This is part of a series of weekly posts with the most interesting content from the Open Borders Action Group on Facebook. Do join the group to weigh in on existing discussions or start your own (you might want to read this post before joining).
This is the second of a series of weekly posts with the most interesting content from the Open Borders Action Group on Facebook. Do join the group to weigh in on existing discussions or start your own (you might want to read this post before joining).
- Does giving people factual information about the proportion of immigrants change their views on whether there should be more or less immigration? There wasn’t enough data to resolve the point.
- Is there a meaningful distinction between political and economic refugees? It was argued that countries might be willing to take political refugees because the size of the potential refugee flow would be bounded. It was also agreed that political refugees who faced immediate and significant threats to their lives did have a stronger claim to the right to migrate.
- What’s a good response to the reductio ad anarchism response to open borders? The general consensus was that open borders is consistent with anarchism, but does not entail anarchism. Just as opposition to slavery or imperialism could be argued within both anarchist and mainstream-statist frameworks, so could opposition to arbitrary border restrictions.
- Is anybody interested in creating short videos about open borders? People suggested a range of options.
- Why is public opinion in Sweden more pro-migration than most other First World countries? (based on data from Nathan Smith’s post Who favors open borders?). Sweden’s general egalitarian nature and people’s desire to see themselves as generous were cited. It was also argued that historical luck may have played a role: past and present anti-immigrant parties were widely viewed as kooky or evil (due to their other, non-migration-related beliefs), so mainstream parties sought to distance themselves from overt opposition to migration.
- What is the expected value of open borders advocacy? It was argued that even though open borders is unlikely at present, it takes decades of “tilling the ground” to make sure that open borders happens swiftly once it becomes politically feasible.
- Does interacting with migrants make people more pro-migration or anti-migration? There was a hypothesis in the post and some more discussion in the comments, but no clear consensus.
- What is some research on the long-term political, social, and economic impact of migration? The post is recent and more comments are needed. Please add your own comments there.
This is the first of a series of weekly posts with the most interesting content from the Open Borders Action Group on Facebook. Do join the group to weigh in on existing discussions or start your own (you might want to read this post before joining).
- Critical factors constraining migration rates if migration were significantly liberalized: There was little consensus, but top contenders ranged from setting up job opportunities to the new migrants, to absence of people in the new country to connect with, to bureaucracy, to availability of housing.
- Additional countries for Open Borders to discuss: Suggestions included Iran/Afghanistan, the Caribbean, Mexico/Guatemala, Japan, Israel, Russia, China, Taiwan, and Brazil.
- Whether “open borders” is the right term: There was a wide range of opinions in the comments.
- Why “pro-immigration” groups (such as FWD.us) endorse border security and employment verification systems, and whether this is strategically appropriate for their goals and for open borders: The general view seemed to be that there are more strategic downsides that the “pro-immigration” groups might believe.
- The extent to which existing minimum wage laws would need to be modified to reap the full economic and humanitarian gains from open borders: There was general consensus that minimum wage laws could be a barrier for many prospective migrants, but commenters argued that people could circumvent these by working on family businesses where such laws were harder to enforce.
- How open borders and charter cities compare: Milo King’s comment listed 7 points and included a diverse range of considerations.
Open borders supporter Fabio Rojas, the brain behind the Open Borders Logo Contest, recently converted the Open Borders Logo Contest Facebook group to the Open Borders Action Group (OBAG). While the group was originally intended for a discussion of open borders logos, the new incarnation is intended for a general discussion of strategy and rhetoric related to open borders advocacy. Object-level discussion of the merits of open borders is also welcome, but not the focus.
If you’re interested in discussing or following discussions of open borders advocacy and action, consider joining the group. You can edit the notification settings to determine whether you get notified when new posts are made to the group, so don’t worry about getting too much notification spam. You don’t need to be an open borders supporter, or express only “pro-open borders” views in the posts and comments, but the group’s goals mean that you’re unlikely to enjoy it much unless you have some sympathy for the position. That said, open borders skeptics should feel free to join and lurk in the group to obtain “competitive intelligence” so to speak.
A few quick guidelines for OBAG:
- Fabio moderates posts and comments ruthlessly for incivility, including reciprocal incivility (if somebody’s rude to you, let the moderators deal with it).
- To the extent possible, when commenting on a post, stick to the topic of the post rather than pivoting to a general discussion of the merits or demerits of open borders. This helps keep the discussion focused.
- More detailed comments and discussion are better suited to the Open Borders blog, where the bloggers and audience are more committed to hashing out arguments in full detail.