A common political sentiment this election cycle is that immigration and international trade harm Americans and the U.S. economy. We have heard a narrative from both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump which asserts that the U.S. has disastrous trade agreements which eliminate manufacturing jobs and harm working Americans. The notion that Americans shouldn’t have to compete with immigrants in the domestic labor market or citizens of other countries in the global labor market is also more popular than ever. I reject these ideas, as there is no moral or economic case for restricting immigration or instituting protectionist, anti-trade economic policies. Open borders and open markets are economically and morally superior.
I want the U.S. border to be as open as possible. This is partially the case because I do not find arbitrarily drawn lines on a map to have any moral weight. That said, even those who believe in strong borders for national security purposes should welcome every immigrant seeking a better life. A massive influx of immigrants would undoubtedly lower wages in some sectors of the economy—especially if minimum wage laws were abolished, as some advocate for—but this is not a bad thing. Many immigrants who desperately need work to elevate themselves from extreme poverty find jobs. Businesses see lower input costs, consumers see lower prices and the most efficient and productive workers are employed.
One of the only counterarguments is the deplorable nationalistic sentiment that Americans deserve jobs more than immigrants merely because they are citizens. We generally hear this in the form of arguments that say we must “put Americans first” and keep all the immigrants out so they can’t compete in labor markets. This approach merely prevents the economic progress and growth that would occur from employing the workers that produce the most for the least pay. We wouldn’t reject the agricultural technology that allowed many people to stop subsistence farming on the basis that it would displace them from their jobs. Likewise, we shouldn’t reject immigrants who could possibly displace those with jobs in certain industries. Overall, if you’re not the best worker for the job, you need to find employment elsewhere—and your citizenship status or nationalistic attitudes don’t make you any more qualified or deserving.
One argument against international trade is that it is wrong to buy products from companies who don’t pay their workers much. With open international markets, essentially any industry that utilizes unskilled labor (except agriculture) has a global labor market. Companies in these industries can locate operations in many places, and they often choose locations outside of the United States to take advantage of lower input costs in the form of cheap and abundant labor. These companies are not being exploitative—they are merely allowing labor market participants to compete on price. People that work for what we consider a “low wage” are doing so because it improves their welfare. We do not need to reject international trade on the basis that international companies are exploiting others.
A more common argument we hear today against international trade is that it harms American manufacturing. Politicians bemoan the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the inability for brute manual labor to grant one access to the middle class. American manufacturing employment has declined, but output has grown because of technology. In other words, we are producing more stuff with fewer inputs, which is exactly what leads to economic growth and prosperity. If we take a protectionist approach to international trade by implementing tariffs or flat-out refusing to trade with certain countries, manufactured goods produced with unskilled labor will become more expensive.
For both the U.S. and the world to be as economically prosperous as possible, international trade must occur. America is simply not best at unskilled manufacturing, and it likely never will be again. We can’t become even more prosperous by trying to go back to the 1950s. The future of the U.S. economy depends on improving technologies and developing innovative new products and services. The era of being able to walk into a good job with no education or training is over.
The best path forward involves being open to immigration and open to international trade. Immigration and trade are economically beneficial in the long run, as they are critical to producing more output with fewer inputs and raising standards of living. Arguments against immigration that assert native-born Americans are more deserving of jobs than immigrants rely on selfish nationalistic beliefs that have no moral weight. The moral argument that international trade is exploitative is also false. Therefore, we need to usher in open borders and open markets to embrace the economic benefits and other advantages to people across the world of immigration and trade.
Tim is a sophomore majoring in finance and economics. Do you agree that nationalist trade policies do more harm than good to the American economy? Should American workers always receive preferential treatment over immigrants? Send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
