
An argument for open global immigration - arelangi
http://reprints.longform.org/homelands-deca
======
mynameishere
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 are almost always poor because of the populations contained
within--and if it's from some other cause, such as communism in China, then
the resolution to poverty does not require migration, and in fact suggesting
migration as a solution is plainly foolish in such cases.

~~~
sologoub
The other point the article seems to completely miss is that it's natural for
parents to pass on the fruits of their labor to children. Societies place
limits on inheritance to help balance the wealth accumulation, but in general,
this ability is see as integral to a health society with strong incentives for
building a better future.

The fact that children in the well off countries benefit enormously from the
work of previous generations is a very natural and positive fact.
Unfortunately, the flip side of this is that other countries are plagued by
the missteps of their previous generations. These are hardly questions of
fairness, as a misstep could be having a weaker army in the face of an
aggressor, but it is a fact of life.

Being an immigrant myself, I cherish the opportunity I have to make a better
life for my family and work to make the most of it, but I will never dispute
the right of the people of a given country to protect what their fathers and
mothers have built for them.

~~~
ForHackernews
> 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"

~~~
sologoub
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 has been colonized itself
several times. The populations there suffered.

Generations of those people worked to bring a better future and their
descendants, as well as many others, enjoy the benefits of that work. Why
should they not enjoy the fruits of that labor?

My own home is worse off because the cold war didn't go so well for them.
Should I be bitter at the western capitalists for this or should I do what I
can to build a better life? My personal view is that the latter is far more
productive and is likely to result in better outcomes.

~~~
mc32
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...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950)

~~~
sologoub
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.

------
kazagistar
> 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 course, the author does not want to make this argument
directly, because doing so would actually make the counterarguments more
obvious, so the focus is instead based on emotion.

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. Moving people from poor to rich nations does
not do anything to help make the poor nations less poor; it only risks the
problems coming over with the people.

~~~
josu
>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], the former has a GDP per capita of 20,855 euros while the latter
one 29,683euros. The same language is spoken in both [2], and the cultural
diferences are minimal.

The reason while wealth of nation exists nobody knows, and nobody may ever
know.

[1]
[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Comunidades_y_ciudades_au...](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Comunidades_y_ciudades_aut%C3%B3nomas_de_Espa%C3%B1a#cite_note-3)
[2] While some government jobs may require being able to speak Basque, 2/3 of
the Basque Country don't speak Basque, and there isn't any kind of
discrimination.

~~~
hibikir
In that case, it's not very difficult: Bilbao is a better port than Santander
by a significant margin, drastically better communications to Madrid and
France, both road and rail, and more natural resources. Santander doesn't have
much of a competitive advantage, and as such, does worse. Having a nationalist
party in one, while not in the other, also makes a big difference in national
investment too. You don't have to pay a lot of attention to see that
infrastructure investment goes to different places depending on the government
in charge. Cantabria is electorally unimportant, and no big politicians came
from there, so good luck getting any investment.

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.

------
tokenadult
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 in Asia, and is a bit unusual in having a
big phenomenon of "foreign brides."[2] Free movement of people into Taiwan
doesn't yet match the former rather vigorous movement of people out of Taiwan
into the United States, but it is increasing, and all around the world the
countries that are especially welcoming to immigrants are largely also
countries that gain in prosperity over time.

As the article correctly points out, just more than a century ago in the
United States, many people worried that HUGE rates of immigration from non-
English-speaking countries would be dangerous to this country. They were
wrong. Both my maternal grandparents were born in the United States, but their
schooling was conducted entirely in the German language. My paternal
grandmother was also born in the United States, and attended school only in
English, but she attended church services in the Norwegian language and spoke
Norwegian at home. Even the descendants of languages less closely cognate to
English than those have grown up to be English-speakers just like me. This is
not a problem. The strength of the United States (as the article points out)
was established in the era when the United States had essentially no
restrictions on immigration. I wouldn't mind bringing back those days. If
other countries didn't try the same policy, the United States would just grow
faster at their expense.

[1] [http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889](http://www.cnbc.com/id/48686889)

[2] [http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg-
brides15](http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/15/news/adfg-brides15)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023041980045751712...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304198004575171232326284928)

~~~
notworthmyjob
It's worth remembering that the USA had heavily regulated borders between 1921
and 1965 and it's impossible to know how things would have turned out if they
had stayed open. More incidentally, starting during WWI, speaking German in
the USA was not encouraged, to say the least.

