[001sky]

Protectionism in terms of differential pricing of goods in many cases to protect local industries and jobs is considered against free trade

-- People have associated liabilities, (human rights, etc) unlike goods (unecumbered economic assets).

That is why there is not free-trade in people. Goods do not come with the need for educating, healthcare, housing etc. The thrust of your argument is correct, in that yes this is a form of protectionism. But its more an issue of political economy than economics in the narrow sense. The narrow sense economic argument is, therefore, arguably misplaced in this context. Its conclusions do not follow.[1]

But it's not a bad question, and certainly one that deserves a good answer and careful consideration at all levels. Hope this helps.

___________________

[1] Think of similar narrow-scope-argument: why don't we buy/sell people like commodities? Instead, we find it politically acceptavle to have a market for ony the labour. Etcs.

[gkamal]

Thanks. I appreciate the difference and understand the need for taking other things into consideration for allowing immigration.

But most of the arguments made in this thread and other similar debates - the main point is about the economics associated with it. By not allowing companies to pay lower wages to foreign workers the wages of the local market is being protected.

In the short term bringing down the wages would be unfair to the employees in the local market - as they have probably paid a higher price to acquire education, healthcare, housing etc. But in the longer term those inefficiencies would also get addressed.

The same argument applies to opening up the markets for goods and services. In the short term the local producers of goods are subjected to competition which will result in many of them going out of business which indirectly effects the people employed by them.

[001sky]

Again, these are good points. As i like to say, there are two kinds of political economy.

1) <Political Policy> that supports the Economy (in general);and

2) <Economic Policy> that has been Politicised to supports a particular group of people

Nations are always looking out for themselves, but then so too are politicians (and their $supporters). =D

It is usefull, though, to seperate them. In that sense, the default logic of economics in a politicised argument should not (IMHO) be deferred to [just because]. It should be viewed as critically as a political policy (ie Art, not 'Science'...its not objective etc). And also debated thus and put into perspective also.

That's why many debates on immigration, etc get so far off track and/or are difficult to conclude with much progress. Folks conflating the two ideas and the standards of judgement, performance, opportunity cost, etc.

__________

On the substance of your point:

By not allowing companies to pay lower wages to foreign workers the wages of the local market is being protected.

The answer is yes, it is being protected. But this is a normal thing. Also what is being protected is the political Atom of <citizenship>. This is not something that should, in general, be commoditized. Thus, the "permeability" of the body politic (at the level of citizenry) is a legitimate debate, but its a political one, not a one-dimensional one in terms of wages/pricing etc.

So, to advance the debate, the question needs to be reframed a bit: what is the optimum level of social-permeability desired to grant title: citizen (or: greencarde, etc) for a nation state? And the you have to address issues of other kinds.

For example, do you care more about well to do foreigners than your less well-off existing compatriots? This is sort of an empathy argument (vs. efficiency). And in part its a longer term argument (are citizens more efficient working with some safety net underneath them?)/etc.

Right now in the usa, "merit" is not really a big goal of immigration policy. Can't say I agree with this, but the policy was revised to be more about human-right/family etc. So, if you are an immigrant general labororer US citizen it might be you get your cousin a greencard. But a regular no-strings PhD in astrophysics or whateve is not at any advantage vs the cousin of the general labourer (in fact just the opposite).

But family and the like is the ultimate sort of political argument. On the one hand, its very emotional (for those involved). And on the other hand, their are very specific special interests at play (important, process wise). So, you can see this is not something just totally possible to ignore, intellectually or practically.

Each country is different, though, in these ideas. Places like Australia have been know to offer more open merit-based immigration. Canada too, I believe.