[SilasX]

Yes, but, (importantly) only if the immigration isn't so rapid that it destroys the cultural and social capital that makes the wealthier countries desirable targets of immigration in the first place.

Caplan has very insightful remarks about the benefits of immigration and the inconsistency of current policy on it. But he is unhelpfully silent on the question of the upper bound on ideal peaceful immigration, and yes, there certainly is one. Taking his ideas literally, we should be totally okay with Chinese army regulars "peacefully" immigrating, then using their free trade rights to import their weaponry. Sure, enacting their "takeover America" plan would be worthy of opposing (and violating free trade/movement ideals), but by then it's too late.

(Before you flame me: no I'm not saying that this would be the result of relaxing immigration policy; please read it carefully and flame me for the right reason.)

There has to be some principle that tells you when you are allowing in too many immigrants, which would stop you before you reach that point, and Caplan shows far too little interest in articulating it.

[mcantelon]

I get the impression that these "open borders" advocates are utterly uninterested in the fallout in the West. The advantage of open borders for the economic elite is it will likely drive down Western labor costs and will further weaken the union movement. Labor costs and union strength have already been dramatically reduced by globalization: another idea promoted using similar rhetoric.