Should receiving countries ban all forms of immigration because non-immigrant workers in the receiving country are hurt by immigration? Discuss.
What will be an ideal response?
POSSIBLE RESPONSE: The receiving country should not ban immigration because the native employees in the receiving country are hurt. The receiving country gains economic well-being because of immigration, even if the gains to the migrants themselves are ignored. Employers and consumers gain more than what the native workers lose. There are also other costs and benefits to the receiving country from immigration, but these also do not point toward banning immigration. These other benefits and costs of immigration include knowledge benefits, congestion costs, and social friction.
You might also like to view...
Scarcity affects only those who are in need
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
One In the News article in the text titled "The Real March Madness: Ticket Prices " described how professional scalpers use the Internet to sell hard-to-get tickets to concerts and sporting events. When scalpers resell tickets at prices closer to equilibrium,
A. A market shortage is made smaller, and the scalpers reap a profit. B. A market shortage is made larger, and the scalpers reap a profit. C. A market surplus is made smaller, and the scalpers reap a profit. D. A market shortage is made larger, and the original sellers reap a profit.
A horizontal long-run average cost curve indicates
A. constant returns to scale. B. constant marginal physical product. C. diseconomies of scale. D. economies of scale.
Suppose a 10% increase in the price of steak reduces the consumption of steak by 30%. Such a price rise will induce households to spend
A. more of their income on steak. B. the same amount on steak as before. C. less of their income on steak. D. more on products that are complementary with steak.