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.

------
smil
A country can have open borders or a social safety net, not both. If you
choose the latter, you're effectively denying the existing population the
services they have already paid for, for themselves and their offspring,
through their taxes.

So, in an open border society, it would make no sense to pay taxes because
they wouldn't give you as a tax payer anything.

For this reason, global corporations who want zero tax rates and the supply of
the entire world's population to hire from and effectively pay slave wages,
and these "progressives" are united in their wish to dismantle the welfare
state.

------
klagermkii
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-...](http://www.ibtimes.com/south-africa-xenophobic-
attacks-2015-china-issues-travel-warning-amid-ongoing-anti-1891845)

~~~
buyx
South Africa has strict immigration laws. Unfortunately widespread corruption
in the Department of Home Affairs (especially in the period 1994-2010 ca.) has
meant that these laws were not worth the paper they are printed on.

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.

------
pdonis
This article, to the extent it makes a valid argument at all, is not an
argument for open immigration. It's an argument for removing barriers to
adoption of children in poor countries by parents in rich countries. Extending
that (valid) point to a claim about open immigration in general is not
justified.

Also, I find at least one factual howler in the article: the claim that South
Africa after the end of apartheid has been a stable country.

------
jogjayr
Something worth pointing out here: apart from the EU, there isn't even open
immigration among rich countries. A Swede, (or Briton or Canadian) can't just
decide to pack his things up and come to work in the US (though the visa
waiver program for tourists is pretty sweet). There are still visa hoops to
jump through, paperwork to be done. It's easier, if you're a rich-country-
citizen, to move to another rich country, but by no means a done deal.

It's hard to make a logical argument that immigration controls exist purely
for economic reasons; social services and weather apart, Sweden (or the UK or
Canada) and the US have comparable standards of living and levels of English
proficiency. None of the arguments against allowing unchecked immigration from
poor countries to rich (education, overwhelming public services, falling wages
etc) apply in this scenario and yet (again, apart from the EU), open
immigration between roughly equally developed countries doesn't exist.

------
mirimir
Liberalization of international investment and trade since WWII have been
justified in part to promote peace through economic connection. While the
article focuses on human rights and social justice, liberalization of global
immigration would arguably have the same impact.

There's another issue that makes open global immigration more attractive to
wealthy nations. Free investment and trade move jobs to nations with competent
workers who demand less pay, leaving behind industrial decline and
unemployment. Open global immigration would ameliorate that.

------
Torgo
Arguing that citizenship laws are complicated and burdensome so we should get
rid of all of them is the left wing equivalent of the right wing argument that
taxes are complicated and burdensome so we should get rid of all of them.

------
treedy
Open borders will never happen, because it would bankrupt rich countries
(sadly, it appears that the recent wave of African refugees in the Med are
heading for Northern European welfare states for this reason). Also, there are
many people who lack the aptitude and desire to leave their first-world home
countries-they will simply be out-competed by migrants (most third world
migrants who open little shops tend to employ people from the home country
rather than locals).

There are ways to help poor third world countries: 1) focus on ameliorating
eradicating the worst forms of preventable suffering. Bill Gates is doing
this. Improve childhood nutrition to reduce stunting. 2) Trade with them.
While Europe and the U.S. were bailing out their banks, South African
corporations have been getting rich selling satellite TV, cellphone services
and introducing chain supermarkets to Africans. You see, they want the same
things that the rest of us have. Invest in their countries and make a profit.
That will help them in the medium-long term.

------
joshuaheard
Very good article. His argument definitely makes sense on an individual level.
When I was in living in France, I wondered why it was impossible for me to buy
a house and live there permanently. It was only because of artificial borders.
It didn't make sense.

However, on a population wide basis, it is a different story. The article uses
refugees and oppressive governments (exceptions to the rule) in order to make
his argument. A tactic I distrust. He does make a good point about the EU,
although I think the jury is still out on that one.

I believe we should have more immigration in the US. However, we limit
immigration for a reason. And the reason is too many people at once burden the
infrastructure. We can only build so many freeways, schools, and hospitals at
once. So, a large influx of immigrants will cause traffic, crowded classrooms,
and long waits in the emergency rooms. Anyone who lives in LA can tell you
this is the case since California has had a rapid population primarily driven
by immigrants.

------
ajays
The problem with open migration is that then those with the means (even
limited ones) get up and leave, leaving the rest even poorer. As a very loose
analogy, think of it as evaporative cooling; it results in a net loss for the
source.

Instead of short-term fixes (which include distributing food, clothes, etc.) I
would hope that Western countries would actually help build up the
infrastructure in these poor countries, and let them run their own affairs.

And, for the sake of all that's good and holy, stop propping up dictators all
across the world, if that means our gas is $0.05 cheaper or our phones are
$.25 cheaper.

------
schoen
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.

