Paper Sample on Free Movement: A Possible Solution to Global Poverty

Introduction

The article, meant for general audiences, presents free movement as a possible solution to global poverty. The reduction of poverty is among the Sustainable Development Goals. Through various measures over the years, great strides have been made towards reducing global poverty. However, millions of people around the world still live in poverty. Moreover, an increase in the income gap between the developed and developing economies has been witnessed in recent years. As such, there is a need for the world to develop a more comprehensive solution to this problem. Economists and other stakeholders have identified the opening of borders and easing restrictions on the movement of people as one of the most potent solutions to the problem (Raviv). In their view, border restrictions are a missed opportunity in the fight against global poverty. However, their proposal has been opposed on the grounds that uncontrolled immigration would hurt local economies and probably lead to the rise of political extremities in the destination countries. Shaun Raviv presents evidence supporting the proposal and possible solutions to problems associated with immigration, thus calling for stakeholders to consider freer movement as a golden opportunity to eliminate poverty in the world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Evidence that Immigration Reduces Poverty

The author’s main argument is that the opening of borders would help lift millions of people around the world from poverty and double the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Supported by different economists and advocates, an “open borders” movement has been gaining momentum over the years. The movement is founded on the belief “that individuals should be able to move between countries at will” (Raviv). The advocates for freer movement also hold that any restriction of movement of people across borders is a violation of the right of self-determination. They argue that the same way an American from rural Mississipi cannot be prevented from seeking better opportunities in New York City, the millions of poor people in developing economies should not be denied access to the rich labor markets in the developed world. Using an analogy presented by Michael Huemer, of a starving child who is prevented from buying food from the market, the article also presents restriction of movement as immoral (Raviv).

The work of Michael Clemens, a respected economist, is often cited to support the push to open borders. While he agrees that more research needs to be carried in the field, he calls restrictions on movement, “an epic intuition fail” (Raviv). According to him, development is not about places but people. Were borders to be opened, he argues that the global economy would gain tens of trillions of dollars (Raviv). Research shows that large percentages of people in developing economies who live above the poverty line reside in foreign countries. This, therefore, is a confirmation that a freer movement of people would significantly address global poverty. The article also argues that due to weak infrastructure, mass corruption, and frail academic institutions, the productivity of workers in the developing world is greatly suppressed. As such, opening up borders would increase their productivity, and ultimately improve the global economy.

Opposition to Open Border

While the above discussion presents freer movement as a potential solution to global poverty, various arguments have been raised to oppose it. For instance, it has been argued that immigrants hurt local economies by taking up jobs meant for the domestic population. It has also been argued that immigrants increase taxpayers’ burden and hurt local cultures and liberty. Political externalities are also another issue raised in opposition to freer immigration. Most of the people willing to emigrate are from developing countries “with failed political system” (Raviv). As such, there is a fear that were the people from these regions to migrate into a particular country en masse, they would bring some of their domestic problems such as bad policies to the destination country (Raviv).

However, the article presents solutions to these problems. For example, to mask the effect of immigrants on the workforce, they can be charged higher admission fees or taxes. The higher revenue can then be used to compensate the locals who lose their jobs. Research has also revealed that the claim that immigrants lead to a reduction of wages is not valid. For instance, in one of his studies, Clemens established that decades of immigration into the United States reduced wages by just a fraction of a percent. On the contrary, the income of the immigrants was increased by 100% or 1000%, further confirming the potential of immigration to address global poverty (Raviv). Clemens also challenged the belief that immigration leads to the loss of jobs. He argued that locals get better jobs as a result of immigration. For instance, managers who are usually Americans are often needed to manage immigrants. Besides, in sectors such as agriculture, “for every three seasonal workers who are brought in, one American job is created across all sectors” (Raviv). To cater to the needs of the immigrants, more Americans would also be involved in the production and sale of various products. Therefore, contrary to public belief, immigration has a positive effect on local economies.

To reduce the burden on taxpayers, immigrants can be exempted from the welfare system. To address the impact of immigrants on culture, cultural literacy, and English fluency tests can be made mandatory. The author presents these solutions to show that the opposition raised against immigration can easily be addressed. Also, the article seeks to show that the problem of global poverty far outweighs the dangers associated with immigration. Regardless of the issues associated with immigration, opening up borders would see a “rapid elimination of absolute poverty on earth” (Raviv). However, the dangers posed by immigration should not be ignored. The article only presents keyhole solutions, even for challenges that need more drastic measures. Therefore, were borders to be opened, countries would have to develop more comprehensive and drastic strategies to mitigate the effects. There is also a need to involve more prominent figures in the movement to make the voice louder (Raviv).

Conclusion

Through the use of evidence from various studies and reliance on the words of different experts, the author confirms that the freer movement of people is a potential solution to the issue of global poverty. To justify this claim, the author points out that a considerable percentage of people in developing economies who are above the poverty line reside in foreign countries. The article also seeks to deconstruct some of the myths associated with immigration, which have, for years, been used to oppose the push to have more open borders. For instance, the author proves that immigration has a negligible effect on wages in the destination countries. On the contrary, the income of the immigrants rises by more than 100%, hence lifting them out of poverty. The article also offers solutions to some of the problems associated with immigration. However, as mentioned, more drastic measures are needed to mitigate the effects of immigration were borders to be opened.

Works Cited

Raviv, Shaun. "If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated?" 26 April 2013. The Atlantic. 2 August 2020. <https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-people-could-immigrate-anywhere-would-poverty-be-eliminated/275332/>.