An argument for open global immigration

> Moving people from poor to rich nations does not do anything to help make the poor nations less poor; it only risks the problems coming over with the people.

It all depends on the rates, the degree of integration and the mentality of both the hosts and the immigrants. Some countries get this right, others fail miserably.

Yeah, did the article really address this at all? I think everyone agrees that most countries suck and it'd be great if every human could enjoy benefits like e.g. Canada. But it's not like "good" countries are magical. If you moved most of Africa and Latin America to North America, it seems unlikely all the services would just scale. After all, if that was the case, we could "just" make other countries better.

Also, personal anecdote, but out of the people I've met in Guatemala and expats in the US, essentially all of them recognize the US or Canada is way better and would prefer to live up North. The exceptions are the more better off, higher educated folks. And even then, it just takes a few reminders of the constant violence and insecurity to remind them and make them change their minds.

In the US there are states which would benefit from high immigration as opposed to the more popular coastal states.

I wonder if there is some way to use this as a way to ease some immigration laws.

Yeah it was very heavy on the emotional argument. Some folks in Guatemala even tried to claim asylum for all women on the account that Guatemala's a violent place. (Although the homicide rate against men is about 6x than women.) It sucks, but importing people isn't a real fix. (Now, the US taking over GT and running the government and all services... That'd be a real start, but folks get offended by that workable suggestion.)

Yeah, the root problem is everybody wants to move where everybody already is. Big cities have large immigrant communities because cities are walkable or transit-able and have, at the edges, cheap housing stock, so you don't need a car or large funds—you can just move in and start your life over. Then, when you move there, more people from where you were will move there and you will help them get acclimated, then those people will help more new people, then before you know it, where you set down roots is now "Little WhereICameFrom."

But, NYC breaks down if another 8 million people move into it. San Francisco is 1/10th the size of NYC and it already can't handle the people it has.

The only way fully open and accepted and world-wide immigration works is under unconscionable "living area restriction" schemes limiting already overly-popular areas. You either pick an "open" area (Idaho! North Dakota!) or slot new people into some pre-allocated catchment areas/states with restricted residency/transit for the first 5-15 years of their relocation? But, that sounds a bit too ghettoy.

China can build new cities in the blink of an eye, even if some of them end up going completely unused. The US can't maintain the cities it has and spends $30 billion to dig a new 2 mile subway ($5 billion towards cost, $25 billion towards corruption). There are solutions to "everybody wants to live in a better place" problems, but it takes organization, time, resources, a vision for a better future, and generosity. The world isn't currently offering those as a packaged deal. Be 70s forward-thinking-by-30-years-ahead California, not 2010s only-plan-for-6-months-later California.

But, that's assuming "aspirational" immigration where 30 million to 300 million people would want to move "to the west" for a chance at a better life. What about "i got mine, i just want to move" immigration? NYCLondon? SydneyChicago? Something between an educated worker visa and an investor visa? We don't have an answer for that. You are just incidental to a combination of where you were born and where your parents had citizenship at the time you started breathing outside the womb.