the cliche of 2.5 kids per family.  Those 2 people now equal  4 or 5.  So, those 2 or 3 children, 25 years after birth, each have 2 kids.  That is eight to ten children and grandchildren plus the original immigrants.  Given some benefit of the doubt, it is simple to have fifteen million people turn into 75 million within fifty years, if thats too hard to understand, just go to a family reunion some time. 

Now.  If theres fifteen million here now, I think its safe to assume the influx of immigrants would double the current number of illegals...  or "un-illegals" if the borders are open.  So, fifteen million doubles, and so do the number of siblings in fifty years, which would total 150,000,000 as opposed to the 75,000,000 in my scenario. 

Its really not that difficult. 

And if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses, you'd easily see the 300,000,000 is factored into the total.  Fifteen to 30 million cannot suddenly become 750,000,000 without the help of the segment of the 300mil that are of the child bearing age, which I figured at about 25 to 30%.  Old people dont reproduce, neither do children. 

So, before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects, you should consider that these were obviously rubbery numbers to begin with, but they are certainly sizeable no matter how close they are to the truth, and I'm sure its not TOO far afield. 

The end result is a huge population shift, period.  So, better start saving your pennies, because you're gonna be paying some pretty steep taxes over the next few decades, as well as not having the social security returned to you that you've paid into for five decades. 

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your example's position on opening or closing the border. You said "This means ... the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now. ... You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means ..." and I just confused whether you meant that the borderes were completely sealed right now or if the borders were allowed open. I now understand that your example creates 75M out of 15M with closed borders, but opening the border could double that to 150M.

However, in that same sentence ("You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands."), you are comparing the 150M population after 50 years of growth to the current population of America, claiming that 150M is half of the 300M population, even though 150M is in the future and 300M is in the present and hasn't been given the same 50 years to grow. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding your example.

Also, why are you condescending to me? You said "...if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses..." and "...before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects..." How does it benefit you (or me, or anyone) to act superior when I am merely pointing out a what I think is a mistake in your hypothesis? If I am wrong, please explain how.

Thanks.

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2007, 04:57:01 PM »

It makes perfect sense.  Two people have children, take the cliche of 2.5 kids per family.  Those 2 people now equal  4 or 5.  So, those 2 or 3 children, 25 years after birth, each have 2 kids.  That is eight to ten children and grandchildren plus the original immigrants.  Given some benefit of the doubt, it is simple to have fifteen million people turn into 75 million within fifty years, if thats too hard to understand, just go to a family reunion some time. 

Now.  If theres fifteen million here now, I think its safe to assume the influx of immigrants would double the current number of illegals...  or "un-illegals" if the borders are open.  So, fifteen million doubles, and so do the number of siblings in fifty years, which would total 150,000,000 as opposed to the 75,000,000 in my scenario. 

Its really not that difficult. 

And if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses, you'd easily see the 300,000,000 is factored into the total.  Fifteen to 30 million cannot suddenly become 750,000,000 without the help of the segment of the 300mil that are of the child bearing age, which I figured at about 25 to 30%.  Old people dont reproduce, neither do children. 

So, before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects, you should consider that these were obviously rubbery numbers to begin with, but they are certainly sizeable no matter how close they are to the truth, and I'm sure its not TOO far afield. 

The end result is a huge population shift, period.  So, better start saving your pennies, because you're gonna be paying some pretty steep taxes over the next few decades, as well as not having the social security returned to you that you've paid into for five decades. 

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your example's position on opening or closing the border. You said "This means ... the fifteen million (or more) illegals will equal approximately 75 million by the year 2057, if they completely sealed the borders right now. ... You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means ..." and I just confused whether you meant that the borderes were completely sealed right now or if the borders were allowed open. I now understand that your example creates 75M out of 15M with closed borders, but opening the border could double that to 150M.

However, in that same sentence ("You could easily double that if you allowed the open borders, which means half the current population as it stands now, half of the entire population of this country, will put a nice big strain on the entire infrastructure as it currently stands."), you are comparing the 150M population after 50 years of growth to the current population of America, claiming that 150M is half of the 300M population, even though 150M is in the future and 300M is in the present and hasn't been given the same 50 years to grow. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding your example.

Also, why are you condescending to me? You said "...if you would bother to reverse engineer the results of my hypotheses..." and "...before you go into all sorts of contorted gymnastics in defense of your little pet projects..." How does it benefit you (or me, or anyone) to act superior when I am merely pointing out a what I think is a mistake in your hypothesis? If I am wrong, please explain how.

Thanks.

No, you've got it now.  Thats basically correct.  The point is, it's a shitload of people.  The ramifications of that influx would be huge.

The point I was making with reverse engineering the data is that it's easily visible after a few moments consideration that fifteen or 30 million cannot sprout into 750M, no way in hell.  Not in fifty years, at least. 

So, I got a little aggrivated to have to go over it a second time, more thoroughly, when all I was suggesting is a huge influx of people will cause a big strain on the legal citizens already here who are feeling the pinch of a steadily declining economy.  The gymnastics reference was to cast an unfavorable light on people who will bend their arguments into ridiculous shapes to try to show their support for an embryonic theory of "Open borders=good/bad/maybe/love it"  Its not actually against you, it was just a comment that fit the moment. 

