The “futility argument” is sometimes made as a response to claims about the large-scale benefits that open borders proponents claim, such as the massive reduction in world poverty and the benefits to migrants. Restrictionists argue that immigration is quantitatively too small compared to the poor population to make a dent in poverty. Alternatively, an argument may be made that major issues like global poverty will be solved in a relatively short time frame undermining the need for open borders. The latter argument may be used to assert open borders advocacy is unimportant or a waste of time. These two arguments together comprise “pessimistic” and “optimistic” futility arguments.
- The pessimistic argument is considered, and addressed, in the blog post Roy Beck unwittingly makes the case for open borders.
- Vipul Naik presents and argues against the basic optimistic futility argument in the blog post optimistic futility against open borders.
- Chris Hendrix looks at this argument from the view of advancing technology in the blog post skirting around the restriction: will technology make open borders obsolete?