open-borders
Original: open-borders on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
Transcript
[Top banner, narration from the author]
Hey geeks! Want to follow along with my latest book, a serious novel? I made a companion brain capsule. I'm here for a political topic, so it takes not to your liking. Please press "X" twice to enjoy today's bonus double update. If you're interested in immigration policy or just in following an interesting non-fiction generally, please read on.
Oh, and if you don't want the book, click anywhere on the comic to buy now.
Thinking for reading, geeks!
-Zach
[Comic begins. A man with flame-like reddish hair (the author/narrator avatar) and a woman talk.]
Author: Hey geeks! I'm a little nervous about this announcement. I have a new book coming out, but it's on a political topic. Specifically, it's a personal nonfiction look at immigration policy in the modern context.
[Caption on a small image: "We're mostly talking about the US, but a lot of the concepts are broadly applicable."]
Woman: Is this thing on?
Author: I usually do my best to keep my politics out of my game, mostly because I don't want to feel off-putting. So why am I taking on this book in such a contentious topic in modern politics?
[Two figures running.]
Figure: Well, first of all, when I started shipping this thing a few years ago, I thought it was only like the 4th most controversial topic. So... oops.
Figure: But second, it matters a lot!
[A man at a podium / lectern, and a globe/map.]
Narration: My co-author is Bryan Caplan, an economist, professor of economics, and a sort of all-around controversialist. And a bit of a contrarian.
Narration: The basic idea is lots of thinkers, and not just the right wing, increasingly think that there are massive moral and economic upsides to a more open immigration policy. In theory, opening borders could nearly DOUBLE the size of the world economy. That would make people richer, healthier, and happier.
[Author.]
Author: Unfortunately, this data on immigration are often misunderstood by think and folks alike. I'm not going to do a "both sides" argument here, because it makes sense in many ethical or political frameworks to take this... a bit of a more centrist view about any number of issues. We can't be surprised by people even offending some.
Author: First, a simple moral case: if someone can go to a market to trade for the things they want, why does a government get to stop them?
For example, if someone gets to a market to trade for things they need, when is it morally acceptable to stop them? Under many conditions, is it morally acceptable to stop them?
Our answer: Not many!
Author: But people make many of our views have lots of legitimate objections, so the second and largest part of the book is our attempt to explain and refute the most common objections, such as:
[A series of small figures, each raising an objection.]
Objection: Won't immigrants be unusually criminal?
Objection: Won't they likely be terrorists?
Objection: Won't they uniquely be a threat to our culture and politics?
Objection: Won't they crowd us out?
Objection: Won't they take all the welfare money?
Author: We even get into hard questions, like obscure and uncomfortable questions.
Figure: Do national immigration scores matter?
Figure: Arguably, probably not?
Figure: Should measurements of immigrants' intelligence in their countries matter much?
Figure: Arguably, probably not. But if they do, why should we be even more egalitarian?
Author: The final part of the book is an argument that open borders is the most pragmatic case as long as you don't fully buy into our argument. The point is, even if you don't agree with us, we'd want to advocate for a less restrictive "America First" framework.
Author: So make ample of our theory on an emotional appeal, or a grand theory of history. We're not calling you racist. We're talking about reading from today on bad things done by any particular political side.
Author: We are trying to persuade you that based on your own moral precepts and on careful consideration of economics, that a world of open immigration is a healthier, safer, more humane world.
Figure: I hate reading. This is crazy.
Figure: Then you, I think, will like it. We tried to make it humane and funny. Yeah! Even Caplan once said a strangely-strained look at the data.
Figure: We don't really want to buy anything other than a sample. Frankly, after that I'd really just naysayers and we think the numbers support our side.
Figure: If you're really on the fence, please consider this a great argument with a lot more information and a wealth of context that you brain and others have built over the last 50 years.
Author: If you're on the fence, believe this is the most pragmatic case. We can make. So get to know how it goes, so please include or follow in your endeavor.
Author: And if after reading you think we're more humane villains... well, consider that there is none in your heart, even if it kills us all to prevent even offending some.
Woman/figure: Thanks for reading geeks. I promise to get back to bad math fundamentals tomorrow.
[A man at a podium gives a thumbs up.]
Votey: "I don't like your angle on immigration." / "Now, don't be obtuse."
Hey geeks! Want to follow along with my latest book, a serious novel? I made a companion brain capsule. I'm here for a political topic, so it takes not to your liking. Please press "X" twice to enjoy today's bonus double update. If you're interested in immigration policy or just in following an interesting non-fiction generally, please read on.
Oh, and if you don't want the book, click anywhere on the comic to buy now.
Thinking for reading, geeks!
-Zach
[Comic begins. A man with flame-like reddish hair (the author/narrator avatar) and a woman talk.]
