Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An argument for open global immigration

reprints.longform.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#21

Post by icebraining »

kazagistar wrote: post #5

> So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been blinded to the fact that it’s morally indefensible to divide the people on Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely out of their control. This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of c…

Moving people from poor to rich nations does not do anything to help make the poor nations less poor

Yes, they do. There are hundreds of billions of dollars every year being sent as remittances from those workers to their families in those poor countries.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#22

Post by treedy »

Open borders will never happen, because it would bankrupt rich countries (sadly, it appears that the recent wave of African refugees in the Med are heading for Northern European welfare states for this reason). Also, there are many people who lack the aptitude and desire to leave their first-world home countries-they will simply be out-competed by migrants (most third world migrants who open little shops tend to employ people from the home country rather than locals).

There are ways to help poor third world countries: 1) focus on ameliorating eradicating the worst forms of preventable suffering. Bill Gates is doing this. Improve childhood nutrition to reduce stunting. 2) Trade with them. While Europe and the U.S. were bailing out their banks, South African corporations have been getting rich selling satellite TV, cellphone services and introducing chain supermarkets to Africans. You see, they want the same things that the rest of us have. Invest in their countries and make a profit. That will help them in the medium-long term.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#23

Post by jbapple »

kazagistar wrote: post #5

> So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been blinded to the fact that it’s morally indefensible to divide the people on Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely out of their control. This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of c…

> We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of course, the author does not want to make this argument directly, because doing so would actually make the counterarguments more obvious, so the focus is instead based on emotion.

Can you elaborate on what counterarguments you're thinking of that become "more obvious"?

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#24

Post by josu »

kazagistar wrote: post #5

> So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been blinded to the fact that it’s morally indefensible to divide the people on Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely out of their control. This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of c…

>The second problem with the "free migration solves everything" hypothesis is that the wealth and health of a nation exist as a direct consequence of the existence of the barriers, both political and cultural, rather then some arbitrary geographic accident.

There is a very nice example in Spain, there are two autonomous regions next to each other (there isn't any kind of border): Cantabria and the Basque Country[1], the former has a GDP per capita of 20,855 euros while the latter one 29,683euros. The same language is spoken in both [2], and the cultural diferences are minimal.

The reason while wealth of nation exists nobody knows, and nobody may ever know.

[1] http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Comunidades_y_ciudades_au... [2] While some government jobs may require being able to speak Basque, 2/3 of the Basque Country don't speak Basque, and there isn't any kind of discrimination.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#25

Post by [deleted] »

kazagistar wrote: post #5

> So accustomed are we to this game of geographical roulette that we have been blinded to the fact that it’s morally indefensible to divide the people on Earth into rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, victims and survivors according to a criterion that is largely arbitrary and completely out of their control. This is a weak argument. We do this for wealth in general: the mechanism is called inheritance. Of c…

[deleted]

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#26

Post by sologoub »

mynameishere wrote: post #12

Just skimmed it. His "argument" seems to be an emotional appeal that poor people in poor countries can improve their lives by moving to Western countries. This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for. Poor countries…

The other point the article seems to completely miss is that it's natural for parents to pass on the fruits of their labor to children. Societies place limits on inheritance to help balance the wealth accumulation, but in general, this ability is see as integral to a health society with strong incentives for building a better future.

The fact that children in the well off countries benefit enormously from the work of previous generations is a very natural and positive fact. Unfortunately, the flip side of this is that other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations. These are hardly questions of fairness, as a misstep could be having a weaker army in the face of an aggressor, but it is a fact of life.

Being an immigrant myself, I cherish the opportunity I have to make a better life for my family and work to make the most of it, but I will never dispute the right of the people of a given country to protect what their fathers and mothers have built for them.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#27

Post by smil »

A country can have open borders or a social safety net, not both. If you choose the latter, you're effectively denying the existing population the services they have already paid for, for themselves and their offspring, through their taxes.

So, in an open border society, it would make no sense to pay taxes because they wouldn't give you as a tax payer anything.

For this reason, global corporations who want zero tax rates and the supply of the entire world's population to hire from and effectively pay slave wages, and these "progressives" are united in their wish to dismantle the welfare state.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#28

Post by throwitawayn9w »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
Retric wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the equivelent of robbing someone and giving that to charity. Consider is you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into the US just how much chaos that would creat. Now reolise there are several times that many people who would like to live in the US. As a general rule if something is significantly worse for group A and better for group B, but group A makes the choice your argument falls on deaf…

> Consider is you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into the US just how much chaos that would creat. From the point of view of the Native Americans, that's roughly what happened already. Only thing different is language this time around, not that all of the original immigrants into America spoke English, and not that all of the current people there do.

It should be remembered that this resulted in the nearly complete destruction of Native American civilization.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#29

Post by mlinksva »

schoen wrote: post #2

The title takes on a striking significance about 3/4 of the way through the article. I bet most readers won't see that coming. I sure didn't.

I knew where it was going the moment I saw the title. Pity more people don't know about http://yves-bonnardel.info/en/manifesto-for-the-abolition-of...

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#30

Post by patmcguire »

mynameishere wrote: post #12

Just skimmed it. His "argument" seems to be an emotional appeal that poor people in poor countries can improve their lives by moving to Western countries. This is probably true, but it's absolutely true that it not the responsibility of people in Western countries to help the billions of poor in this world by importing them. That's called the "White Man's Burden" and it's exactly what he's arguing for. Poor countries…

We're not talking about a system where people would rather stay at home, and the Western countries decide they know better and take them away.

We're talking about a situation where people desperately want to get to Western countries, so much so that they risk their lives journeys of hundreds of miles over deserts on foot and oceans in shitty boats, and the Western states are employing thousands of people to keep them out.

This isn't "Take Ye Up The White Man's Burden," this is "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

Post reply on HN