Live data from Hacker News

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

spot.colorado.edu

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#81
First, let's start with the fact that "rights" are a human construct, and have only been allowed insomuch as there's no conflict with society or governments. My belief is that immigration SHOULD be unlimited in an ideal world, but given the current state of the world, should be very limited.

The main problem is that immigration creates definite winners and losers. Even if you believe in the "right" of someone to move to a place that has more economic opportunity, what happens to the social dynamic and economy in the place they immigrate, and more importantly, from where they emigrate? Once upon a time people talked about "brain drain", but it seems we've either forgotten about it, or just don't care anymore, content to impose a second round of colonisation on the developing world.

The fact is, excessive immigration steals the brightest minds from developing countries and prevents their further development. It's great for the west (notwithstanding social effects); we get a never-ending source of labour that's willing to work for less than the indigenous population in the same field (salary arbitrage), while being able to draw from a pool of skilled workers far larger than our actual population.

So then this leads to the problem: it's great for the west, so our governments push migration. It prevents development of developing nations, keeping their living standards low. So what's the end game? I personally want to believe in a Utopian future where Accra could be every bit as developed as say, New York or Paris. Where migration isn't an economic issue. However if we continue as we have, migration will only cause more nations to become like Somalia, Libya, Syria; we steal all their human capital and, impoverished with no capacity to develop, they radicalise, we kill them with drones, and we're essentially living in a completely stratified world.

Anyhow, this worst case scenario probably won't happen because realistically, no single country can take in all the economic migrants of the world, but we do need to realise that when it comes to immigration, there are definite losers. Immigration is basically colonialism round 2. But it continues because, to the immigrants, it's an optimal personal decision to immigrate. For the host nation, they're accumulating human capital. The nation they're leaving loses.

And I'll finish with a quote from Thabo Mbeki, past president of South Africa, which I shamelessly ripped from a relevant Wikipedia page:

"In our world in which the generation of new knowledge and its application to change the human condition is the engine which moves human society further away from barbarism, do we not have need to recall Africa's hundreds of thousands of intellectuals back from their places of emigration in Western Europe and North America, to rejoin those who remain still within our shores!

I dream of the day when these, the African mathematicians and computer specialists in Washington and New York, the African physicists, engineers, doctors, business managers and economists, will return from London and Manchester and Paris and Brussels to add to the African pool of brain power, to enquire into and find solutions to Africa's problems and challenges, to open the African door to the world of knowledge, to elevate Africa's place within the universe of research the information of new knowledge, education and information."

And a page that touches on the issue of human capital flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good question! I don't know. Our stunts in Central America were pretty recent.

How long should the statue of limitations be? The European colonial powers fucked around South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

There should not be a statue of limitations.

Americans act as is 20 years even is ancient history.

Even after 100 or 150 years, a huge damage can still resonate to a country.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as…

I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag. I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew. Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

So, do you think our current right-wing government will ban gay marriage?

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

> How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution. One word; remittances. They already make up far more money than foreign aid, and the best part is that it's far harder for corrupt governments to get their hands on it. Don't underestimate the passion those few people who enter the country has for their families back home.

Remittances are huge, hence the suggestion to halt/tax them was such a blow to Mexico: millions of households suddenly unable to pay rent/utilities -- it'd be a cascading nightmare.

So the answer is to let X% of the population in so 5X% can receive foreign money but still be subjected to a broken environment?

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#85
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag. I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew. Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)

And that guns make people safer.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#86
post #50
post #28

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from univers…

Although the author is a libertarian, I don't think his views express what libertarians in general think about it. Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property. In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society. How that should work in the context of State regulati…

Libertarians also have a lot of internal divisions. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a "libertarian socialist" and gets along as well with the Cato Institute as a Trump supporter at a BLM rally.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#87
post #39
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. Based on this: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings... The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries. Likely a larger percentage o…

I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.

>I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.

I don't know them, but I'll take your word for it. However, will point out that it is in no way worse than the source you provided (no source)

How about Migration Watch?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-count...

Compared to the total non-UK born population, Pakistan + Bangladesh are a tiny blip.

Another source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politi...

More from the ONS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#88
post #48
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate refle…

NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism. Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that…

Economics is rationalism. Literally.

And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group.

If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration, guess what? Your social group dies.

If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in their hands, guess who's going to dominate?

There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die.

And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower crime rate than natives.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#89
post #26

Why do people get away with pretending that rights come from the sky?

To treat them any other way is to call into question the foundations of progressive/enlightened ideology. Movements, ideologies, and factions all must have a point of departure, and this point is predicated on assumptions. Liberal Western thought wanted equality but needed to remove god (as equality under a godhead was undesirable). Enlightenment thinkers felt free to say and do as they wished, so they formalized the feeling into an argument of the universality of rights. Whether they are god given or inherent, they must exist for the rest of the progressive framework to maintain its structure.

The question i find interesting is, "how long will people like me get away with believing that rights come from rifles?"

Post reply on HN