Nativists claim that immigrants cause a net harm to the US. Open borders advocates claim they're a net benefit.
Who is correct? It seems to me that we can do an empirical test of the claims.
1. Create two special economic zones in New Hampshire, each 500 acres (2 km2) in size, divided into 100 lots.
2. Call one zone "Hoppe Village".
Hans Herman Hoppe (or some other prominent nativist) gets to select the initial 13 person " Founding Council. The Founding Council in turn, selects 100 Founding Citizens. Each Founding Citizen gets ownership of one lot.
The Founding Council are allowed to deny entry to whomever they please: blacks/Hispanics, gays, immigrants, poor people, drug users, etc. All would-be residents must be strictly vetted by HVSA ("Hoppe Village Security Administration") before being allowed entry. But Hoppe Village is only allowed to admit entry to US citizens.
The Hoppe Village citizens must also fund a 20 foot high wall topped with razor wire and staffed with border guards.
3. Call the second zone "Caplan City". Same setup as Hoppe Village, but Bryan Caplan (or some other prominent open borders advocate) gets to select the initial founding council.
Caplan City is not allowed to build a border wall, nor hire border guards. (Individual plot owners can, however, build walls / hire security on their lots).
There are also no immigration suppression laws--any existing resident can invite new residents from anywhere in the world to live and work there. No zoning laws allowed either--anyone can build any structure they like. (They can however, pass laws that bar pollution--light, sound, noxious odors--from crossing one plot to another.)
To assuage the fears of NH nativists, foreign born Caplan City residents are not allowed outside the borders of Caplan City, and must wear an ankle monitor to track their movements--if they leave Caplan City, they're subject to immediate deportation.
Caplan City residents must also pay for any police/crime/deportation costs imposed by foreign-born Caplan City residents caught outside of the city.
Aside from the mandates listed above, both cities get to set their own criminal/civil laws, and establish their own police forces.
For each founding citizen, we measure their well-being (and the well-being of their children) both at the beginning and at the end of a 25 year period: wealth, crime, health, birth rates, etc.
If the nativists are correct, Hoppe Village citizens should be wealthier, safer, and healthier than the citizens of Caplan City. (And vice versa if the open borders advocates are right.)
Prominent nativist and open borders advocates could be invited to bet on the outcome of the experiment.
Let's stop bickering, and do some empirical testing!
#openborders
#immigration
#archerimmigration
Who is correct? It seems to me that we can do an empirical test of the claims.
1. Create two special economic zones in New Hampshire, each 500 acres (2 km2) in size, divided into 100 lots.
2. Call one zone "Hoppe Village".
Hans Herman Hoppe (or some other prominent nativist) gets to select the initial 13 person " Founding Council. The Founding Council in turn, selects 100 Founding Citizens. Each Founding Citizen gets ownership of one lot.
The Founding Council are allowed to deny entry to whomever they please: blacks/Hispanics, gays, immigrants, poor people, drug users, etc. All would-be residents must be strictly vetted by HVSA ("Hoppe Village Security Administration") before being allowed entry. But Hoppe Village is only allowed to admit entry to US citizens.
The Hoppe Village citizens must also fund a 20 foot high wall topped with razor wire and staffed with border guards.
3. Call the second zone "Caplan City". Same setup as Hoppe Village, but Bryan Caplan (or some other prominent open borders advocate) gets to select the initial founding council.
Caplan City is not allowed to build a border wall, nor hire border guards. (Individual plot owners can, however, build walls / hire security on their lots).
There are also no immigration suppression laws--any existing resident can invite new residents from anywhere in the world to live and work there. No zoning laws allowed either--anyone can build any structure they like. (They can however, pass laws that bar pollution--light, sound, noxious odors--from crossing one plot to another.)
To assuage the fears of NH nativists, foreign born Caplan City residents are not allowed outside the borders of Caplan City, and must wear an ankle monitor to track their movements--if they leave Caplan City, they're subject to immediate deportation.
Caplan City residents must also pay for any police/crime/deportation costs imposed by foreign-born Caplan City residents caught outside of the city.
Aside from the mandates listed above, both cities get to set their own criminal/civil laws, and establish their own police forces.
For each founding citizen, we measure their well-being (and the well-being of their children) both at the beginning and at the end of a 25 year period: wealth, crime, health, birth rates, etc.
If the nativists are correct, Hoppe Village citizens should be wealthier, safer, and healthier than the citizens of Caplan City. (And vice versa if the open borders advocates are right.)
Prominent nativist and open borders advocates could be invited to bet on the outcome of the experiment.
Let's stop bickering, and do some empirical testing!
#openborders
#immigration
#archerimmigration