This may be repetitive among the good followers of TRS, but it must be stressed. The idea to solve the immigration problem by bringing in more immigrants is peak oven.
In response to the liquid shoah of potential cultural enrichers in the Mediterranean Sea, Dylan Matthews of Vox proposed a radical, wonderful new solution to Europe's immigration problem, let's have more immigrants. Hooray, Dildolech! But instead of using the basic and idiotic leftist argument for mass immigration because of multiculturalism and crippling naive altruism, Matthews uses the equally erroneous left-libertarian argument of helping the economy, and crippling naive altruism.
The major study he provided is one from The Center for Global Development. In which he claims that if for instance, Nigerians and Yemenis move to the US, they will earn multiple times as much. Matthews also presented a study that claims that such an open border policy is beneficial to the world's GDP. However such studies and the claim Matthews makes are flawed in several ways.
First, it assumes that the potential of immigrant groups making more in the US applies the same if they moved to Europe. Although not entirely different, Europe and America do have different systems on how the economy is run. Within both the US and Europe themselves, there are different ways of management. Second, this matters because the differences in the management of economies is the result of the politics and culture of the particular area. Just as much, the supposed individual success of these ethnic minorities moving to a foreign land depends heavily on the social and cultural factors of that particular ethnic group.
Third, assuming that there's a potential is ignoring the reality. This is true regarding the aforementioned groups in the US. Nigerian immigrants are slated to be more educated than their counterparts still in the home country. In better terms are outliers, which explains for their high income. However, Yemeni immigrants average income is below the national average. With the claim that mass immigration would "double the world's GDP", this will only have an impact in the immigrants new home. Since we are talking about immigrants moving to developed western nations with long established advanced economies, much of the immigrants' supposed economic benefit will mostly effect the new country. Any benefit to poor and developed nations is minimal.
So what is the deal? This is a common argument by both the left and certain libertarians that somehow by the numbers, mass immigration will bring economic magic. So by restricting immigration, we would lose in 'vibrancy' economic as well as cultural. The people and studies who make this argument tend to ignore the effect of other factors. Having low-skilled, at times low productive people who have no connection to the culture or nation can have just as much impact and is influential to the actual economic result of immigrants in the west.
Take into consideration instead of just "the economy", what effect does it have on the people and the country involved. For example, an open borders policy in the US alone will ultimately include a large number of low-skilled and poor people, thus negatively effecting poverty rates and income in the new country. This is also true in Europe. One thing of note is a study in which low-skilled immigrants in the Netherlands are more likely to leave. Thus given credence to negating any real benefit to the anyone involve in an open borders economy.
Let's not forget the factor of IQ and what it brings to the table. We are dealing with people in low IQ nations that are a driving force as to why they are poor. Importing low IQ can have a negative effect on the new country. Lastly, the idea that restricting immigration will hurt the economy is bunk. For example, Denmark has taken a somewhat restrictive approach to immigration in recent years. But the government is slated to have saved billions as a result. One interesting fact is that NRx blogger Alfred W. Clark has noted that Israel has a strict policy of non-Jewish immigration and it is economically well. Oy Vey!
It should be noted that Matthews brings up Bryan Caplan, an open borders economist who Sean Last and Libertarian Realist made great rebuttals to. Matthews along with his "make the economy good" talking point, made the argument in which immigrants involvement in crime is sparse and in some instance reduced crime. The problem is that the evidence he brings respectively is from outlier immigrants and immigrants from Europe. Regarding the later, it should be obvious that since the immigrants are from Europe and most likely white, that they will more than likely to cause less crime. Because non-white immigration is a factor in crime for many Western nations. Lastly, Matthews ignores that the supposed unrestricted immigration in western nations pre-WWI were predominantly between white majority nations. So if you are advocating mass immigration from non-whites, keep that in mind.
In conclusion, Dylan makes the typical poor economic and ethical case for open borders. His claim that restrictions on immigration are 'barbaric' ignores that fact that many of these immigrants come from countries where actual barbaric practices are happening. To expect these particular immigrants to somehow be different is naively absurd. Finally, calls for mass immigration and open borders are nothing but attempts for white demographic displacement and ruining what is left of what made Western civilization great and unique. Making arguments for mass immigration for one's "economic feels" is just as dumb as supporting it for one's "diversity feels". Slightly smarter, but no less destructive.