41–50 of 59 posts
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...
I have been thinking about this a lot since living in what was then still the Third World (Taiwan, with visits to Hong Kong and to China when China was still very poor) in the 1980s. Today, Taiwan is wealthy, and is on track to be one of the richest countries in the world by 2050.[1] Taiwan is far from having open immigration so far, but it has taken in tens of thousands of guest workers from other, poorer countries…
Furthermore, I would argue that the modern US government was _invented_ during the era of closed borders. Consider the New Deal's various incarnations, Social Security, robust regulation of business, the Wagner Act, etc. Continuing on to post war managerialism. Libertarians may want Guilded Age business policy and immigration policy, but a lot of people just want to cherry pick the immigration policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 h…
To me, open borders are an obvious thing to strive for.
The only reason not to have them is as a sort of hack to hold together systems that are going to fall apart eventually anyway (e.g. welfare systems that treat people differently based on a bit of land they were born on).
It really seems to me that the only argument against is basically 'I deserve my wealth'.
Can people not see how ridiculous the current scenario is? Westerners are basically superhumans, welcome almost anywhere, with a bunch of money that allows them to basically go colonial if they decide to leave.
Just be honest with yourself. You can be hypocritical and vote against it whilst accepting that it makes sense.
Similar example: meat production, especially battery hens etc. It is mind blowingly obviously a cruel and bad thing to do. You can accept that and still eat meat. You don't have to lie to yourself and others and pretend that you have a 'different opinion' or whatever.
I use and buy leather. I know that it is not morally a nice thing to do. But I am human, I have vices, I am imperfect. What I refuse to do is somehow pretend that it makes sense or is kind or rational or should be done.
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…
ISTM that if you want a proper free market you have to allow free movement of both labor and capital. Willingness to work is what the poor have instead of capital, and it's their only option for accumulating some capital. Furthermore, if you have open immigration that means migrant labor is also free to leave during times of low demand because departure isn't necessarily a one-way ticket, which means that labor markets can be more flexible and responsive to economic conditions.
I am extremely distrustful of free market advocates who say that their principles suddenly shouldn't apply where labor is concerned. Last time we tried that inside the US, with towns posting signs telling economic migrants to keep going and using vagrancy laws to criminalize the poor, it didn't work out well for anyone. We shouldn't be looking to go back to that.
Really, we're approaching an era of increasing wage equalization as more and more of the world falls out of abject poverty, such that wealthy countries like the US may well face demographic problems from about 2030 onwards due to an inability to attract sufficient numbers of younger migrants to offset the fiscal costs of looking after retirees.
I refer you to this study from the Social Security Advisory board for a more in-depth explanation: http://www.ssab.gov/documents/immig_issue_brief_final_versio...
> 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],…
It's also important to know that advantages and disadvantages carry over with time, so a place might be doing much better than another because of semi-arbitrary decisions over the years. Like why does Madrid do better than Toledo? Once the capital moves to Madrid, investment moves towards Madrid, and the one real reason they keep doing better it's this original investment, that brings people, which brings more investment.
Sometimes the differences aren't so arbitrary, but are down to bad bets. In the 1800s, Chicago bet on the power of Rail, St. Louis on the river. The river became less important, while rail became more important, so Chicago got way bigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 h…
Is that a rhetorical question? Most people would agree it's unjust to punish children for the sins of their fathers, why is it any more just to reward children for the sins of their forefathers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
> Why should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor? Is that a rhetorical question? Most people would agree it's unjust to punish children for the sins of their fathers, why is it any more just to reward children for the sins of their forefathers?
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-...
How exactly Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nigerian and Chinese shopkeepers provide rare skills is a mystery, and it is very hard to justify the presence of unskilled labour from countries like Malawi in South Africa, which has 25% unemployment. There are also many Somali "refugees" who manage to bypass 3 countries in East Africa and end up in South Africa, where they also open up small businessss.
Of course, anyone who asks these questions in South Africa is labelled a "xenophobe" by the media.
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-...
How exactly Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nigerian and Chinese shopkeepers provide rare skills is a mystery, and it is very hard to justify the presence of unskilled labour from countries like Malawi in South Africa, which has 25% unemployment. There are also many Somali "refugees" who manage to bypass 3 countries in East Africa and end up in South Africa, where they also open up small businessss.
Of course, anyone who asks these questions in South Africa is labelled a "xenophobe" by the media.