6 ms·

Caplan is making the argument that opening borders would bring huge economic benefits. In addition to the economic argument, I think there is a compelling mora

Caplan is making the argument that opening borders would bring huge economic benefits. In addition to the economic argument, I think there is a compelling moral argument to opening borders. Why should we deny equal rights (the right to work or move freely) to human beings based on their national origin? If someone today told you the Jim Crow laws were economically justified in modern America - "we can't allow desegregation, blacks will compete with whites for jobs" - you'd see them as a disgusting, backwards racist. And yet in the US, foreign nationals are denied basic rights that US citizens take for granted. Does anyone believe these laws are actually just, or do we just support unjust laws we (mistakenly) think are to our economic advantage?

jupiter90000 11y ago
One thing that bothers me somewhat about immigration discussions on HN is that the US always seems to be mentioned as unjust in terms of immigration policy and rights of foreigners. However, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other 'advanced' countries that have similar or worse policies (Japan comes to mind). So the question I end up wondering about is, why do countries practice this kind of stuff? It seems so odd to me that happening to be born somewhere is a meaningful qualifier for anything.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  > It seems so odd to me that happening to be born somewhere is a meaningful qualifier for anything. It is a proxy. Most likely if you were born in X you were born by parents born in X. Most likely if your parents grew up in X they will raise you to fit into X.
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  It fulfills a social contract: the service you provide by being born is carrying your parents' genes. There is a three-way transaction between citizen, child, and state. This is a boon; it allows social contracts with long time horizons to be made. Take away preference for native-born citizens over foreigners, and you remove the incentive for citizens to leave a country better than they found it. This is not an absolute---limited naturalization, like we have, has not caused the world to fall down. But there is an effect.
  - jupiter90000 11y ago
    I hear what you're saying and it makes sense. What would prevent such contracts from being a boon if we were all in one 'country'(the world), though? Is it to hold onto something deemed of value that some may consider arbitrary (speaking a particular language, celebrating certain holidays)? Perhaps some of the values held in certain countries are the things folks want to hold on to (personal liberty vs group cohesion, gun rights, etc). We humans are sure interesting.
reitanqild 11y ago
In Europe, after a few quiet years violence is now on the rise again. And once again it is between etnical groups. (The previous that I can think of where mostly Northern Ireland and Northern Spain with a few lone wolves in between.) Not arguing here that immigration shouldn't be simplified but be ware that it isn't just rainbows and unicorns. > foreign nationals are denied basic rights that US citizens take for granted I'd say at least modern US is skeptical to everyone, regardless of race, religion, color, ethnicity etc - don't we regularly complain here about how TSA even stops US citizens with US passports at the US Border? : )
- dkural 11y ago
  Actually overall violence is down worldwide over the last few decades, including Europe. See Pinker's book on the subject, "The Better Angels of Our Nature". I could easily give anecdotal evidence pointing out the latest mass shootings in the US - the attackers are by'n large white.
dropit_sphere 11y ago
Your question could be phrased as: "Why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" Part of the answer to that is that for a thing to survive, it must discriminate in its own favor, especially because other things will also be doing so. The other part is that survival, and even preference, are legitimate ends, and need no justification. That's not really an answer to you; rather, it seeks to provide rhetorical relief for the native pondering whether he is morally obligated to throw open his borders. He or she is not. Their survival, and even comfort, are legitimate goods. They may calculate utility differently than their would-be neighbors, and that's OK. Vote, let them vote, converse; but don't attempt to dialectically back them into a corner. Friends don't criticize each others' utility functions.
- dkural 11y ago
  The main reason being ethical is considered to be difficult, and morality being a topic of study and debate is due to considering the question "why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" - ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time. What is of higher utility to you, or what you consider your in group, is not necessarily moral. There's a big difference between physical survival and simply being more comfortable than one would otherwise be. Your rhetoric puts this as a question of survival in the same breath with different preferences. Surely no one is asking you to give up your life and die.
  - dropit_sphere 11y ago
    "ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time." Certainly, but the feeling I get from the original comment is: "There are no reasons to act selfishly ever." I'm not arguing in favor of 100% selfishness; I'm arguing against a zero-tolerance policy towards it. Further, the form of the whole thing is troubling. If someone asked you, "How should we help the impoverished citizens of X?" My first response would likely be foreign aid of some sort, or perhaps free trade. But I don't get the feeling that proponents of open borders would be satisfied with those (assuming for the sake of argument that they would indeed help). Beggars can't be choosers; the focus on one method makes it feel more like a shakedown than a plea for help.
cb18 11y ago
Because like it or not, westerners are more or less entirely responsible for creating the modern world[0], if we just decide to do away with the idea of a nation state and let all the people from not so nice places move freely en masse to the nice places, then we won't have any nice places left. [0] http://alphagameplan.blogspot.de/2015/12/culture-and-civilization-are-white-and.html http://alphagameplan.blogspot.de/2015/12/culture-and-civiliz... Why should we deny equal rights (the right to work or move freely) to human beings based on their national origin? Why should we prevent a woman from off the street from coming in your house and eating your family's food? Sure we are all born on this and of this planet, but it is human nature to form alliances such that our groups are stronger than any one of us, these alliances and groups exist at multiple scales, from families to nations. Most political nations have a very high overlap with an ethno-nation, which are basically really big families.
falsestprophet 11y ago
Obviously, the prevailing view is that it is not a right for anyone to move or work anywhere.

jupiter90000 11y ago

One thing that bothers me somewhat about immigration discussions on HN is that the US always seems to be mentioned as unjust in terms of immigration policy and rights of foreigners. However, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other 'advanced' countries that have similar or worse policies (Japan comes to mind). So the question I end up wondering about is, why do countries practice this kind of stuff? It seems so odd to me that happening to be born somewhere is a meaningful qualifier for anything.

reitanqild 11y ago
> It seems so odd to me that happening to be born somewhere is a meaningful qualifier for anything. It is a proxy. Most likely if you were born in X you were born by parents born in X. Most likely if your parents grew up in X they will raise you to fit into X.
dropit_sphere 11y ago
It fulfills a social contract: the service you provide by being born is carrying your parents' genes. There is a three-way transaction between citizen, child, and state. This is a boon; it allows social contracts with long time horizons to be made. Take away preference for native-born citizens over foreigners, and you remove the incentive for citizens to leave a country better than they found it. This is not an absolute---limited naturalization, like we have, has not caused the world to fall down. But there is an effect.
- jupiter90000 11y ago
  I hear what you're saying and it makes sense. What would prevent such contracts from being a boon if we were all in one 'country'(the world), though? Is it to hold onto something deemed of value that some may consider arbitrary (speaking a particular language, celebrating certain holidays)? Perhaps some of the values held in certain countries are the things folks want to hold on to (personal liberty vs group cohesion, gun rights, etc). We humans are sure interesting.

reitanqild 11y ago

In Europe, after a few quiet years violence is now on the rise again. And once again it is between etnical groups. (The previous that I can think of where mostly Northern Ireland and Northern Spain with a few lone wolves in between.) Not arguing here that immigration shouldn't be simplified but be ware that it isn't just rainbows and unicorns. > foreign nationals are denied basic rights that US citizens take for granted I'd say at least modern US is skeptical to everyone, regardless of race, religion, color, ethnicity etc - don't we regularly complain here about how TSA even stops US citizens with US passports at the US Border? : )

dkural 11y ago
Actually overall violence is down worldwide over the last few decades, including Europe. See Pinker's book on the subject, "The Better Angels of Our Nature". I could easily give anecdotal evidence pointing out the latest mass shootings in the US - the attackers are by'n large white.

dropit_sphere 11y ago

Your question could be phrased as: "Why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" Part of the answer to that is that for a thing to survive, it must discriminate in its own favor, especially because other things will also be doing so. The other part is that survival, and even preference, are legitimate ends, and need no justification. That's not really an answer to you; rather, it seeks to provide rhetorical relief for the native pondering whether he is morally obligated to throw open his borders. He or she is not. Their survival, and even comfort, are legitimate goods. They may calculate utility differently than their would-be neighbors, and that's OK. Vote, let them vote, converse; but don't attempt to dialectically back them into a corner. Friends don't criticize each others' utility functions.

dkural 11y ago
The main reason being ethical is considered to be difficult, and morality being a topic of study and debate is due to considering the question "why should we consider our own welfare over that of others?" - ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time. What is of higher utility to you, or what you consider your in group, is not necessarily moral. There's a big difference between physical survival and simply being more comfortable than one would otherwise be. Your rhetoric puts this as a question of survival in the same breath with different preferences. Surely no one is asking you to give up your life and die.
- dropit_sphere 11y ago
  "ie are there reasons to not act in a selfish manner 100% of the time." Certainly, but the feeling I get from the original comment is: "There are no reasons to act selfishly ever." I'm not arguing in favor of 100% selfishness; I'm arguing against a zero-tolerance policy towards it. Further, the form of the whole thing is troubling. If someone asked you, "How should we help the impoverished citizens of X?" My first response would likely be foreign aid of some sort, or perhaps free trade. But I don't get the feeling that proponents of open borders would be satisfied with those (assuming for the sake of argument that they would indeed help). Beggars can't be choosers; the focus on one method makes it feel more like a shakedown than a plea for help.

cb18 11y ago

Because like it or not, westerners are more or less entirely responsible for creating the modern world[0], if we just decide to do away with the idea of a nation state and let all the people from not so nice places move freely en masse to the nice places, then we won't have any nice places left. [0] http://alphagameplan.blogspot.de/2015/12/culture-and-civilization-are-white-and.html http://alphagameplan.blogspot.de/2015/12/culture-and-civiliz... Why should we deny equal rights (the right to work or move freely) to human beings based on their national origin? Why should we prevent a woman from off the street from coming in your house and eating your family's food? Sure we are all born on this and of this planet, but it is human nature to form alliances such that our groups are stronger than any one of us, these alliances and groups exist at multiple scales, from families to nations. Most political nations have a very high overlap with an ethno-nation, which are basically really big families.

falsestprophet 11y ago

Obviously, the prevailing view is that it is not a right for anyone to move or work anywhere.