Author: Hey geeks! I'm a little nervous about this announcement. I have a new book coming out, but it's on a political topic. Specifically, it's a personal nonfiction look at immigration policy in the modern context.
[Caption on a small image: "We're mostly talking about the US, but a lot of the concepts are broadly applicable."]
Woman: Is this thing on?
Author: I usually do my best to keep my politics out of my game, mostly because I don't want to feel off-putting. So why am I taking on this book in such a contentious topic in modern politics?
[Two figures running.]
Figure: Well, first of all, when I started shipping this thing a few years ago, I thought it was only like the 4th most controversial topic. So... oops.
Figure: But second, it matters a lot!
[A man at a podium / lectern, and a globe/map.]
Narration: My co-author is Bryan Caplan, an economist, professor of economics, and a sort of all-around controversialist. And a bit of a contrarian.
Narration: The basic idea is lots of thinkers, and not just the right wing, increasingly think that there are massive moral and economic upsides to a more open immigration policy. In theory, opening borders could nearly DOUBLE the size of the world economy. That would make people richer, healthier, and happier.
[Author.]
Author: Unfortunately, this data on immigration are often misunderstood by think and folks alike. I'm not going to do a "both sides" argument here, because it makes sense in many ethical or political frameworks to take this... a bit of a more centrist view about any number of issues. We can't be surprised by people even offending some.
Author: First, a simple moral case: if someone can go to a market to trade for the things they want, why does a government get to stop them?
For example, if someone gets to a market to trade for things they need, when is it morally acceptable to stop them? Under many conditions, is it morally acceptable to stop them?
Our answer: Not many!
Author: But people make many of our views have lots of legitimate objections, so the second and largest part of the book is our attempt to explain and refute the most common objections, such as:
[A series of small figures, each raising an objection.]
Objection: Won't immigrants be unusually criminal?
Objection: Won't they likely be terrorists?
Objection: Won't they uniquely be a threat to our culture and politics?
Objection: Won't they crowd us out?
Objection: Won't they take all the welfare money?
Author: We even get into hard questions, like obscure and uncomfortable questions.
Figure: Do national immigration scores matter?
Figure: Arguably, probably not?
Figure: Should measurements of immigrants' intelligence in their countries matter much?
Figure: Arguably, probably not. But if they do, why should we be even more egalitarian?
Author: The final part of the book is an argument that open borders is the most pragmatic case as long as you don't fully buy into our argument. The point is, even if you don't agree with us, we'd want to advocate for a less restrictive "America First" framework.
Author: So make ample of our theory on an emotional appeal, or a grand theory of history. We're not calling you racist. We're talking about reading from today on bad things done by any particular political side.
Author: We are trying to persuade you that based on your own moral precepts and on careful consideration of economics, that a world of open immigration is a healthier, safer, more humane world.
Figure: I hate reading. This is crazy.
Figure: Then you, I think, will like it. We tried to make it humane and funny. Yeah! Even Caplan once said a strangely-strained look at the data.
Figure: We don't really want to buy anything other than a sample. Frankly, after that I'd really just naysayers and we think the numbers support our side.
Figure: If you're really on the fence, please consider this a great argument with a lot more information and a wealth of context that you brain and others have built over the last 50 years.
Author: If you're on the fence, believe this is the most pragmatic case. We can make. So get to know how it goes, so please include or follow in your endeavor.
Author: And if after reading you think we're more humane villains... well, consider that there is none in your heart, even if it kills us all to prevent even offending some.
Woman/figure: Thanks for reading geeks. I promise to get back to bad math fundamentals tomorrow.
[A man at a podium gives a thumbs up.]
Votey: "I don't like your angle on immigration." / "Now, don't be obtuse."
Alt text
A SMBC promotional comic for the author's nonfiction book on immigration policy, co-written with economist Bryan Caplan. A top banner from the author (a man with flame-like reddish hair) introduces the "bonus double update" and invites readers either to follow along or to click the comic to buy the book, signed "Zach." Across many small panels the author and various simple stick-style figures lay out the book's argument: he is nervous about taking on a contentious political topic; the book makes a moral and economic case that more open immigration could nearly double the size of the world economy and make people richer, healthier, and happier. He notes the book's largest section addresses common objections, shown as small figures each raising one: that immigrants will be unusually criminal, be terrorists, threaten culture and politics, crowd people out, or take all the welfare money. The author insists they aren't calling readers racist and want to persuade through moral precepts and economics. He closes by thanking the "geeks" and promising to return to "bad math fundamentals" tomorrow, while a man at a lectern gives a thumbs up. The votey is a hand-drawn black-on-white panel with text only, a two-line exchange that puns on geometry: "I don't like your angle on immigration." "Now, don't be obtuse."
Transcribed by Claude Opus 4.8.