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

Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

spot.colorado.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#71

Post by coldtea »

verbify wrote: post #41
fixxer wrote: post #28

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from univers…

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate refle…

>That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim.

At the time, yes. But if TFA author's idea ("boundless immigration for everybody") was allowed, that could very well include all areas of UK, no?

>that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with.

Perhaps because as an white programmer (I suppose, not sure about the former, but being on HN puts you statistically closer to the latter, and to higher incomes in any case) you tend to only work with progressively minded muslim people, from more affluent backgrounds? Which would be an even less representative sample than the one in the poll?

>Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time

Only when there's assimilation, and when their numbers are small. E.g. in the US, any particular immigrant group was still a relevant minority compared to the rest (though even today WASP ideas and power are prevalent in US culture).

If the mainstream culture is not what it used to be (UK is no longer an empire of any sort, and it's not even "Swinging London" anymore), and the numbers of immigration population and the ease of communication with their originating country/culture, the internet, global TV programming etc make it much easier to stick to their original culture. Younger generation that look to upward mobility tend to adopt mainstream culture more easily, but that's not something many people, even from the "native" population, realistically aspire to anymore.

>A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

Only if the number of homophobic immigrants are not greater than the number of gay immigrants. Which, depending on the country of origin, might be a hard thing...

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#72

Post by ubernostrum »

jerkstate wrote: post #4

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

This is an interesting claim to make.

For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler would often be happy to take them. European monarchs, for example, would happily poach each others' dissatisfied subjects and even offer them land and religious toleration.

And in those times, the rights being exercised over movement were rights of rulers, not rights of nations. The idea of a "nation" as a thing capable of having rights didn't really exist until the 17th century, and was nebulous for some time after.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#73

Post by coldtea »

ciaranm wrote: post #47
fixxer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.

Everyone has political motivations. You're going to entirely discount a group that studies migration from the most esteemed university in the UK because you don't like what someone puts on their twitter feed?

>from the most esteemed university in the UK

Isn't usually the most "esteemed" establishments that are closer to the party line?

That's par for the course of being "esteemed".

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#74

Post by MichaelGG »

wz1000 wrote: post #56
MichaelGG wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources. This view is simply ignorant of history. The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is…

That's great, meanwhile what's an actual solution for today? You've got hilariously corrupt governments and incompetence at every level of society. Stuff doesn't work and people are resigned to it. High performers will do their best to insulate themselves or emigrate.

Just because the US went halfway in meddling before doesn't mean that a proper setup (replacing local government with a governor) would not work. If the goal was to create a decently running society versus extracting resources there should be no problem.

At some point, you gotta admit that hey, these countries are messed up. Whatever the reason, the current situation isn't working. Just like if you stabbed someone and really injured them. The correct response isn't to say "wow I should just stop interfering with you completely" but to realise they're bleeding out and, even if they protest, get them medical care until they're healthy again.

Or, you know, pretend that their independence matters, that every country can just do fine if only they're left alone, and ignore the terrible conditions most of their population lives in.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#75

Post by jerkstate »

fiatjaf wrote: post #58
jerkstate wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that to be true, the landowners must depose the government, and give up the protections and benefits afforded them. There is an exchange of natural rights for the protections and benefits of belonging to a nation.

Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now. The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.

>If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now.

[citation needed]

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#76

Post by classicsnoot »

wz1000 wrote: post #56
MichaelGG wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that help? Letting in a small percentage of the population while the rest still lives in terrible conditions isn't much of a solution. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources. This view is simply ignorant of history. The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is…

I am genuinely interested to hear about any postcolonial country that is doing well without a much larger benefactor behind it. I am not disagreeing with you on the past mistakes and missteps of intervention and sub-optimal appropriation, but blaming the colonials has not really helped anywhere, especially not Africa.

I take it you are opposed to the Monroe Doctrine. Do you think Spain, France, England, and the Netherlands would have just left Central America to their own devices? I am not making a lesser of two evils argument. Indeed, ascribing morality to the interactions of nation-states is silly IMO, but weak states are always going to be manipulated by stronger states.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#77

Post by wz1000 »

An argument for immigration based on ethics seems to be interesting to discuss in theory, but is so far removed from the major ethical concerns regarding US behavior that it seems like a joke to argue for libertarian immigration policy reform on this basis.

Active invasion, murder, genocide and sabotage are ethical concerns that immediately out-shadow ethical considerations of immigration. It's a bit like complaining about animal rights in DPRK.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#78

Post by fixxer »

ciaranm wrote: post #64
fixxer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data. This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.

Who do you know who's genuinely not political? People have biases all over the place. They're not going to disappear - understand them, acknowledge them, interpret them. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "nah I don't like that". They're not publishing opinion pieces - it's research.

Now we're making progress: I don't.

Over the last couple years, I've started mentally putting a "P(BULLSHIT)" next to every source I read. The estimate keeps growing.

While you might want to make this an ad hominem attack, all I can say is that my probability estimates are pretty darn bipartisan.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#79

Post by coldtea »

mc32 wrote: post #51
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #14

The United States has plenty of moral responsibility to accept immigrants from countries in Central America after spending billions screwing them up with dirty secret wars in the 70s and 80s.

If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places, it's not as though we don't have people fleeing post-USSR countries like Cuba, Georgia and Russia and Ukraine, etc. And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities? I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider…

>If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places

Better? Cuba, considering the embargo that fucked them twice over, is better off compared to most of the hell-holes intervention created in Latin America.

Even as a dictatorship it's much more benign compared to people like Pinochet that was supported, put in place, and much beloved by the US.

Re: Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)

#80

Post by jerkstate »

ubernostrum wrote: post #72
jerkstate wrote: post #4

No. A nation may place whatever restriction they like on foreigners entering. This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history.

This has been a right of nations since the beginning of recorded history. This is an interesting claim to make. For most of recorded history, borders were usually uncontrolled except in time of war/threat, and barriers to migration were at least as likely to be imposed at origin as at destination -- people capable of doing labor were an asset, and if they could get away from their current ruler/owner, another ruler w…

I agree with all of that. Whether or not we are in a time of war/threat seems to be at the heart of the current immigration debate.
Post reply on HN