Personally, I would like to streamline the process and grant legal citizenship to anyone who requests it.  But thats not open borders, thats closed borders.  Open borders suggests to me that there would be no oversight whatsoever and people could just come and go with absolutely no process at all, like an open highway, just zoom right through.

That would be catastrophic. 

Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2007, 05:51:36 PM »

If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.

You bookstore traitor.  I never knew libertarians were such bookstore traitors.
Logged

Mike Barskey

  • FTL AMPlifier Silver
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
    • My own web site
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2007, 06:53:22 PM »

No, you've got it now.  Thats basically correct.  The point is, it's a shitload of people.  The ramifications of that influx would be huge.

The point I was making with reverse engineering the data is that it's easily visible after a few moments consideration that fifteen or 30 million cannot sprout into 750M, no way in hell.  Not in fifty years, at least. 

So, I got a little aggrivated to have to go over it a second time, more thoroughly, when all I was suggesting is a huge influx of people will cause a big strain on the legal citizens already here who are feeling the pinch of a steadily declining economy.  The gymnastics reference was to cast an unfavorable light on people who will bend their arguments into ridiculous shapes to try to show their support for an embryonic theory of "Open borders=good/bad/maybe/love it"  Its not actually against you, it was just a comment that fit the moment. 

Personally, I would like to streamline the process and grant legal citizenship to anyone who requests it.  But thats not open borders, thats closed borders.  Open borders suggests to me that there would be no oversight whatsoever and people could just come and go with absolutely no process at all, like an open highway, just zoom right through.

That would be catastrophic. 

Thanks for explaining everything. I'm still confused, though, how the 150M illegal immigrants in 50 years would be more of a burden on society proportionally then the 15M illegal immigrants now. I'm assuming that the legal population will grow at the same rate as the illegal population, to if 15M illegal immigrants now is ~5% of the total population, then in 50 years 150M will be ~5% of the total population. Are you saying that a greater population in general is more of a burden on society (i.e., on itself)?

Free_Marketeer

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ... fertility issues
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2007, 10:01:12 PM »

[...]
Well, just remember this:  For every pair who arrive here and are capable of producing offspring, they will equal ten or so within fifty years. 
[...]

Most likely, they will not equal ten or so in fifty years.  A household's fertility decision is strongly determined by the opportunity cost of having children - i.e., the cost of everything foregone in favor of a given choice. 

The biggest opportunity cost of having children is time, because it takes a lot of time to raise a child.  As the parents' time becomes more valuable due to economic advancement, the opportunity cost of having offspring increases (as measured in foregone earned income), creating a very strong tendency not to have offspring.

[...]  If you are trying to tell me there is a slower population growth in areas of economic instability, you are completely wrong.  It is equal or faster than the average middle income two parent household.[...]

Economic stability is not the focus of my point: households/parents' opportunity cost relative to children is the point.  Ceteris paribus, as the household/parents advance economically (which most immigrants do, ipso facto, because their sole reason for moving is economic gain), the opportunity cost of having children increases. 

It is an economics law, but in reality (where "all else" is not equal) is variegated by other values potential parents may hold, e.g., religious beliefs, like you mention.  But then, those religious beliefs actually are part of the parents' opportunity cost calculation: the law of opportunity cost still applies.  And, P.S., the pope okay'd condoms several years ago - it is possible for a Catholic family to plan for a smaller family.  :)

Lastly, 'economic stability', per se, does not exist, except as a historical artifact.  The economy is a chaotic dynamic force. It develops according to the unique interests of the individuals directing it at base.  'Economic stability' is a poor phrase used mostly to justify bad monetary policy and promulgate bad public policy, like price controls or subsidies.  The only way to have a "stable" economy is to unfetter it such that artificial influences no longer distort individuals' market activities.

Edit:  Here are some more works you might enjoy from economists regarding fertility decisions.

Jesus Fernandez-Villaverde, in Was Malthus Right? Economic Growth and Population Dynamics, talks about fertility i.t.o. capital-specific technological change.  His homepage has further notes on the article.

Becker argues for population on The Becker-Posner Blog: Is Population Growth Good or Bad?

I only had a small point re: opportunity cost, but if you're interested in the myriad economic elements/determinants of fertility, you should definitely check out Becker's seminal works on Family, Marriage and Fertility.

Enjoy!

« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 10:36:40 PM by Free_Marketeer »
Logged

Free_Marketeer

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2007, 10:03:17 PM »

If Borders were open, then I wouldn't have to shop at Barnes and Noble.

You bookstore traitor.  I never knew libertarians were such bookstore traitors.

No kidding, you should get all your books via http://amazon.freetalklive.com!
Logged

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2007, 01:51:34 PM »

If Ian persists on extrapolating on topics which have no realistic application, I swear I will invoke my own executive privilege and start up a "free brown people project" just for his personal amusement.

OK, I don't know how to threaten Ian. He is such a frail and shrill fellow.

Charles

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2007, 04:50:57 PM »

If the borders opened up, I would buy as much land as I can in Mexico and essentially pull out my own personal free state project.  I never really believed that the Browns could hold off the US national guard etc. if it really comes to that, but I think a bunch of well armed and well supplied people could hold off against the corrupt mexican police.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

// ]]>

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 46 queries.