
Ask HN: Is it morally acceptable for a country to not want immigration? - elamje
I found a popular thread about Trump getting elected from back in 2016 on HN.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12907201
I&#x27;ll add a link in the comments as well<p>Basically, comments drifted towards immigration.<p>I want to know what you personally think about the morals of a country choosing to close the borders in any capacity, as long as it was democratically chosen. If &gt;50% of people directly choose (or choose a representative) to close borders, is this morally wrong, or does everyone need to accept that it was a democratic choice and move on?<p>I have no strong opinion about the morals, and I see both sides of the token. What do you think?<p>Please refrain from any inflammatory comments, and frame your opposing opinions as playing the devil&#x27;s advocate.<p>There are many views, and I will point out several common arguments:<p>Against<p>- Nation will suffer economically due to lack of trade and&#x2F;or talent.<p>- It is completely unethical to restrict the flow of a human to&#x2F;from anywhere.<p>For<p>- Nation will have better chance at maintaining culture&#x2F;language&#x2F;tribe.<p>- It will bring back jobs and keep the nation safer.
======
throwawaystale
It's arguably unethical.

It's also arguably unethical for you not to host a number of poor people in
your house or apartment.

And more fundamentally, it's arguably unethical for your not to spend most of
your money trying to support the world's poorest.

Few people manage much in this regard, but that's our situation.

For a detailed explanation, start here:
[https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-
solut...](https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/05/magazine/the-singer-solution-to-
world-poverty.html)

~~~
sloaken
Thank you for posting that. It was a great read, good logic, I would argue
some points, but basically very good points.

------
neilwilson
It's always important to remember that one area's skilled immigration is
another area's brain drain.

The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been
trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without
supplying an equally skilled person in return.

Consider it within a country. The cities take the skills from the rural areas.
What does that do to the rural areas? It is no different between countries.

Fiscal transfer payments don't correct the problem. A pile of dollars will not
treat your sick grandmother. You need a doctor in the local area. If they have
been poached by a richer country, then you're in trouble. And no country on
earth has a surplus of medical staff, and not everybody can realistically
become a doctor.

The framing with immigration is always down to the choice of the individual,
and never really takes into account the desires of the community the
individual has moved into, nor the desires of the community the individual has
moved from - particularly if the source area has expended effort training the
individual. What do you owe beyond money to the people that helped you be who
you are?

As with companies if the drain continues, then nobody bothers training anybody
- or doing the training - and we all eat our seed corn.

There's no simple answer, but net zero migration seems the best prospect to
satisfy all sides - for somebody to move in, somebody else has to move out. A
swap of equals. After all fair exchange is no robbery.

~~~
gusmd
> The moral issue is whether it is ok to take skilled people that have been
> trained using the limited resources of poorer areas of the world without
> supplying an equally skilled person in return.

The skilled people that have been trained using the limited resources of
poorer areas have literally funded those limited resources through their taxes
or by directly paying for their education (private schools are a thing
everywhere, even in poor countries -- 1st-hand experience here).

Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much better
quality of life is achievable elsewhere. The origin nation does not need to be
to "satisfied". Humans should be free agents to defend their best interests
and seek a better outcome for themselves and their families, wherever that may
be (as long as the destination accepts them!).

~~~
thedevindevops
> Nobody has a moral obligation to stay in their home country when a much
> better quality of life is achievable elsewhere.

When using that model, is there any mechanism for the quality of life in their
home country to ever improve?

~~~
gusmd
I would like to believe so. But maybe there isn't, or his leaving makes it
worse. My point, though, is that that burden shouldn't fall on the single
individual, for his power to promote actual change is negligible.

More anecdotally, I know in my home country it was a lost fight, as even among
close friends and family, I found it hard to find a reflection of my own
values. How could I hope to influence the other 200+ million people?

------
dangerface
Countries generally consider themselves above morality, and act in accordance.

I was born of the world with independent thought and share it with every one
else born under the same circumstance. This is my believe of sovereignty and
how most people act even if they are unaware of it.

A nation at its very basic is the idea that some people have more claim to
some part of the world. The idea of nations in and of itself is just an attack
on individuals sovereignty which is unethical and immoral.

------
dragonwriter
> I want to know what you personally think about the morals of a country
> choosing to close the borders in any capacity, as long as it was
> democratically chosen.

Being democratically chosen is utterly orthogonal to the morality of the
policy, and only relates to the morality of the policy process.

Also, you seem to be asking about different things and may be conflating them:
“closing the borders” is different than “prohibiting immigration”.

> Nation will suffer economically due to lack of trade

This is an affect of closing borders, not prohibiting immigration. Stopping
immigration has no direct effect on trade.

> and/or talent

OTOH, this is an impact of either closing borders or merely restricting
immigration (or non-immigrant alien work, e.g., cutting off H-4 work permits
as a means of making H-1B less attractive.)

> Nation will have better chance at maintaining culture/language/tribe

There is a difference between stagnation/decay and healthy maintenance, and
forcible isolation leans more to the former than the latter.

> It will bring back jobs

Closing borders won't, it'll kill them in large numbers. So will stopping
immigration, though in smaller numbers. OTOH, stopping immigration will also
reduce the pool of people seeking jobs. Which may somewhat offset the hit to
overall employment from the job loss.

> and keep the nation safer.

If you magically assume complete effectiveness, sure, in terms of external
threats, but you might as well just assume complete effectiveness of a policy
of only stopping dangerous items and people from crossing the border, which is
more focussed but no less magical.

------
zerr
It is unethical to restrict the movement of individuals based on the birth
lottery.

It is unethical to eliminate native inhabitants or force them to adopt your
values.

------
adolph
The sample arguments for/against seem to have a lot to do with the
cost/benefit instead of morals. Is one really guided by morals if one's morals
are guided by relatively short-term cost/benefit and not by some elaboration
of a universal truth?

~~~
dragonwriter
Utilitarianism is a perfectly valid moral framework; one might prefer a
different one, of course.

------
dontbenebby
Aren't there UN treaties on things like asylum?

IIRC you can't just do a popular vote to stop following a treaty.

~~~
sloaken
Yes Asylum is where you go the the first available country to get away from
the problem. Not go shopping for the best opportunity.

Most, not all migrants, compete with the lower class. This keeps the lower
class wages down, and enriches the rich.

There is a tired old argument 'we need immigrants, because the locals will not
do the job'. Which is total BS. They will not do it for the cheap ass pay you
are offering.

Pay me enough I will clean sewers with a toothbrush.

------
superflit
I will speak as an Immigrant with double citizenship and minority.

When I decided to immigrate to Country "A" Is because I value country "A"
values and laws AND I want that continue like that. If I decided to go to X
place I do expect somethings. So I want my country "A" to retain its laws,
values, and traditions. So what I do?

1\. Enforce language learning on my kids and parents;

2\. Understand local history;

3\. Understand that some popular customs may be different, but it is way are
here;

4\. Don't break the law and try to be most compliant possible (hire CPA, check
with a lawyer).

5\. Work and work. I don't have an immediate family, so I have to work for
"now" and my future

to dr; try to be a nice guest

Now why I left my country "Z."

1\. High Corruption and Violence;

2\. My personal view clashed with original local culture;

3\. Not enough opportunities and life were too hard (3 jobs, high taxes, and
bad conditions).

4\. All my education had to be paid privately and health too so NO I am not
"robbing" resources.

Tl dr; I am sorry country "Z" we are not compatible;

Now, Do I think country "A" HAS to allow me in? No. Country A is doing me a
favor. My grandfather never fought for country A, or neither has any parent
mine done anything for country A. I see myself as a guest, and I will try to
be a nice guest. Not sure we will get along but while I am a guest I follow
Host laws and culture.

Do I think I OWN anything to my original country? No! Indeed I think I should
earn money back as my taxes, social security is there, and I will not be able
to collect back and never I studied on Public school or used public health
system.

What do I think about other people like me that aren't a good guest? The ones
that break law? Marry to get a visa? Steal? I do think they make my life and
others harder. And they are ungrateful.

What do I think about diversity? I don't want it. I want my son to be the
"diversity" because if country "A" is good for me is because of its original
and majority people and I want to keep the demographics in favor of that. TL
DR; There are no poor country only corrupt ones. Have the right culture and
mindset and favor it.

Is it fair? Life is not fair. The people born here they have so easy. Easy
jobs, easy money, no accent they understand all culture, jokes, etc. But their
parents make an effort or sacrifice as I hope to make to my kids and grand
son. Maybe sometime in the future, they will call my grand son "privileged" ..

------
elamje
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12907201)

