Bernie Sanders has come out against open borders, claiming they are a “right-wing proposal” that “would make everyone in America poorer.” He argues that, while we have a “moral responsibility” to “work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty... you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”

But there is a vast amount of literature showing that open borders could be the single best policy to alleviate global poverty. The free movement of people would enrich individuals by allowing them to move to where their specific skills and talents are most economically efficient and personally beneficial. According to Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development, open borders could lead to a one-time boost in world GDP of 50 to 150%.

Contra Senator Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president, open borders is a moral imperative for those who truly wish to help the world’s poor. If Sanders wishes to challenge mainstream economists on this fact, he must provide empirical evidence to back up his assertions. Otherwise, he deserves to be dismissed as just another politician, playing to domestic, nativist sentiments, rather than pursuing the economic policies that will benefit Americans and reduce global poverty.



The reduction in global poverty from opening borders would not come at the expense of American workers. There is a significant amount of evidence highlighting the absence of harm from increased immigration. Alex Nowrasteh, the immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, has found that immigrants tend to have different comparative advantages than native workers; low-skilled immigrants are vying for jobs that require different skills and talents than the ones that suit most Americans.



Sanders ignores the effect that workers’ comparative advantages have in the labor market. It simply isn’t true that more immigration means more competition for American jobs. It means more innovators, producers, consumers and shoppers. It means more people for Americans to trade with, buy from and sell to.

To see a real-world success story of open borders, Sanders only needs to look across the ocean. Thanks to the Schengen Agreement, the European Union – the biggest economy in the world – allows its 400 million citizens the freedom of movement between 26 European countries. Citizens travel freely without asking permission or filling out mountains of paperwork. The people of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and others weren’t lowering their standard of living when they adopted the Schengen agreement. Rather, they realized the free movement of people spurs economic growth.

This economic activity is not a zero-sum game where one person’s gain causes another person’s loss. Voluntary trade is a win-win relationship. Free exchanges don’t occur unless both parties stand to benefit.

Sanders claims that open borders are a “right-wing proposal” advocated by the Koch Brothers. But his own anti-immigrant sentiments are more characteristic of the conservative right than the progressive left. The only other presidential candidate running on an anti-immigration platform is Donald Trump. Like Sanders, Trump plays to domestic, nativist sentiments and views the US economy as a giant corporation that must be managed.

Preventing people from freely trading with their fellow humans because they happen to be born on the other side of a fence is more reminiscent of “separate but equal” laws that divided people based on arbitrary characteristics than it is of a compassionate, progressive society that provides opportunities for everyone to climb the socioeconomic ladder.

If Sanders wants a fair and just society, then he should campaign for a free flow of goods, ideas and most importantly, people.