This @mattyglesias thread illustrates well the weakness of the "tight labor markets, loose borders" position. One bad sign is his failure to link to the article he's criticizing, which helpfully provides evidence from WaPo, WSJ, and The Economist. (1/9) https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1343261695884537858

Another bad sign is his standard: "clear and compelling evidence [of] large gains for most natives." That's the sort of legal maneuver you make when you've lost on the merits. I wonder how many of the policies that he (or anyone) supports would pass. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1343262055361622017

Implicit in his argument is assignment of a high weight to the interests of non-Americans versus lower-income American households. As I wrote, that's fair enough and perfectly coherent. It's just not good for American workers, and it's not going to win.

Matt then presents the standard talking point that flooding the labor market's low end with supply might raise wages, because demand will increase too. This is the liberal Laffer Curve... tax cuts could hypothetically increase revenue, who's to say?! https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1343262617243164673?s=20

This is a transparently unserious argument, which I discuss in The Once and Future Worker. Yes, immigrants increase both supply and demand. But someone in a given segment of the labor market represents a _concentrated_ increase in supply and a _diffuse_ increase in demand.

Which brings us to Matt's final point -- you can always admit more skilled people. Yes! Setting an annual immigration level and then skewing it heavily toward skilled immigrants would be great policy. Would Matt actually support it? https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1343263850041200641?s=20

I doubt this. For one thing, it would require enforcement. Is Matt willing to enforce our immigration laws? The tighter our labor market gets and the more wages at the bottom rise, the stronger the attraction to immigrate illegally. America has to be willing to hold the line.

One might also wonder, incidentally, whether attracting as many skilled immigrants to America as possible is beneficial to the poorer non-American populations that Matt declares earlier to be the main focus of his policy. Is brain-drain welfare-enhancing under Matt's framework?

In summary: "tight labor markets, loose borders" ignores evidence, deprioritizes Americans workers, applies ridiculous standards, and requires ever-shifting rationales. At the end, you STILL have to admit we need better enforcement. Good luck with that. https://americancompass.org/the-commons/worker-power-loose-borders-pick-one/