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

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#51

Post by mc32 »

sologoub wrote: post #40
ForHackernews wrote: post #31

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…

Not only that, but if you go back just 60 to 70 years ago[1], there was a lot more parity between countries... For example Mexico rivaled European countries, but they chose different paths.

For a great part, "corruption" did a lot to ensure some countries would do poorly. For the effects of corruption, one need only look at Chile vs Brazil.

I think it's pretty clear economic policy in the last 70 to 80 years had the greatest impact on future growth progress and standing. Look at the standings in 1950. Looked pretty even. You have to remember in 1950 lots of Europe was way underdeveloped, aside from the UK, France and Germany. Less developed than some Latin American countries.

So, I don;t think there is a lot of correlation between history 100 to 200 years ago and their current situation. It's poor governing over the last 50 to 60 years or so.

[1]http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-p...

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#52

Post by mc32 »

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…

So, when china becomes the most affluent society, I wonder if the author believes people should move to China and put more pressure on their environment.

When people move to more affluent societies they tend to increase the pressure on natural resources. Imagine 7 billion people living first world lifestyles. I think it's unsustainable with current policies and technologies.

Living in the first world would first have to mean leaving leaner before it allows masses of people (billions) to move and consume greater amounts of resources.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#53

Post by sologoub »

mc32 wrote: post #51
sologoub wrote: post #40

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…

Not only that, but if you go back just 60 to 70 years ago[1], there was a lot more parity between countries... For example Mexico rivaled European countries, but they chose different paths. For a great part, "corruption" did a lot to ensure some countries would do poorly. For the effects of corruption, one need only look at Chile vs Brazil. I think it's pretty clear economic policy in the last 70 to 80 years had the…

Venezuela at #4?! Even on a per capita basis, this is very fascinating.

That said, a number of countries seem to be missing. Also, looking at some other years, Austria in 1800s and 1950 are not the same country. I suspect same is true for many others. Still, very interesting data.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#54

Post by smegel »

rntz wrote: post #4
smegel wrote: post #3

Lets me guess - it's really really good for all the poor people from impoverished, war-stricken countries? Or if you want a daily dose of extreme left-wing nonsense, subscribe to The Guardian or your country's equivalent.

> it's really really good for all the poor people from impoverished, war-stricken countries? What part of this argument do you disagree with, and why?

The bit where it's not so good for everyone else...?

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#56

Post by mistermann »

bjourne wrote: post #37
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…

> Scale the argument up, and fortunate countries have a duty to help less fortunate ones.

I generally agree, but only if they are willing and able as a culture/society to reform and help themselves.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#57

Post by mistermann »

josu wrote: post #18
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…

Your underlying assumption is that the people in Western countries have both the duty and the right to close their borders to foreigners.

You don't think they have that right? Does that same logic apply to your house?

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#58

Post by senorito »

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 perspective is ignorant at best, if not arrogant and maybe even plain stupid.

Africa is the poorest continent on the planet. And one reason why so many countries there are in such bad shape is very well directly connected to the "White Man".

Are you aware of the damage European colonialism caused in the 19th century and how much of damage to socities, environment and economics in African countries was caused by US corporations enforcing political systems and establishments that would allow them to steal resources from those countries?

The Western countries do have a lot of direct and indirect responsibility for people suffering over there.

Re: An argument for open global immigration

#59

Post by [deleted] »

sologoub wrote: post #48
ForHackernews wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

So instead you propose to punish those more fortunate? How's this any different from what you are arguing against.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN