3 ms·

I disagree that this article highlights "why opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad thing." The article strongly supports immigration, which is to

by geebee 17y ago

I disagree that this article highlights "why opening the immigration floodgates would be no bad thing." The article strongly supports immigration, which is to be expected from the economist, but I'd say it expresses no opinion on unlimited immigration, other than to mention that "No rich country allows unlimited immigration". I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant" because it does not adopt the unique policy of unlimited immigration. I'm also a little surprised to see the economist describing immigration as a ponzi scheme, even if they do call it one that works. Ponzi schemes always appear to work for the first few iterations.

potatolicious 17y ago
> I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant" The USA is anti-immigrant, not because it doesn't open the floodgates, but because it has zero organized system with which to import foreign talent that is needed domestically. You have policies to allow existing immigrants to sponsor family members, and a myriad of other methods by which people that the country has no dire need for get in, while talented people demanded by local industries are locked out. In this way the US is far, far, far behind every other developed western nation.
- shrughes 17y ago
  Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    Regardless if it's "right" or not, it's likely more valuable to the country. On the other hand, being able to bring the family might further increase the value of a skilled immigrant.
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic exercise. >"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?" Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole world may experience a net benefit as well. On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is necessary for subsistence. The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line. If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism. To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our immigration policies.
    - geebee 17y ago
      I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes it smart", not "what makes it right". Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's immensely pro-immigrant.
- geebee 17y ago
  There's a big gap between "has zero organized system" and "anti-immigrant"! I agree that other countries have a more rational system based on national self-interest - take fewer immigrants, make sure they're the most productive ones, profit. Hey, if I were New Zealand, I'd be selective too. Their country is essentially a beautiful national park. A few top scientists isn't going to hurt anything, and it'll help. But opening the floodgates would be a terrible idea. That said, I absolutely disagree that this makes the US "anti-immigrant." In some ways, it makes the US more pro immigrant - we're more likely to give people a chance to prosper who wouldn't otherwise have had it. Sure, we'd benefit more by only allowing in top engineers, physicians, lawyers, and bankers, would would that really make us pro-immigrant?

by geebee 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

> I find it frustrating that a country that admits 1.2 million immigrants a year is so often accused of being "anti-immigrant" The USA is anti-immigrant, not because it doesn't open the floodgates, but because it has zero organized system with which to import foreign talent that is needed domestically. You have policies to allow existing immigrants to sponsor family members, and a myriad of other methods by which people that the country has no dire need for get in, while talented people demanded by local industries are locked out. In this way the US is far, far, far behind every other developed western nation.

shrughes 17y ago
Or, depending on your viewpoint, the US is far, far, far ahead of every other developed western nation. What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?
- m_eiman 17y ago
  Regardless if it's "right" or not, it's likely more valuable to the country. On the other hand, being able to bring the family might further increase the value of a skilled immigrant.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  This seems really obvious, but I'll bite. Maybe this is some sort of socratic exercise. >"What makes it right for skilled people to get into a country more easily than unskilled?" Prudence. Theoretically, skilled immigrants can create a positive economic externality. Through enterprise and innovation, they can add more value to the national economy than what they consume. Current US residents benefit from skilled immigration along with the immigrant. Since the immigrants may not have had an opportunity to produce this value in their home country, the whole world may experience a net benefit as well. On the other hand, the act of importing unskilled immigrants is unlikely to generate such positive externalities. To the extent they depend on public welfare or bring with them social problems associated with poverty, unskilled immigrants may even function as a negative externality on our society. It is unlikely that an unskilled worker will generate much more value than what is necessary for subsistence. The average wealth of a society correlates highly with how pleasant it is to live there. As an experiment, I suggest the author spend two weeks living in the impoverished southeast side of Washington DC along the green metro line. If he survives, I then suggest he spend two weeks living on the well-to-do west side along the orange line. At the conclusion of the experiment, the author should report to us which lifestyle he prefers. It is likely that this experiment will have shaken the author's expressed egalitarianism. To some extent, we are choosing between these two societies when we frame our immigration policies.
  - geebee 17y ago
    I think you've misinterpreted what shrughes meant by "right". I agree with a lot of what you've written, but you'd be refuting someone who said "what makes it smart", not "what makes it right". Keep in mind when shrughes wrote "what makes it right", he was responding to someone who called the USA "anti-immigrant" because it doesn't prefer highly educated and skilled immigrants over low skilled, low educated immigrants. I find that argument strange too - it's a basis for claiming the US is kinda dumb about immigration, but taking 1.2 million immigrants a year that most other nations don't really want is definitely not "anti-immigrant", it's immensely pro-immigrant.
geebee 17y ago
There's a big gap between "has zero organized system" and "anti-immigrant"! I agree that other countries have a more rational system based on national self-interest - take fewer immigrants, make sure they're the most productive ones, profit. Hey, if I were New Zealand, I'd be selective too. Their country is essentially a beautiful national park. A few top scientists isn't going to hurt anything, and it'll help. But opening the floodgates would be a terrible idea. That said, I absolutely disagree that this makes the US "anti-immigrant." In some ways, it makes the US more pro immigrant - we're more likely to give people a chance to prosper who wouldn't otherwise have had it. Sure, we'd benefit more by only allowing in top engineers, physicians, lawyers, and bankers, would would that really make us pro-immigrant?