51–60 of 75 posts
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/west-east-german...
I've been thinking about the idea of free migration for a while. Not in the context of eliminating poverty, but as the perfect implementation of democracy: Vote with your feet, go to wherever you like it best. If all immigration and emigration restrictions were dropped everywhere, and anyone could freely move from any country to any country, and you were full citizen of whatever country you are living in at any given…
"Is there even such a thing as a generally "desirable" citizen" I've done some minimal research and worldwide immigration policies have more or less congealed on certain desirable characteristics, which boil down to money, job, credentialed education, family connections, and fame. Age and health and clean record vary somewhat from country to country. There are variations in the level of the category, like some 3rd world countries sell citizenship for only $50K or so, but the 1st world wants $500K or more. But the organization is remarkable. It would be like if a space alien civilization coincidentally organized their books with the same Dewey Decimal system numbers we use.
I've been thinking about the idea of free migration for a while. Not in the context of eliminating poverty, but as the perfect implementation of democracy: Vote with your feet, go to wherever you like it best. If all immigration and emigration restrictions were dropped everywhere, and anyone could freely move from any country to any country, and you were full citizen of whatever country you are living in at any given…
I think that in the long run, true open borders would be a death-knell for the nation-state. The two central purposes for nations, as opposed to local and regional governments, are regulating immigration and responding to (or mounting) military threats. After societies have intermixed to a certain point, you'll see the death of nationalism and sufficient cultural and religious diversity in the electorates of wealthy…
Germany/Poland/Russia
A special case of this question is that the destination of the immigration is the US. Let's assume this, and let's also assume that an immigrant is magically and automatically converted into a proper US citizen (believing in women's rights, having gay buddies, etc.). Now imagine that EVERYONE outside of the US immigrates to the US. Because nobody would be left outside of the US, the US could expand to cover the entir…
> a proper US citizen (believing in women's rights, having gay buddies, etc.). Sometimes it is hard to see when people are joking here. > Is the US self-sustainable, i.e. can it function totally on its own? There's a huge question that needs to be answered first then: who would we wage war on?
We currently have a VERY profitable civil war against our own population, "The War on (Some) Drugs".
I feel quite confident the military industrial complex would continue to profit.
Think of the efficiency: it would save many thousands of tons of fuel, reduce greenhouse gas exhaust, save people transport time and travel stress, etc.
It reminds me of the old "How do you move Mt. Fuji?" challenge. Problem solved. Next question please.
I've thought about this for a long time, as an American who twice lived overseas as a bona-fide long-term resident of another country. My wife, a first-generation immigrant to the United States, is just one of many examples of first-generation immigrants to the United States I know, from many countries. From the article: "George Mason economist Bryan Caplan, whose writing at EconLog inspired Naik's interest in open b…
It's worrying to see that Caplan thinks his "keyhole" solutions are politically feasible. Let's say you let the genie out of the bottle and allow open immigration with several restrictions (higher taxes, no right to vote) for this new group of immigrants. First you have a problem with deciding when to lift these restrictions (10 years, a test, only the next generation?). Even if you find a solution, you will be breed…
Worst case I see is something like France, (and I'm picking on France, but my understanding is that this is super common. Japan and much of Europe also have a 'blood' component to citizenship.) where they don't have 'by right of the soil' citizenship; you can be born in France, but still not be a french citizen, because of who your parents were. And yeah, they see problems from it. They have a permanent underclass of hereditary non-citizens.
Personally, I think that as long as we keep that particular Americanism (which is to say, if you are born on US soil, you are a full American, and at least legally equal to any other American, regardless of who your parents were or what you look like, or what hoops you choose to jump through.) I think we'll be ahead of the game (vs. other countries)
"keyhole solutions" I think are feasible if they aren't multi-generational. You /really/ don't want to grow that multi-generational non-citizen underclass. If you only have those restrictions on people who immigrate, and not their children born here? I would see that as an expanded guest worker type program, and it would probably have similar political consequences as an expanded guest worker type program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that's part of the cause of (relative) turmoil with respect to the recent influx of immigrants into the (previously) culturally uniform, high-social-capital society of Scandinavian countries such as Finland?
I think immigration has had a huge influence on those countries. It comes down to trust. The liberal policies of the Scandinavian countries work to the extent that people trust each other. And people don't and can't trust unassimilated immigrants in the same way they can trust people who are similar to themselves.
To see their point, imagine an American in rural Mississippi being told she cannot move to New York City to seek a better career. Tangentially, this is exactly the situation in China today. The central government restricts movement, particularly between rural and urban areas. Many rural poor want to move to cities, but it is not legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system#Household_registr...
In America, the ruling elites have ways of keeping out the rabble by means of making city life both costly and difficult.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that every body wants to emigrate to the US. I don't that is true. If given the choice a lot of people would choose to stay. Sure, you can have more material things, but you will have to go to a strange place, far from friends and family, where you are just a stranger, that possible don't even speak the language. People who decide to emigrate is because they have strong reason…
A. Poverty is always relatively defined. There will always be a bottom n percent in the population.
B. A high bar for immigration acts as a filter to select the hardest working, most intelligent, most willing to take risks, and sometimes the richest. Take that filter away and the profile of immigrants looks quite different.