~~~
mlinksva
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...](http://yves-bonnardel.info/en/manifesto-for-the-abolition-of-
international-apartheid)

~~~
schoen
I even knew about that manifesto (from you), and the reference still flew
right past me.

------
stegosaurus
Does it need an argument?

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.

------
Donwangugi
In the US there are states which would benefit from high immigration as
opposed to the more popular coastal states.

I wonder if there is some way to use this as a way to ease some immigration
laws.

~~~
seiji
Yeah, the root problem is everybody wants to move where everybody already is.
Big cities have large immigrant communities because cities are walkable or
transit-able and have, at the edges, cheap housing stock, so you don't need a
car or large funds—you can just move in and start your life over. Then, when
you move there, more people from where you were will move there and you will
help them get acclimated, then those people will help more new people, then
before you know it, where you set down roots is now "Little WhereICameFrom."

But, NYC breaks down if another 8 million people move into it. San Francisco
is 1/10th the size of NYC and it already can't handle the people it has.

The only way fully open and accepted and world-wide immigration works is under
unconscionable "living area restriction" schemes limiting already overly-
popular areas. You either pick an "open" area (Idaho! North Dakota!) or slot
new people into some pre-allocated catchment areas/states with restricted
residency/transit for the first 5-15 years of their relocation? But, that
sounds a bit too ghettoy.

China can build new cities in the blink of an eye, even if some of them end up
going completely unused. The US can't maintain the cities it has and spends
$30 billion to dig a new 2 mile subway ($5 billion towards cost, $25 billion
towards corruption). There _are_ solutions to "everybody wants to live in a
better place" problems, but it takes organization, time, resources, a vision
for a better future, and generosity. The world isn't currently offering those
as a packaged deal. Be 70s forward-thinking-by-30-years-ahead California, not
2010s only-plan-for-6-months-later California.

But, that's assuming "aspirational" immigration where 30 million to 300
million people would want to move "to the west" for a chance at a better life.
What about "i got mine, i just want to move" immigration? NYC<->London?
Sydney<->Chicago? Something between an educated worker visa and an investor
visa? We don't have an answer for that. You are just incidental to a
combination of where you were born and where your parents had citizenship at
the time you started breathing outside the womb.

------
smegel
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.

~~~
rntz
> 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?

~~~
Retric
It's the equivelent of robbing someone and giving that to charity. Consider is
you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into the US just how
much chaos that would creat. Now reolise there are several times that many
people who would like to live in the US. As a general rule if something is
significantly worse for group A and better for group B, but group A makes the
choice your argument falls on deaf ears.

Anyway, the other far more obvious solution is to move manufacturing to war
torn areas. A billion dollars can creat a _lot_ of jobs, and with reinvestment
things can quickly snowball. Sure, setting up sweat shops is not going to give
you the same kind of feel good boost, but poverty breeds corruption which
breeds poverty.

~~~
jacquesm
> Consider is you moved 100,000,000 poor people without English skills into
> the US just how much chaos that would creat.

From the point of view of the Native Americans, that's roughly what happened
already. Only thing different is language this time around, not that all of
the original immigrants into America spoke English, and not that all of the
current people there do.

~~~
throwitawayn9w
It should be remembered that this resulted in the nearly complete destruction
of Native American civilization.

~~~
seiferteric
This is the problem I see with mass migration. People don't seem to consider
the effects it will have on the society. For example, I want Northern European
countries to continue to be secular and open, but what happens if millions of
refugees from north Africa & the middle east come? Will they suddenly adopt
the same values? That is doubtful, and if they become citizens and voters they
can have a real impact in the direction of the country.

