Hi Starchild,
Huummm...Not really. The pros and cons of open borders, I think, fall under a different rule in economics: The flow of immigration will move towards the areas of greater resources, untill the resources in all areas are equalized. Some people might not go for that.
Marcy
Marcy,
I think what you say here is correct in part. The flow of migration will be towards areas of greater wealth and opportunity (I assume that's what you mean by "greater resources," since Congo has fantastic resources but I know of few people trying to migrate there).
However this trend won't equalize wealth in all areas, and wouldn't have that result even if the entire planet were free of migration controls. The wealth of a particular country is largely dependent on how much freedom exists there over time. Freedom of movement is an important freedom, and places where people are unrestricted in their comings and goings will likely be wealthier, on average, then places where relocation is limited, but as you know many other factors determine societal wealth.
Of course if a lot of poor people suddenly migrate to a wealthy nation, it raises the probability that any particular person you might meet on the street there is poor. However this does not an indication that many people in that country are losing money, or that the society as a whole is becoming poorer. In fact, most are probably becoming wealthier, because immigration is generally an engine of wealth creation. It is one way in which the human ecosystem self-regulates, matching people with resources and opportunities. Taking away the ability to self-regulate and replacing it with government immigration controls produces the kind of results usually seen when government interferes in the economy.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>