An argument for open global immigration • Hacker News Board

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#31

Post by ForHackernews » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:31 AM UTC

sologoub wrote: post #26

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…

> other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations

Plenty of poor countries are plagued by the legacy of crimes committed against them by rich countries (and in some cases, ongoing exploitation today).

It's pretty glib to write that off as "oh well, natural state of affairs"

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#32

Post by jogjayr » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

Something worth pointing out here: apart from the EU, there isn't even open immigration among rich countries. A Swede, (or Briton or Canadian) can't just decide to pack his things up and come to work in the US (though the visa waiver program for tourists is pretty sweet). There are still visa hoops to jump through, paperwork to be done. It's easier, if you're a rich-country-citizen, to move to another rich country, but by no means a done deal.

It's hard to make a logical argument that immigration controls exist purely for economic reasons; social services and weather apart, Sweden (or the UK or Canada) and the US have comparable standards of living and levels of English proficiency. None of the arguments against allowing unchecked immigration from poor countries to rich (education, overwhelming public services, falling wages etc) apply in this scenario and yet (again, apart from the EU), open immigration between roughly equally developed countries doesn't exist.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#33

Post by ajays » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

The problem with open migration is that then those with the means (even limited ones) get up and leave, leaving the rest even poorer. As a very loose analogy, think of it as evaporative cooling; it results in a net loss for the source.

Instead of short-term fixes (which include distributing food, clothes, etc.) I would hope that Western countries would actually help build up the infrastructure in these poor countries, and let them run their own affairs.

And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, stop propping up dictators all across the world, if that means our gas is $0.05 cheaper or our phones are $.25 cheaper.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#34

Post by pdonis » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:34 AM UTC

This article, to the extent it makes a valid argument at all, is not an argument for open immigration. It's an argument for removing barriers to adoption of children in poor countries by parents in rich countries. Extending that (valid) point to a claim about open immigration in general is not justified.

Also, I find at least one factual howler in the article: the claim that South Africa after the end of apartheid has been a stable country.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#35

Post by Torgo » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:38 AM UTC

Arguing that citizenship laws are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them is the left wing equivalent of the right wing argument that taxes are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#36

Post by seiferteric » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

throwitawayn9w wrote: post #28

jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is the problem I see with mass migration. People don't seem to consider the effects it will have on the society. For example, I want Northern European countries to continue to be secular and open, but what happens if millions of refugees from north Africa & the middle east come? Will they suddenly adopt the same values? That is doubtful, and if they become citizens and voters they can have a real impact in the direction of the country.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#37

Post by bjourne » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:52 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

The argument is that the fortunate has a moral obligation to help the unfortunate. It may be of religious origin (it's central in Christianity but probably also exists in Judaism and even earlier religions) or it may be just something that is a consequence of empathy.

Some people believe that people born handicapped should have to take care of themselves and that they shouldn't have to contribute anything (eg paying taxes) to their welfare, even if they die. Their lives is not their problem so why should they pay for something like handicapped children that they didn't cause?

I think you have a duty to help the less fortunate because that's the right thing to do, others may disagree. Scale the argument up, and fortunate countries have a duty to help less fortunate ones.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#38

Post by klagermkii » Sat, May 09, 2015, 12:59 AM UTC

Seems nuts to use South Africa as a case study for the potential success of opening borders, when it's in the grip of massive xenophobia against immigrants from upper Africa (that has already resulted in a number of murders).

http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic-attacks-2015-...

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#39

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 09, 2015, 1:01 AM UTC

throwitawayn9w wrote: post #28

jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#40

Post by sologoub » Sat, May 09, 2015, 1:09 AM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #31

sologoub wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> other countries are plagued by the missteps of their previous generations Plenty of poor countries are plagued by the legacy of crimes committed against them by rich countries (and in some cases, ongoing exploitation today). It's pretty glib to write that off as "oh well, natural state of affairs"

If you look back far enough, those same rich countries look no different than those who suffer today. What I'm not talking about is not social justice or fairness. It's the results of ones life and choices made that affect both people making those choices and those that come after them.

Arguably the greatest of the past empires, who probably fits your profile, is the British Empire. Look back far enough and Britain has been colonized itself several times. The populations there suffered.

Generations of those people worked to bring a better future and their descendants, as well as many others, enjoy the benefits of that work. Why should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor?

My own home is worse off because the cold war didn't go so well for them. Should I be bitter at the western capitalists for this or should I do what I can to build a better life? My personal view is that the latter is far more productive and is likely to result in better outcomes.