The Case for Open Borders

On This Most Patriotic of Days, We Should Remember That America Is a Nation of Immigrants

If you ask most Americans whether a person should be free to hire, work for, trade with, or marry anyone they choose, the answer is almost always yes. We celebrate the principle that voluntary association is the bedrock of a free society. And thankfully, we no longer believe those freedoms should be denied based on race, religion, or gender.

But there is one glaring exception: the invisible line of the nation-state. Cross it, and all bets are off. The same person you could legally marry, hire, or partner with yesterday becomes an untouchable outsider today. Immigration restrictions reverse our presumption of liberty, forbidding peaceful cooperation unless the government grants permission.

For these restrictions to be justified, they should prevent genuine harm. Yet, on almost every measure—economic, cultural, social—immigration not only avoids harm but generates extraordinary benefits.

The Immense Benefits to Immigrants—and the World

Imagine multiplying your income tenfold just by boarding a plane. For millions, that’s exactly what happens. Mexicans who migrate to the U.S. roughly double their earnings. For Haitians, incomes jump by a factor of ten. Nigerians see a fourteen-fold increase. It isn’t that American employers are uniquely generous; it’s that our stable institutions and open markets make workers vastly more productive.

These gains ripple outward. Each year, immigrants in the U.S. send home nearly half a trillion dollars—more than all global foreign aid combined. Economist Michael Clemens estimates that allowing people to move freely across international borders could increase global economic output by 50 to 150 percent, adding $50 to $150 trillion to the world economy.

Much of what we call “global inequality” isn’t about talent or effort—it’s about geography. As Clemens has shown, roughly 60 to 70 percent of the wage gap between rich and poor countries is explained by where people live, not who they are. If we truly care about reducing poverty, allowing people to move to places where their work creates more value is the single most powerful lever we have.

Immigration Makes America Stronger

Despite popular myths, immigrants don’t just help themselves. They also fuel American prosperity. Immigrants are 7% more likely to be in the labor force than native-born Americans, are 80% more likely to start a business, and are twice as likely to become entrepreneurs. They also produce 36% of the innovation in America despite making up less than 14% of the population.

Consider the misconception that immigrants “steal” jobs. Since the 1950s, the U.S. workforce has doubled—thanks in large part to women and immigrants entering the labor market—yet unemployment has remained stable. Why? Because immigrants don’t just supply labor; they also create demand for goods and services, which fuels job growth for everyone.

Low-skilled immigrants, too, expand opportunity. When immigrant childcare workers make it easier for American parents to work, the economy grows. When immigrants fill critical gaps in agriculture, hospitality, or technology, they complement rather than replace native workers.

Fiscal Myths and the Welfare State

Opponents often argue that immigrants drain public resources. The data tell a different story. On average, immigrants use 27% less welfare than native-born Americans. They are more likely to be of working age, pay taxes, and less likely to draw on entitlements.

In 2016, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed decades of academic literature to calculate immigrants' net fiscal impact, which is the difference between what immigrants pay in taxes and the government benefits they consume. They found that immigrants contribute $1.38 in taxes for every dollar of benefits they consume—far more than the native-born, who pay just 69 cents per dollar received.

Even immigrants without a high school diploma cost less to support than similarly educated native-born Americans. Their children, on average, grow up to be net taxpayers. In other words, immigrants and their direct descendants support rather than burden the welfare state.

If anything, immigrants tend to slow the growth of the welfare state. The two greatest expansions of government—the New Deal and the Great Society—occurred when the share of foreign-born residents was at historic lows. In a column attacking post-WW1 immigration restrictions, Paul Krugram noted that their one positive effect was that "[a]bsent those [immigration] restrictions, there would have been many claims, justified or not, about people flocking to America to take advantage of [New Deal] welfare programs.”

One way immigration dampens the growth of the welfare state is by weakening unions. Immigrants generally have a lower preference for union membership and increase workplace diversity, which reduces solidarity among workers. A study by Alex Nowrasteh, Town Oh, and Artem Samiahulin found that immigration reduced union density by 5.7 percentage points between 1980 and 2020, accounting for nearly 30% of the overall decline in union density during that period.

Merely being in a union makes workers more left-wing. Thus, by draining out unions, immigrants are doing libertarians and fiscal conservatives a great service.

Crime and Terrorism

Another fear is that immigration increases crime. Again, the evidence says otherwise. In Texas, the only state that tracks immigration status in crime records, native-born Americans are incarcerated at twice the rate of undocumented immigrants and seven times the rate of legal immigrants. Academic research shows sanctuary counties, which protect illegal immigrants from deportation, have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable counties.

What about terrorism? Between 1975 and 2015, your annual chance of being killed by a foreign-born terrorist in the U.S. was roughly one in 3.6 million. You were twice as likely to be struck by lightning.

Political Impact and Assimilation

Immigration restrictionists also claim immigrants will inexorably shift America to the left. But the data here are more nuanced. On a 1-to-7 scale of ideology, with 1 being most liberal and 7 most conservative, the average U.S.-born voter scores about 4.16. The average immigrant? 3.98.

California is frequently held up as a cautionary tale of how immigration turned a red or purple state blue. Yet California had already been trending Democratic at the state level even before the 1990s. What accelerated the shift wasn’t immigration itself but Republican Governor Pete Wilson’s decision to campaign aggressively against immigrants during the debate over Proposition 187, which sought to deny public services to undocumented immigrants. This stance alienated Hispanic voters and dramatically reduced the share of the Hispanic vote going to Republicans.

Texas tells the opposite story. There, Republicans embraced more pro-immigration messages and increased their share of the Hispanic vote. When George W. Bush ran for governor in 1994 on a pro-immigration platform, he won 28% of the Hispanic vote, compared to a low of 25% for Wilson. By 1998, Bush secured 50% of the Hispanic vote, while California Republican Dan Lungren earned only 17%.

And immigrants are assimilating faster than many realize. They learn English, become citizens, and climb the economic ladder at rates comparable to—or even surpassing—those of earlier waves of immigrants such as the Germans, Irish, and Italians. By the third generation, they are virtually indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestors arrived on the Mayflower.

History as Our Guide

The U.S. was essentially open to immigration until the 1920s. During that period, the country transformed from a relative backwater into the world’s richest nation. Research shows that areas with more immigrants had faster economic growth, less poverty, and higher wages.

The Mariel Boatlift of 1980—when Miami absorbed 125,000 Cubans in 42 days—is a natural experiment often cited to argue that mass immigration depresses wages. But when you examine the full data—including women’s earnings and longer-term trends—there’s little evidence of harm to natives. In fact, Miami thrived in the decades that followed.

The Puerto Rican experience is also illuminating. When the Supreme Court ruled in 1904 that Puerto Ricans were U.S. citizens, open migration followed. Rather than an overwhelming flood, migration built gradually over decades, rising when the economy was strong and falling during downturns. Open borders were self-regulating.

A Moral and Practical Imperative

When COVID-19 shut down the world, we saw firsthand the immense costs of restricting movement. In just a single year, global wealth fell by 3.4%. Immigration restrictions impose similar losses every year, quietly denying humanity trillions in prosperity.

Defenders of closed borders often invoke the precautionary principle: the idea that any possible downside, however unlikely, justifies stopping change. But if our ancestors had applied that logic, we’d still be living in caves. Progress requires risk, and immigration, in both theory and history, has been overwhelmingly beneficial.

It is time we rediscovered the moral courage to extend the presumption of liberty across borders. To recognize that every person, no matter where they are born, has the right to seek opportunity and build a better life. And to remember that welcoming newcomers isn’t just an act of compassion—it makes all richer and freer.